20 Aug 2003 | david said...

Actually, $0.99 for a song really is fairly expensive, without any discounts for buying the full album. At that price, a 12-track album would cost $11.88, for songs which are copy-protected, and encoded (err) lossy-ly.

If I'm going to pay that much, I'd better get a CD, without copy protection, with higher quality sound, and with cover-art / liner notes.

20 Aug 2003 | bk said...

It would be interesting to know the age groups of people poled and see how they compared to the results.

The majority of the under 30 crowd I know seem to share the same sense of entitlement when it comes to "free" music, while the +30 crowd doesn't.

Anyone else see things this way, or am I just a jaded old fart?

20 Aug 2003 | me said...

I totally agree. This "generation napster" has no respect for IP and copyrighted material. pay for somethine? why, when i can steal it.

its an anthem for them.

and 99cent is NOT too expensive. i just looked and i bought 66 songs from imusic. a great value and i can burn it to as many cds as i want and can authrize on 5 other machines.

Coming up next in software?

Adobe photoshop, hard coded to your ethernet address.

thanks a lot freeloaders...

I hope someone steals your next paycheck just after you cash it this friday...

20 Aug 2003 | Cade Roux said...

I think the number one problem with tracks a la carte for the majority of music listeners is:

Albums do still serve an purpose. Any songs worth $.99 to me are probably on albums which are worth buying. Albums with only one song I like are usually available on half.com for $5-$6 or less. Even good albums are already available on half.com for cheap.

People who are huge consumers of a la carte tracks are overspending for the convenience and the addiction of collecting, pure and simple. I personally like having the CDs, even though I just rip and store. I can't remember the last CD I listened to from the disc. I rip into my home server and then listen on my SliMP3s around the house.

So for a big consumer of music (a good customer of the RIAA), a la carte isn't a good deal. For their other customers, they are lured away by the black market.

Answer: lower the price point to $.49, and compete with the $5 album from half.com, bmg or Columbia House.

20 Aug 2003 | suppafly said...

.99 per song really is too expensive considering the quality is subpar.. If I am going to pay a dollar a song, I'll just buy the cd and make my own better sounding mp3's. .35 a song would be reasonable, and I think at that rate even the most hardcore ip violators would consider going legit. This would equal out to something like $5 for most cd's.. Seems like a good deal considering that you don't get any physical medium or liner notes.

20 Aug 2003 | JF said...

Aren't you guys failing to consider the value of convenience? Pay 99 cents, get a song in 2 minutes. There's something there.

20 Aug 2003 | Sunny said...

But sometimes quality is far important than convenience.

David, you are right. If I am paying that much, I would actually buy the CD (without the copy protection) and use it at my convenience. That is the 'best of both worlds' scenario.

20 Aug 2003 | Cade Roux said...

I think convenience is actually the majority of the value.

But this is convenience of listening to music, not convenience of a convenience store, these things are often not the kind of things people are impatient for or need urgently.

I ordered the last Counting Crows album on Amazon, and was able to listen to it online before the album even shipped. Admittedly, in order to make a CD, I had to hijack the audio streams to WAV files using a third party program, but in principle it was real convenience in line with what I watned - I got the album and the quality I want (ripped on my terms not someone elses), and I got a chance to listen to the whole thing in the meantime. (With no limitations on what I could do with the music that I bought).

20 Aug 2003 | f5 said...

Actually, $0.99 for a song really is fairly expensive, without any discounts for buying the full album. At that price, a 12-track album would cost $11.88

Who said ther aren't any discounts? Apple hasn't charge more than ten bucks for any whole album since day one of the iTunes store.

20 Aug 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

I actually find it kinda hard to have sympathy with the record industry. I don't know how much CDs cost in the US, but I got sick of paying 12-15 for an album about ten years ago. I now barely ever listen to music. I don't pirate (except for My Bloody Valentine stuff that got scratched years ago...) but I don't buy either. Music telly suffices, although I do a bit of bartering with a friend who runs an indie label/store website...

Anyway, maybe this something-for-nothing culture is what you get after a take-the-consumer-for-a-long-and-expensive-ride culture? The music industry here in the UK is only just responding to the demand for cheaper CDs and guess what...sales are at record levels. Profits aren't and so they'll keep bitching, but after years of being ripped off I really do not give a stuff about what piracy is supposedly doing to the industry.

20 Aug 2003 | Randy said...

I actually find it kinda hard to have sympathy with the record industry.

I find it easier to sympathize with business when their customers are stealing from them. Stealing when you can afford is never noble or worth defending.

