I have stolen from you....
Discussion
Quite an interesting piece on why one man feels it necessary to illegally download (some) music;
http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0503.html
[i](John Zorn : Love, Madness and Mysticism) I have stolen from you because I am confused and afraid, and intrigued by confusion and fear. I don't know whether this John Zorn record alienates me or fascinates me. I certainly can't decide based on excerpts, and I probably won't have even the most tentative guess until I've listened to it several times, more or less against my existing will. If I decide it's mind-expanding genius, I'll happily pay for it. If I decide it's stochastic crap my old parameters justifiably excluded, I'll delete it. If you believed in your music, and in me, you'd take that deal in an instant. My patience costs me dearly, after all, and yours costs you nothing. But you don't believe in your music. Most of the time you don't even know what it is. And you certainly don't know me, or where my curiosity leads or misleads me. So you invest nothing, and you shouldn't be surprised by your returns.[/i]
http://www.furia.com/twas/twas0503.html
[i](John Zorn : Love, Madness and Mysticism) I have stolen from you because I am confused and afraid, and intrigued by confusion and fear. I don't know whether this John Zorn record alienates me or fascinates me. I certainly can't decide based on excerpts, and I probably won't have even the most tentative guess until I've listened to it several times, more or less against my existing will. If I decide it's mind-expanding genius, I'll happily pay for it. If I decide it's stochastic crap my old parameters justifiably excluded, I'll delete it. If you believed in your music, and in me, you'd take that deal in an instant. My patience costs me dearly, after all, and yours costs you nothing. But you don't believe in your music. Most of the time you don't even know what it is. And you certainly don't know me, or where my curiosity leads or misleads me. So you invest nothing, and you shouldn't be surprised by your returns.[/i]
I have stolen from your because I'm a pretentious student who doesn't appreciate that producing an album is not merely a 'labour of love' but involves a serious commitment of time and effort, and no small amount of talent. As my parents still pay my bills for me I have no appreciation that choosing music as a career is largely a thankless and underpaid existence, where the vast majority of musicians are not Bob Dylan, can't afford vast mansions and actually occasionally have to worry how to meet their rent. I justify not paying for music that I listen to and films that I watch by claiming you're not being fair to me, as though you have some moral obligation to improve my existance. I cannot accept that because I can't afford to buy all the CDs I want to listen to, I will have to miss out on them instead of just stealing them.
I say -
Hey, whilst the music companies may be running a highly questionable monopoly, that doesn't automatically give you the right to steal from people. If you genuinely care about music, pay to get CDs from independant bands and record labels - don't think you're fighting some holy war because you ripped off Britney Spears.
>> Edited by Tuna on Friday 17th June 11:05
I say -
Hey, whilst the music companies may be running a highly questionable monopoly, that doesn't automatically give you the right to steal from people. If you genuinely care about music, pay to get CDs from independant bands and record labels - don't think you're fighting some holy war because you ripped off Britney Spears.
>> Edited by Tuna on Friday 17th June 11:05
Tuna said:
I have stolen from your because I'm a pretentious student who doesn't appreciate that producing an album is not merely a 'labour of love' but involves a serious commitment of time and effort, and no small amount of talent. As my parents still pay my bills for me I have no appreciation that choosing music as a career is largely a thankless and underpaid existence, where the vast majority of musicians are not Bob Dylan, can't afford vast mansions and actually occasionally have to worry how to meet their rent. I justify not paying for music that I listen to and films that I watch by claiming you're not being fair to me, as though you have some moral obligation to improve my existance.
Hey, whilst the music companies may be running a highly questionable monopoly, that doesn't automatically give you the right to steal from people. If you genuinely care about music, pay to get CDs from independant bands and record labels - don't think you're fighting some holy war because you ripped off Britney Spears.
Erm, I think you may need to have a look at the rest of his site.
I know what you're saying but he makes some very good points. I don't agree with everything he says but he hits the bullseye several times.
If one wants to talk about 'theft' in the music industry, one needs look no further than the members of the RIAA themselves.
The ONLY losers in the P2P phenomenon are the record companies, bands will still make the VAST majority of their income from gigging and if digital media is distributed freely bands will ultimately be heard by more people leading to more tickets sales and ultimately more income for the band.