20 Aug 2003 | pb said...

I think $0.99 is slightly too expensive. $0.79 might have been better. At $0.99, the cost of a track is about the same as on a CD. There are a few $9.99 18 song albums that are a good deal. The current pricing is OK for current releases but I think Apple would need to establish a different level for older material (e.g., $0.79 and $7.99). Unfortunatley Apple has to set prices centrally to maintain some sort of order and price integrity. Letting each artist or label set it's own prices may sound OK in theory but it would weaken the consumer experience.

The problem with paying for this sort of convenience is that i think we have a tough time paying extra for something we know should be cheaper under the guise of convenience. With Kozmo, we paid extra for convenience but we know it was costing more to provide that convenience. Sort of like when the banks were charging for the "convenience" of home banking even though it was the banks who were getting much of the convenience.

Sound quality has nothing to do with it. The average listenre can't hear the difference between M4P and CD. Especially since so much music listening is now being done in the car, while jogging, at the beach, etc.

On the original topic, yes, it is demoralizing that so many have no qualms about acquiring the music for free.

20 Aug 2003 | hurley#1 said...

I agree about the generation thing. My girlfriend's 14-year-old daughter lives with us, and she has never bought a CD in her life but she has about 8 gigabytes of pirated music that she downloaded through Kazaa and WinMX. We live in Canada, so Apple's Music store isn't available to us yet but there are some subscription options. Whenever we suggest that we sign her up for one of these services she looks at us like we're crazy to pay money for music that she just assumes is free. I do think that attitude is going to be very hard to overcome for her generation, even with the lawsuits and all.

20 Aug 2003 | Will said...

I'm surprised that this is a civil thread, and that there are still a few people who are courageous enough to call music file-sharing what it is ... stealing.

What bothers me about our culture, beyond the "somethin' for nothin'" ethos, is that stealing/theft/shoplifting is looked upon so lightly. Lots of folks who steal would probably deem themselves to be "good" people and would be quick to judge "other criminals" as bad for society.

Will this attitude hurt everyone in the long run? I think that's a great question.

20 Aug 2003 | Sunny said...

Eventhough I don't approve of stealing music, this is really interesting ...via mezzoblue

http://techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-081803C

20 Aug 2003 | bk said...

I honestly think that $0.99/song $10/cd is a great deal to be able to purchase music that you can listen to immediately - over & over again.

Any lower and I don't really see how you could expect a business to sustain itself & continue to improve - considering all the parties involved (artists, labels, distributors, vendors like apple, etc).

I'm guessing a main reason most of the VCR-generation won't pay for music is because they have no money since they haven't landed the $60k/yr job they are "entitled to" straight out of college. Fucksticks.

21 Aug 2003 | ns said...

Are you complaining? Start charging $0.99 to every user to read your posts, let's see how many of them prefer to pay. Somethin' fo' Nuthin' is the way to do it, you corporate bastard.

And how exactly are the "free" things going to hurt us in the long run? Money Money Money, is that all you see, people? Money is going to affect us in the long run, not free things.

21 Aug 2003 | Hugo said...

Speaking as a member of the aforementioned "VCR Generation", I'd like to point out that it is only a small minority that is ruining it for everyone (as usual). I play in a local funk/rock group, and I'm also half of an electronic group. I'm speaking here both as a musician and a 'young whippersnapper'.

But anyway, as someone who has grown up with MP3s, flakey-as-hell-FTP servers that are only open for an hour every two days and dodgy DALNet chatrooms, I'm fairly certain that it's only a minority of our generation that have no problem with looting and pilaging as much as they can for free. Most of us still buy music, even from EMI (now that I've figured out how to play their new discs on my computer at decent bitrates). As someone who waits for cheques (or checks, depending on where you are) in the mail from record labels, I think it's time that big business wakes up and realises that the MP3 explosion is a tool, not an underground movement bent on undermining the production and distribution of music around the world.

Local music is all about exposure, and the wide availability of MP3s around the world has had a fantastic effect on local musicians and bedroom artists. There's an undocumented sentiment among music enthusiasts of our generation (in my area at least, and of course I can only speak from my own experience) that you do NOT pirate local music. I don't approve of mass MP3 stealing at all, but I keep my mouth shut about it because the supporters of this global buckling-of-swash are often the most vocal in your local geek hangout.

Anyway, consider this. These figures are all made up, but it's just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

A local underground radio station in Australia (my place of residence) plays a song by a struggling bedroom English electronic artist (let's call them SuperXIII). Fifty people who hear the song like it so much that they go and download two or three, or maybe even ten songs by SuperXIII. At this point, the RIAA (or whoever it is in England) and associated ... um, associations, cry foul and say that fifty people have pirated 3 songs each, 150 songs in total. So that's around 10 albums, if each CD had 15 songs. So SuperXIII (and more importantly it seems, SuperXIII's label) doesn't get the revenue from 10 CD sales. Let's make an approximation at $AUS 5 a CD loss to the artist. So that's an $AUS 50 loss for SuperXIII. And even more for the label, and the retailers, and governments around the world. This is where the other money from retail CD sales goes.

Ok, so everyone is down, including the artist, who's down fifty bucks. I'd be pissed off too. But imagine this.

10 of the 50 people who downloaded tracks like SuperXIII. They buy a CD. They visit the artist's website. When the artist comes on tour, these 10 people go to the gig. If a medium sized group charged say $AUS 30 a ticket at an overseas gig, they'd get around $AUS 10 of that after costs are taken out. That's $AUS 100, from the very same people who stole a few of their songs. So the artist isn't down any money at all. In fact, they're up. And that's not even counting the additional record sales, merch contracts, compilation licencing, etc that they were able to hook up because lots of people around the world like their music.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that MP3 filesharing isn't as rampant or as destructive as record labels and recording associations would have you think; and that artists, and anyone who earns money off the artist's backs (eg labels, recording assocs, govts, promoters, etc etc) are *not* worse off because of the free, silent and easily concealable globalisation of their product.

No doubt there are many arguments for and against free filesharing, and I'm sure the debate will rage for a while yet. But until someone can prove that MP3 distribution is actually detrimental to the musician, you won't convince me!

21 Aug 2003 | chris rhee said...

This SHOULD end all arguements, but apparently no one cares: it is (currently) against the law.

Anyway, you say MP3s are good for promotion and such. I don't think an artist like Eminem is making CDs so people will know his name. Everyone already knew it after, "My name is..."

21 Aug 2003 | Marco said...

I understand your point Hugo, what I wish that someone explain me is if this ns's "money/corporate driven world" is best than a "stealing cultured world".
I also understand that few are feeling so good to spend hundred of dollars to purchase a copy of Microsoft Office if they think that this money are going to Bill Gates and that their can get it for free from a friend or online. So I prefer to think at that guys who made a lot of good shareware software and I'm happy to spend 10/30$ to purchase their products. Well, as I told, no one have so much sympathy versus corporation and/or rich CEO, but - I don't know why - I'm not feeling so good in a world where people create web sites using stolen software, embellish them with stolen photos and icons, all listening their stolen mp3s while seeing TV with their decoder with a pirate card.
The strange thing is why these people are not using a stolen PC, and why their are paying their home rent, and why have purchased their iPod and the TV and the SAT etc... perhaps we must wait that that things become a little much easy to steal.

Ok, no politic here, BUT if you are thinking that Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos do not need your money, think a while how much money get politicians - and for what - and think about it.

21 Aug 2003 | nathan said...

Putting any uniform price on music doesn't make any sense. Are all songs uniform? No.

Some songs are 60 years old. Some are 3 minutes long, some are 15 minutes. Many songs are forgettable pop fluff, a few are enduring classics.

Think about it, all other products and services come in a range of prices that depend on supply, quality, demand, competition, and other market factors. A Honda and a Mercedes are both 'cars', but price reflects their differences.

The fact that entertainment products like music are so uniformly priced is a dead giveaway that the music and movie industries are cartels. Microsoft may be the epitome of a big evil monopoly, but the entertainment cartels have been fixing prices and hindering innovation for decades.

21 Aug 2003 | Scorched said...

have fun filling up your iPod, that will be an extra $3000 at the list mp3 price.

subscription service is on it's way. ownership is out.

21 Aug 2003 | Hugo said...

C.R.: We understand that it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material, but that doesn't stop us from debating the point! Heh.

And Marco, you have a good point - I'm sure the person who lives in a world of pirated software and illegal cable is the same person who complains when their homes are invaded or they are mugged in the street.

*sigh* It's all so depressing! I think I'll lighten up, it's almost time to leave work, and we're playing a gig tonight. Someone bring a MiniDisc recorder and bootleg the recording.

Seriously now, depending on what you believe, it'll come full circle at some stage, just like this debate. I agree with Scorched, a subscription based service seems to be a good compromise, but not while people can still get away with pirating material at low risk and low cost.

21 Aug 2003 | ale said...

"Why pay for it when I can download it elsewhere online for free. Unbelievable. You know, this somethin for nothin culture is digging a deep hole. Deep. Its a part of the landscape now. This is going to hurt everyone in the long run."

Are you serious?

Stupid americans bombing everywhere are going tu hurt in the long run...