You see music, is by its very definition, viral, it doesnt need marketing, if its good it does it itself. The big record companies have become stagnant in the abuse of their position and market dominance, the P2P upsurge is a huge market challenge and just attempting to outlaw something to protect your cartel strikes me as hugely short sighted. They should be embracing this and changing their model.
The ONLY losers in the P2P phenomenon are the record companies, bands will still make the VAST majority of their income from gigging and if digital media is distributed freely bands will ultimately be heard by more people leading to more tickets sales and ultimately more income for the band.
You see music, is by its very definition, viral, it doesnt need marketing, if its good it does it itself. The big record companies have become stagnant in the abuse of their position and market dominance, the P2P upsurge is a huge market challenge and just attempting to outlaw something to protect your cartel strikes me as hugely short sighted. They should be embracing this and changing their model.
neil.b said:
Erm, I think you may need to have a look at the rest of his site.
I know what you're saying but he makes some very good points. I don't agree with everything he says but he hits the bullseye several times.
Fair enough, I was responding to that particularly wordy quote. I'm still unhappy with people who justify stealing with some idea that the music industry should be serving them. Rather than saying "I'll take this because you've not done the right thing to suit my needs", it would be far better (and much more constructive) to say "I'll go somewhere else to spend my money". Because at the end of the day money will drive the shift of balance, not how eloquently people justify ripping off mp3s.
Edited to add:
And don't get me wrong, I'm hugely in favour of better choice and fairer income from music. The cartels that have decimated original music over the last couple of decades are disasterous for bands and their fans. I just get very wound up by people who have the mentality of "this isn't worth anything to me, I'll just take it", because in other areas (independant music, films, software) there are many people who depend on some honesty.
>> Edited by Tuna on Friday 17th June 11:20
Its not piracy killing music. Its more efficient, methods of distribution that are able to get more of the money to artists that are killing the majors. If the labels (and I use that in the most lose sense of the term) can't control what you buy, they piss away millions in marketing and "strategic partnerships". That's what they are scared of. You don't really think they give a shit about the artist do you?
Most of the major artists get pissed off because their record company tells them that downloading is hurting their sales and because contractually they have no other outlet for selling their work, they can do nothing but bleat out the same song as their pay masters.
I have a few friends who are recording artists so I know from them who the real theives are.
Most of the major artists get pissed off because their record company tells them that downloading is hurting their sales and because contractually they have no other outlet for selling their work, they can do nothing but bleat out the same song as their pay masters.
I have a few friends who are recording artists so I know from them who the real theives are.
Tuna said:
Fair enough, I was responding to that particularly wordy quote. I'm still unhappy with people who justify stealing...
The idea that copying music is equivalent to theft is completely false. To "steal" music you would have to take the media (eg cd) away from the original owner. The RIAA call it "theft" and "piracy" because these words have misleading connotations, in a similar way to the Speed Camera partnerships calling their tax machines "Safety Cameras" and the government's original plan to call ID cards "entitlement cards".
Sharing music over the internet is just that - sharing. It happens that goodwill is not profitable however, and this angers the greedy recording industry.
Tuna said:
with some idea that the music industry should be serving them. Rather than saying "I'll take this because you've not done the right thing to suit my needs", it would be far better (and much more constructive) to say "I'll go somewhere else to spend my money". Because at the end of the day money will drive the shift of balance, not how eloquently people justify ripping off mp3s.
Money is already driving the shift of balance, in the form of record companies forming pressure groups (eg the RIAA) to lobby government to introduce draconian laws in an attempt to frighten the public into bolstering the industry's profits.
Tuna said:
Edited to add:
And don't get me wrong, I'm hugely in favour of better choice and fairer income from music. The cartels that have decimated original music over the last couple of decades are disasterous for bands and their fans. I just get very wound up by people who have the mentality of "this isn't worth anything to me, I'll just take it", because in other areas (independant music, films, software) there are many people who depend on some honesty.
>> Edited by Tuna on Friday 17th June 11:20
It's nothing to do with honesty. There are many producers of poor quality products (music, films, software) who are dependant on compliance with laws designed to maximise profit. Remember the law should reflect what is right - it does not define what is right. If information sharing continues to become easier, the music industry may suffer and those artists who depend upon the music industry for their success (through advertising and hype) may also suffer, but artists whos success stems from their talent will flourish.
The man has a (somewhat long-winded) point...