21 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Here's a thought: radio is free for users, and so is television unless you buy cable or satellite. These media are supported by advertising. Maybe that model could work for music too: the music industry could embed advertising in its music files--either visual ads or sound ads--and lock the files somehow so people can't edit out the ads or use software to bypass them. People who want commercial-free music can pay for files that are free of ads and copy-protected.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this, and the fact that the music industry isn't already headed in that direction makes me think it's probably unworkable. But it kinda makes sense to me. That same model is at work with some software products, like Eudora and Opera, which have free ad-supported versions; if you don't like ads you can just pay for a regular version.

21 Aug 2003 | initialThought said...

it's all really quite simple:
a) stealing is wrong and is in no way an acceptable behavior
b) if the value and convenience benefit of a product or service doesn't meet your expectations, don't buy it...but that doesn't give you the right to steal it
c) if you want high sound quality and unlimited rights, go buy the cd

and tell me if you thinking stealing's acceptable after you get rejected for the job you really wanted AND the job you didn't want because of having to disclose you have a police record for theft.

21 Aug 2003 | Randy said...

And how exactly are the "free" things going to hurt us in the long run? Money Money Money, is that all you see, people? Money is going to affect us in the long run, not free things.

And who is going to make all this free stuff? Are you going to work for free so I can have what you make for free?

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

The model has changed in China. In China there is so much illegal duplication that CDs are now mostly viewed as promotional tools. The real money for the artist and company comes from tours and merchandise.

_ _ _

As I understand it, when I pay 15 for a CD here in the UK, a minimum of 3.504.00 of that goes in profit to the record company and 1.502.50 to the artist. That's a pretty handsome profit considering that when we're discussing the music industry we should be remembering that despite the moans and groans of the record industry, album sales are actually rising year on year since the introduction of the varies file sharing systems.
_ _ _

What appears to be annoying them most is the rapid decline of the singles market. What they refuse to consider is that the decline SHOCK! may not actually be caused by file sharing networks. I'm going to presume that there are some pretty alternative music tastes around SVN. So, when was the last time one of your favourite bands actually charted in the singles chart. It seems like eons to me. In the UK the charts are basically controlled by the marketing departments of the major record companies. A major release by a big artist in this country will be preceded by four to six weeks of pretty constant radio airplay, then when they feel it's hyped enough it gets released. They all play this game because they want the attendant publicity for their artists that a "straight in at #1" can bring them. However, personally speaking, once I've heard a record for a month or so, I'm usually getting pretty tired of it and rushing out to the record store to pay 4 to get that song and a crappy remix on an overpriced CD isn't atop my priorities list. Additionally, in the UK, there is an increasing number of dance/garage/ records charting, many rising up without the hype and sold on smaller labels for whom selling 20000 copies is a good result. Seriously though, they want to sell more singles they should stop playing them to death before release and stop expecting us to want to pay 4 for a single.

_ _ _

<old fart>Nevermind sold by the truckload. It was exciting. Do they seriously expect us to run out to the record stores and get excited about Mariah Carey/Celine Dion/any other overpriced horse-faced "diva"? The major labels have have been engaged in a policy of making "safe records" for the best part of a decade and then they have the nerve to wonder why we don't get excited and make overpriced impulse buys. Tossers. I hope they go bust.</old fart>

21 Aug 2003 | birdman said...

"You know, this somethin for nothin culture is digging a deep hole. Deep. Its a part of the landscape now."

It's not just the teenager on a streetcorner. And it's not just music and software.

It's just as much the Wall Streeter in his/her $1500 Armani and Audi TT. We are actually hearing firsthand that legitimate Fortune 500 clients are engaging qualified resources to compete against each other on live projects for $0. We know this, because we've lost on real proposals where we thought we should be paid for the "something."

Whether the players are asked to work for nothing is not so clear, but it is exactly the same mentality: "Why pay for it when I can get it for free." Sorry.

21 Aug 2003 | bk said...

And how exactly are the "free" things going to hurt us in the long run?

Because the "free" things you feel so entitled to, ns, are - *gulp* - not actually free. Artists and labels invest money in producing the music for distribution in order to recover their investments and make a profit from sales.

To make up for the lost revenues, expect to see higher concert ticket prices and unfortunately, more goverment involvement in the issue - which in the end costs taxpayers.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

As I understand it, when I pay 15 for a CD here in the UK, a minimum of 3.504.00 of that goes in profit to the record company and 1.502.50 to the artist. That's a pretty handsome profit considering that when we're discussing the music industry we should be remembering that despite the moans and groans of the record industry, album sales are actually rising year on year since the introduction of the varies file sharing systems.