Glen McDonald said:
..... But know, in the end, that you created this crisis. You had decades of control, and you spent it on complacency and greed, and so evolved this inevitable rebellion. You took everything you thought you could get away with, and now you are wheezy robber barons begging the government to protect your dwindling hoards. I've defended you for far too long. You smiled when you first got away with selling a Billy Joel LP for $8.98, and you can damn well smile again now when we fold the worthless thing into jagged thirds and ram it up your ass. You created the aesthetic of disposability, and now you are its most beautifully disposable work. We will mourn you in infinite song.
alexf said:
The idea that copying music is equivalent to theft is completely false.
.
.
Sharing music over the internet is just that - sharing. It happens that goodwill is not profitable however, and this angers the greedy recording industry.
So if I choose to 'share' someone else's copy of a CD, film or software rather than going out and buying a copy, the only people who are hurt are the greedy recording industry? Nonsense. If I don't pay for something that I use, I have no right to use it (however corrupt some parts of the industry may be). If that's not stealing, what is it?
alexf said:
Money is already driving the shift of balance, in the form of record companies forming pressure groups (eg the RIAA) to lobby government to introduce draconian laws in an attempt to frighten the public into bolstering the industry's profits.
True, and quite unacceptable. It's also not sustainable and that is a good thing. However, it doesn't make 'sharing' acceptable.
alexf said:
It's nothing to do with honesty. There are many producers of poor quality products (music, films, software) who are dependant on compliance with laws designed to maximise profit. Remember the law should reflect what is right - it does not define what is right. If information sharing continues to become easier, the music industry may suffer and those artists who depend upon the music industry for their success (through advertising and hype) may also suffer, but artists whos success stems from their talent will flourish.
Absolute nonsense. Just because some people produce poor quality product does not make 'sharing' music an acceptable moral choice. Car manufacturers artificially raise the cost of new models - that doesn't make it acceptable to go joyriding, does it?
Information sharing will continue to get easier - but this can harm talented artists as much as anyone else. At present, because of justifications such as yours, it is seen as acceptable to 'share' any music, film or software because "the industry is corrupt!". To those who 'share' music, or get dodgy DVDs from mates at work, or download software there is no magical distinction between how morally correct the producers of the stuff were. The end effect is that the value of all of these products is reduced to zero - why should anyone be forced to pay if they can get it for free?
As a small band, independant film maker, or software company, being able to sell your product is vital to be able to continue. Gigs don't pay well at all until you're up to a scale that can only be described as 'extremely successful'. Until that point, income from CDs really matters. When your audience have learned that it's right to 'share' - because the law is only protecting the evil overlords - then you can kiss goodbye to your dreams of being able to make music your career.
Don't justify something that is morally dubious by telling me that the RIAA are bad people. If the RIAA matter to you, don't buy or share anything that they produce - you're only proving that it has value to you. Do buy music from independant labels, and prove that bands can survive without the RIAA. The same goes for software or films.
B17NNS said:
bands won't need record labels soon.
just a good website where you can download their music.
all the money then goes to the artist.
You may well be correct - it will be an interesting model, and very welcome in my opinion. Accountants and Marketing professionals have all but destroyed the innovation and creativity in pop, so taking them out of the equation will be a good move.
All they need to do to declare chart position is have their download levels monitored and validated by Gallup.
Interesting interview with Kid Rock in playboy a few months ago. He was asked by his record company to back the anti-downloading campaign. He told them he'd get back to them after investigating it as he didn't know enough to have an opinion.
His response - No. He wouldn't support their campaign. Artists had been ripped off by the record companies for years, so it was about time someone gave them a taste of their own medicine.
His response - No. He wouldn't support their campaign. Artists had been ripped off by the record companies for years, so it was about time someone gave them a taste of their own medicine.
They are nobbers.
They go on about losses of billions, but do we really think that 11 year old girl who downloaded £750 worth (yeah, cos it's worth that much) of music would have BOUGHT it instead?
No!
Downloading is fair enough I think, if you like it buy it, if you don't, don't.
Would anyone here pay upfront for a meal they heard was good and found that after the pie exterior inside was infact REAL dogsh1t?
Would you prefer to have sampled the whole thing rather than just sniffing the nice pie exterior like we do?
Hmmmm, my good points
Dave
They go on about losses of billions, but do we really think that 11 year old girl who downloaded £750 worth (yeah, cos it's worth that much) of music would have BOUGHT it instead?