In a vacuum, those sorts of profits would be wonderful. In the real world, the album where they make 3.504.00 per sale is more than offset by the five albums where they lose that much per sale because total number of sales don't cover the fixed costs of production, marketing, and distribution. It's just like the movie studios: they use Terminator 3 to cover for Gigli.

However, once you start arguing about how much profit the record companies make and how much the artists make, you've ceded victory to the infringers. The argument against pirating anything isn't that the companies are making too little money (or, on their side, that they're making too much); the argument is that you have no right to the fruits of their labor without compensation.

There's a reason why prices are attached to things: you don't get it if you don't pay for it. Are the prices too much over their costs? Maybe, but that's not your decision to make. Your decision is "Are these prices too high for me?" If it's yes, then don't buy the good—do without or find a substitute.

In my experience, this more general attitude of entitlement is far more pervasive than being limited to teenagers. In Phoenix, we're in the throes of a gas shortage and the people are speaking. "Gouging!" they cry without understanding that gasoline isn't a right or even the laws of supply and demand. Second-guessing the pricing mechanism is a popular sport among all age groups and it sickens me.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

There's a reason why prices are attached to things: you don't get it if you don't pay for it. Are the prices too much over their costs? Maybe, but that's not your decision to make. Your decision is "Are these prices too high for me?" If it's yes, then don't buy the gooddo without or find a substitute.

Yes Bill. But people are finding a substitute because they think the prices are too high pirating. And now we have a stand-off because a lot of people are unwilling to pay the high prices and the record companies are unwilling to make less money per unit sale.

Losses are also used against tax and ultimately remain a debt against the artist, so again: boo hoo hoo ... my heart bleeds.

And, as I said before, this is not the main issue. Album sales are rising. The main concern is the singles market and the singles market is in decline for a multitude of reasons, not just because of file sharing. The singles market has been in decline since way before the internet became popular. And given the number of people who are actually connected to the internet against the global music-listening population, file sharing can only be a small part of the problem.

As for the blah-blah-our-costs-are-so-high-so-feel-sorry-for-our-gigantic-profits argument of recording costs and marketing budgets, let's just be clear: recording isn't that expensive and if the majors put out releases that excited people and garnered more word of mouth they wouldn't need to spend $X million pushing some piece of crud. There are smaller labels out there who consistently put out records at lower prices and manage to stay in business year on year without the economies of scale available to the major labels. How, exactly, do they manage that?

21 Aug 2003 | paul said...

All of you preaching that downloading is evil and that its going to be the downfall of civilization, I'm interested to know if you've paid full price for all of your applications. Microsoft Office? Adobe Photoshop? OS upgrades? Shareware? I find it hard to believe that you've paid for every application residing on your computer.

Think twice before you brand someone else a burglar.

I'm a recent college grad with relatively little income working towards a career in the web design/multimedia field -- do you think I can afford all of the applications that are necessary to build my skillset. Photoshop alone would break my bank, let alone Illustrator, After Effects, Fireworks, Director, Flash, etc.

What, in your opinion, should people in similar situations be doing?

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

The majority of the under 30 crowd I know seem to share the same sense of entitlement when it comes to "free" music, while the +30 crowd doesn't.

Hmm...I just turned 30 this summer and, coincidently (?) I signed up for the iTunes store. ;o)

Lots of good points in here...on both sides.

Any lower and I don't really see how you could expect a business to sustain itself & continue to improve

Wow. I'm amazed at the amount of sympathy on here for the recording industry. The RIAA is not about improving itself, makeing better product, or anything of the sort. It is only about holding on to a very controlled monopoly. The industry pretty much owns the promotion, distribution, and live event markets. It controls it completely. They do not want to loose control of that. Loosing control of that means that they then *would* have to compete based on price and quality of product.

The internet *is* how you can increase profits (little to no manufacturing costs, reduced marketing, no distribution channel support) AND sell at a lower price.

But they don't want that. It's just easier for them if the status quo remains.

The iTunes store is a great idea, but fails because:
- they are the same price as a CD
- not as big of a selection as on P2P
- still aren't copy-protection free.

Give me an album for $5 in MP3 format and I'll buy it. Every time.

As for the 'stealing' thing, people are making it black and white. 'stealing is wrong so you can't do it'. It's not black and white.

Copying CDs on to tape as a kid 'robs' the artist of their money. Buying a used CD at the store 'robs' the artist of their money. Taping a song of the radio 'robs' the artist of their money. Buying a scalped ticket 'robs' the artist of their money. Etc.

Smoking pot is illegal. Getting married if you are gay is illegal. Until recently, in most states getting a blow job was illegal. Laws are merely man-made social constructs. Sometimes they are made for the good of society. Sometimes they are made for the good of big business.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

also, interesting to note, even though the record industry is in a slump 'supposedly' due to P2P sharing, the concert circuit is actually selling more tickets at higher prices than ever before.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

What, in your opinion, should people in similar situations be doing?

Do what you are doing, then with every paid client gig, start buying legitimate copies of your software.

Music is a little different. I certainly don't think music should be free. But it should be affordable. The cheaper you make it online, the more people will buy, with little to no added overhead on the distributor's part. If a song were 25 cents, I may very well end up spending more on music overall than if they were a buck. A buck is still a buck to most people. Quarters are those expendable things you stick into pop machines, parking meters, slot machines, bus fares, etc.

One last comment on the iTunes store. I went there about a month ago with the intention to buy two albums. The interface is quite nice. It really is a great shopping experience.

The problem was that neither of the two albums I wanted were sold on iTunes. Jump on P2P, I can download them within an hour. The reality (legal or otherwise) is that legitmate music sales need to compete with P2P. iTunes is an infinitely better experience when it comes to buying and downloading an album than P2P is. But it's missing the product availability and could try to bridge the price gap a bit better (when comparing free P2P to $12 CDs).

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Paul: it's a matter of pride that everything on my hard drive is paid for. I'm not compartmentalized enough to deride piracy in one form while practicing another. Nice try, though.

What you should do if you can't afford software is use open-source, free software. There's the Gimp for Photoshop needs. It's not perfect, but it's usable. Also, as a college student, there's substantial academic discounts for software that you could save for. Or you could use the school's licensed software in the labs. If it's not convenient because they're busy, think about the value of that convenience and I bet it's pretty close to the value of the academic discount.

Your need does not trump property rights. If you couldn't afford food, does that mean you can help yourself to food at the grocery store? Of course not. Why is software (or music) any different?

That's a trite example so let's pick one that's probably more relevant to the tone of your question. Suppose you just graduated from mechanic's school and you want to get a job, but you have to supply your own tools which you can't afford. What do you do? I'm sure that you're thinking, "Wait until no one's looking at the hardware store and start running." You're not? Hmm, maybe you'd settle for cheap tools or ask around for someone to loan you tools that they're not using.

They you go.

21 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

As for the 'stealing' thing, people are making it black and white. 'stealing is wrong so you can't do it'. It's not black and white.

I think a distinction can be made between "wrong" and "against the law." The question of whether file-sharing is against the law is black-and-white: it's currently illegal. The question of whether it is wrong is more debatable.

If you disagree with a law, you can work to change it. Smoking pot and getting married if you are gay look like they may soon no longer be illegal where I live (Canada).

Everyone's free to break the law, they just have to be willing to risk the consequences. Much as I dislike the RIIA, they have every right to sue the P2P users; that is the consequence of breaking that particular law.

21 Aug 2003 | Sunny said...

Ale - Why don't you take your misplaced rhetoric elsewhere? This is not the topic or place for that sort of opinion.

Bill Brown - Excellent points. I think the mentality of entitlement in America is the source of these problems. Folks are always under the impression that they are 'victims', that somebody 'owes' them something.

Something for free will mark the end of all creative efforts. If artistes have no incentives for making good music, why will they even bother? There is even a historic precedence for it. After the French Revolution, all copyrights were abolished. In the world of french literature, it meant a dearth of books. The same can easily happen.

Personally, I think that what once started as a protest against the music industry has turned into a ugly free-for-all. We all know that the way the labels currently work is not a viable model anymore. But if the basic business model of being compensated for a provided good fails, it really means trouble.

21 Aug 2003 | jharr said...

It seems that every example above that says 99 cents is too much is simply rationalizing they're desire to continue not paying. Those people complaining about quality are not going the typical P2P user, a vast majority of illegal swappers don't have the ears to tell the difference.

I agree there is a cultural issue, but that's simply an excuse. Why do people feel that the iTunes Music Store is for everyone? If you want quality and artwork, buy the damn CD. There are a lot of people who are fine with the protected files because they aren't going to illegally share them, they knew that when they bought the tracks, that's there prerogative.

The poster who said that taping a song as a kid robes people is off-base, taping for your own use robs no one. How can you possibly compare stealing music to gay marriage and smoking pot? How can you rationalize stealing music as some noble crusade? That's totally warped and totally misguided. People need to be mature enough to understand that if this trend continues it can have an effect on the economy. And as much as you hate record companies or Microsoft or whoever, you have no right to steal from them. You do have a right to buy from competitors, start your own company to compete or complain, but not steal. That's not a right, it's not a crusade to achieve parity, it's not a noble form of protest, it's just wrong.
That poster also said they'd pay $5 for an unprotected MP3 album, but not $10 for these. Even it were $5 I would guess you'd say that was too high. Really, once you've stolen music can you ever find a situation where paying will please people? My guess is not entirely. For now, for the market and consumers Apple is going after, this is as good as it gets.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Laws are merely man-made social constructs. Sometimes they are made for the good of society. Sometimes they are made for the good of big business.