No!
Downloading is fair enough I think, if you like it buy it, if you don't, don't.
Would anyone here pay upfront for a meal they heard was good and found that after the pie exterior inside was infact REAL dogsh1t?
Would you prefer to have sampled the whole thing rather than just sniffing the nice pie exterior like we do?
Hmmmm, my good points
Dave
Problem is Tuna, and for the record I agree with the principles that you seem to stand for (in fact I myself, despite a fairly extensive music collection download very little), most independent studies have shown that music sales are in fact not dwlindling.
A group did a study a while back and tried to decypher a record labels accounting. What he found was that, yes, single sales were down but there were technicalities that prevented some sales from being counted e.g if a video was included on the disc it could not be counted as the sale of a single but was categorised as "music DVD". And guess what? For the accounting periods they were examining, music DVD sales were up by over 40%; surprise, surprise. Also found that there was a massive increase in the number of discs that were given away as part of promotion (you know the kind of thing; free single with every Pepsi purchse etc.). As a consequence, sales were pretty static but revenues had decreased. Well yes, that's because you're giving the stuff away for free as part of a cross-merchansing deal with a soft drink you muppets! Another area highlighted was the percentage increase in compilation discs, which was noted for 2 reasons. 1, flooding of the market and 2, the decreased royalties that were paid to the artists if their songs were used as part of a complilation. Pretty easy to see the problem there.
It was a massive article and pretty in-depth considering the smoke screen that had been deliberately errected around the figures. I'll see if I can find the link, it makes interesting reading.
A group did a study a while back and tried to decypher a record labels accounting. What he found was that, yes, single sales were down but there were technicalities that prevented some sales from being counted e.g if a video was included on the disc it could not be counted as the sale of a single but was categorised as "music DVD". And guess what? For the accounting periods they were examining, music DVD sales were up by over 40%; surprise, surprise. Also found that there was a massive increase in the number of discs that were given away as part of promotion (you know the kind of thing; free single with every Pepsi purchse etc.). As a consequence, sales were pretty static but revenues had decreased. Well yes, that's because you're giving the stuff away for free as part of a cross-merchansing deal with a soft drink you muppets! Another area highlighted was the percentage increase in compilation discs, which was noted for 2 reasons. 1, flooding of the market and 2, the decreased royalties that were paid to the artists if their songs were used as part of a complilation. Pretty easy to see the problem there.
It was a massive article and pretty in-depth considering the smoke screen that had been deliberately errected around the figures. I'll see if I can find the link, it makes interesting reading.
Tuna said:
If I don't pay for something that I use, I have no right to use it (however corrupt some parts of the industry may be). If that's not stealing, what is it?
Nuts. If I chose to let someone borrow my car does Ferrari (go with me here
)sue the person for the price of a Ferrari? Nope. And the difference is? If your Gran dies and leaves you her record collection (that you haven't paid for) do you rush round to the record company to pay to listen to the music? Nope. And the difference is?
If you let your partner read the new paperback book that you just finished, does you insist that she send s the publisher a small fee? Nope. And the difference is?
There is no difference in principle here, just a difference in scale. So is it OK to steal, but just a bit?
The recording industry has been caught bending over with its pants down, its not our job to pull em up again.
Mr Whippy said:
Would anyone here pay upfront for a meal they heard was good and found that after the pie exterior inside was infact REAL dogsh1t?
Would you prefer to have sampled the whole thing rather than just sniffing the nice pie exterior like we do?
So, you think restaurants should hand out meals for people to take away, and expect them to come back and give them money if they enjoyed the food? If so, I'm coming round to your chip shop.
Firstly. 15 quid for a CD is b0ll0cks.
Secondly. 15 quid for a CD on which there's only one decent song is complete and utter b0ll0cks.
I download ripped copies from torrent sites yes. However if I really like the artist and I think the amount of good tracks is worth it I will by a copy of the CD. In this way I often end up buying more as I was no longer prepared to risk 15 quid on buying an album of which I'd only heard one track.
Solution? Lower the price of CDs to a realistic level. Get more artists to offer their tracks via the Internet for purchase singly.
Secondly. 15 quid for a CD on which there's only one decent song is complete and utter b0ll0cks.
I download ripped copies from torrent sites yes. However if I really like the artist and I think the amount of good tracks is worth it I will by a copy of the CD. In this way I often end up buying more as I was no longer prepared to risk 15 quid on buying an album of which I'd only heard one track.