Laws are codifications of morality insofar as they enshrine normative evaluations. All of the laws you cite are great examples of that, though I disagree with the premises behind many of them.

The need for morality is inescapable, so my focus is more on the morality of the situation rather than the particular implementations of that morality in the legal system. Stealing is immoral because it is anti-life, anti-values, and, consequently, anti-man. Other people may find stealing immoral for a variety of other reasons, such as God (or Gods) telling them not to or karma or who knows what.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

ah, let's get down to some facts and figures.

1. blank media in most places already carries an increased cost intended to compensate the industry for any resultant lack of sales, so when they make CDs that I can't copy, they are actually stiffing me. In fact, as a sometime musician, they managed to charge me every time I wanted to duplicate my own material. I don't see them bitching about that.

2. The head of BMG announced earlier this year that for a record to make them a profit it needed to sell at least 2 million copies. There are small labels out there making roughly 1 profit per unit based on total sales of 1500.

3. To the major labels any record that sells 10000 copies or less is a total failure upon which it is impossible to turn a profit.

4. There were roughly 37000 releases last year, of these the "Big 5" released roughly 70008000. The majority of releases were on independent labels, usually priced lower, and most of them managed to make a profit.

In effect BMG said that if an album only sells 1 million copies they cannot make a profit on it. If they can get in $14 million in sales against something that including recording costs, printing, pressing, and the artist's cut (which more often than not with the majors is almost nothing as they get charged for recording costs and publicity) should not realistically cost more than $4 million then, quite frankly, they don't deserve to be in business and the sooner they all go bust the better, because clearly the smaller labels can function on much smaller sales, whilst largely making a profit and providing a more diverse range of products.

So, you know what? Screw them and the cartel they rode in on. They pretty much have a license to print money and they can't even make that work.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

Whilst I remember. Most working and recording musicians are not multi-millionaires. Most of them pretty much just make a living doing something that they enjoy. Many musicians exist purely on live work. There were musicians working before the invention of recorded media. During the early days of the industry most of them made almost no money out of the recording industry. The Beatles were on a penny royalty for most of their recording career. If anything that figure is probably now lower for many musicians.

Someone tell me, exactly, how the death of the major labels is going to bring an end to musical creativity as we know it. Why is most of the fuss being made by multi-millionaires?

If you live in the UK and you want to get your kecks in a twist over something concerning music I'd suggest you concern yourself more with the government's recent licensing laws that will effectively stop live music in a host of locations.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Paperhead: Don't buy from the major labels. There you go. Now you're probably paying maybe $8.99 for a brand new release, right? Since independent labels don't have all of the costs associated with the majors, they price their CDs much, much lower, right? Just a dollar or two over their costs, right? You should definitely patronize them then because they're doing business right. They don't need to keep their prices high in order to inflate their profits.

Only I don't recall buying an independent label CD that was drastically less than a major label CD. Why is that? Could it be that the independent labels have other costs that are much higher than the major labels and offset the costs of the majors' marketing efforts? Or are they just "gouging"?

The issue, again, isn't a balance sheet examination of whether there's too much or too little profit being made; the issue is that you have no right to something without having earned it. Earning it in this context means paying for it.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

It all seems to simple to a moron like me. You QUIT BUYING from the "big labels" and the Metallicas of the world, and you SUPPORT your local and/or Indie artist.

Stealing music is wrong, and no amount of justification makes it right. You aren't Jean Valjean, you're Joe IWantFreeMusic; there IS a difference.

21 Aug 2003 | JF said...

I love your comments, Bill.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

OR ... do what I did: Buy a guitar. Invite friends over.

Folks ... music is a love of my life, but I ain't stealing it, not even from those rascally big evil corporations (you know, like the ones that make the medicines that will keep you alive a few years from now ... yeah ... THOSE *evil* folks).

You want something for nothing? Then stay the hell away from me, because you won't like what you get!

:-)

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

(bare with me, I'm having a total testosterone rush)

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Thanks, JF. This is a big ol' hot-button issue for me.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

I do buy CDs. I live in the sticks and am still on dial up. If I want convenience I can hop a train into town, walk to the record store, buy my CD, walk back, hop another train, go home and listen to the entire CD qucker than I can download a handful of songs.

And i am not defending stealing, copyright infringement, music piracy, or anything else. I am merely pointing out that internet file sharing is not the reason why the major labels are suffering a dip in profits and it is duplicitous of them to suggest it is. Being unable to make a profit on something that turns over $14 million is why they are suffering a dip in profits. The fact that most of us have now re-bought our vinyl collection on CD is another factor in the sales difficulties of the major labels.

So, defending nothing. Pointing out the red herring is all.

And, in another shock for fact fans, people that download music online are actually more likely to buy a CD in the next 3 months than people who don't. Go figure!

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Now that I'm up on my high horse of moral superiority, acting all righteous and stuff, lemme toss *this* morsel out for you all to enjoy:

What gets me going is that many of you good folks are anti Big Business, anti Globalism, anti IMF, etc etc. Yet, you're such slaves to fashion, e.g. music.

Seriously ... good friends ... give ear to what I'm saying. Shun the mass-marketed ideas ... toss aside your consumerism leanings ... and embrace the idea of *making your own life*.

You love music? Good ... learn to play an instrument. You want good food? Good ... start a garden (a small CONTAINER is enough to get started ... heck ... grow sprouts in a jar if you need to start small).

Honest to G-d, folks, don't get too upset about the prices of CD's, coffee, etc etc. Heck, even tobacco is so easy to grow that I'm planning to grow some next year and roll my own cigars.

My point? My point is that I'm an idiot ... no ... wait ... that's not my point (that's *your* point ... "Don's an idiot!").

(now, feeling all philosophical and such)

Seek relationships and *real* human interaction. Let's not get too hung up on iPods and PHP when we should be walking across the hall and inviting our neighbor to a picnic in the park.

Okay, I'll climb down off my high horse and back into the nether regions of low IQ where I belong. *grin*. Thanks for listening, I'll be here all week don't forget to tip the waiters.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

Bill Brown -- I'm no longer a student so access to educational versions of software and computer labs are out of the question.

Comparing to food is just silly.

Comparing to mechanics tools is even worse. 'Borrowing' software (you mentioned borrowing tools) is obviously not an option -- how do you 'borrow' software without stealing it?

You make an analogy to being a mechanic. I know for a fact, as my brother went to trade school for precisely that profession, that there are no tools required of you (the job may require them, but you are not required to provide them) that cost anything near what people pay for Illustrator/Photoshop/Director.

The difference between say, mechanics tools and software is that these are industry standard tools, and despite the fact that alternatives exist, you are still required to know these tools.

I can buy a cheap wrench, but I can't buy a cheap copy of Director.

Gimp is not an option, because who the hell uses Gimp? If i apply for a job, and they are looking for someone who knows Photoshop intimately, would they hire someone fluent in Gimp - i doubt it.

I think you've made some valid points about music, but I don't think you've thought the whole software issue out.

I realize that using unlicensed software is both illegal and immoral, but -- as I asked before -- what do you do in this type of situation? I've bought software as I can save up and afford it, but until then, am I to live a life of shame?

They you go.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

Don - I agree - but that doesnt really have anything to do with the discussion.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

… people that download music online are actually more likely to buy a CD in the next 3 months than people who don't …

More likely than the people who don't what? Download music online? Listen to music? I think we can safely assume that people who download music online are generally more into music than people who don't. It stands to reason that they are more likely to buy a CD in the next three months. The question is how many equivalent CDs have they downloaded? I would surmise that it's more than one and, more probably, a lot more than one. This "fact" also obfuscates the larger reality that the extreme online music downloaders are more than making up for the average user.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Paul, you work, you save your money, and you buy the tools you need. It's that easy.

Might take a while ... but if that's the case, work two jobs.

And I think my comments ARE germaine to the subject. If you reach a "I don't need them" attitude, then screw the RIAA, I don't *NEED* the music. Then, copying, pirating, stealing, price gouging ... it all becomes moot.

Why don't *I* download music or software? Because screw it, I don't *need* it that badly. And that which I do need, I buy.

Sorry if that's too simplistic for you, Darrel ... but I'm a simple mind!

21 Aug 2003 | bk said...

Paul, last time I checked, Adobe offered free tryout versions of Photoshop and Illustrator that you could download.

If those aren't sufficient enough for you to learn on, I would reccommend maybe looking for an internship where you would have access to use the software, and possibly an experienced professional to help you learn the basics of it. Plus, you'll gain valuable experience in other parts of the industry that knowing a software program does't provide.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

While I was raising my two children, I NEVER taught them to "Share". NO! That's a mistake.

I taught them "ownership" and "respect for the property of others".

It works great. You know that they learned? They learned how to negotiate and get something of