Solution? Lower the price of CDs to a realistic level. Get more artists to offer their tracks via the Internet for purchase singly.
Tuna said:
The idea that copying music is equivalent to theft is completely false.
.
.
Sharing music over the internet is just that - sharing. It happens that goodwill is not profitable however, and this angers the greedy recording industry.
So if I choose to 'share' someone else's copy of a CD, film or software rather than going out and buying a copy, the only people who are hurt are the greedy recording industry?
As previously mentioned, music sharing will have a different effect on different "artists". Those with talent will get wider coverage and will therefore benefit more from live performances. If they choose to use modern information sharing facilities rather than fight against them, they can also benefit directly from sale of their music direct to the public without giving a (huge) cut to the recording industry.
Tuna said:
Nonsense. If I don't pay for something that I use, I have no right to use it (however corrupt some parts of the industry may be). If that's not stealing, what is it?
Are you quite sure you really believe this? If you go to a friend's house and look at his painting, are you stealing? How about if you take a photo of that painting?
Tuna said:
It's nothing to do with honesty. There are many producers of poor quality products (music, films, software) who are dependant on compliance with laws designed to maximise profit. Remember the law should reflect what is right - it does not define what is right. If information sharing continues to become easier, the music industry may suffer and those artists who depend upon the music industry for their success (through advertising and hype) may also suffer, but artists whos success stems from their talent will flourish.
Absolute nonsense. Just because some people produce poor quality product does not make 'sharing' music an acceptable moral choice. Car manufacturers artificially raise the cost of new models - that doesn't make it acceptable to go joyriding, does it?
It doesn't make it acceptable to go joyriding because you are taking away someone elses car. However, it is perfectly acceptable to build a replica at greatly reduced cost, for your own enjoyment. Travelling as a passenger in your friend's car is also acceptable, despite the fact that you haven't paid the manufacturer anything. Borrowing your friend's car is also acceptable, yet the recording industry is now trying to restrict borrowing of music as well! Be careful before making comparisons as they tend to highlight the weakness in the recording industry's arguments.
Tuna said:
Information sharing will continue to get easier...
Not if the MPAA, RIAA and other representatives of industries who rely on laws which restrict the freedom of information have their way.
Tuna said:
- but this can harm talented artists as much as anyone else. At present, because of justifications such as yours, it is seen as acceptable to 'share' any music, film or software because "the industry is corrupt!".
No, that's not the justification given. I suggest you reread my previous post (and subsequent comments).
Tuna said:
To those who 'share' music, or get dodgy DVDs from mates at work, or download software there is no magical distinction between how morally correct the producers of the stuff were. The end effect is that the value of all of these products is reduced to zero - why should anyone be forced to pay if they can get it for free?
It's nothing to do with how "morally correct" the producers were, it's about whether the business model is fair or sustainable (it isn't).
Tuna said:
As a small band, independant film maker, or software company, being able to sell your product is vital to be able to continue. Gigs don't pay well at all until you're up to a scale that can only be described as 'extremely successful'. Until that point, income from CDs really matters. When your audience have learned that it's right to 'share' - because the law is only protecting the evil overlords - then you can kiss goodbye to your dreams of being able to make music your career.
Sorry but this is rubbish. Good musicians could earn a living from gigs and direct sales. Whether their income would be as large as, smaller than or the same as it iscurrently is unknown - a complete change to the business model has many factors to consider, not least the fact that the market would be considerably less saturated with manufactured junk designed purely to produce a quick profit and relying on advertising and manipulation of the media for its success.
Tuna said:
Don't justify something that is morally dubious by telling me that the RIAA are bad people. If the RIAA matter to you, don't buy or share anything that they produce - you're only proving that it has value to you. Do buy music from independant labels, and prove that bands can survive without the RIAA. The same goes for software or films.
Earlier you wrote that sharing music proves it has no value to you. Now you say it proves that is does have value. Which do you prefer? I doubt it proves either, but when someone shares music it may suggest that they are a fan and are saying "hey, this is worth listening to - try it!".
On a personal note, I will not buy any music, merchandise or concert tickets from bands who (directly or through their record company) prosecute their fans for sharing their music, not because of my principles but simply because it spoils my image of the band in question. I suspect many others feel the same.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff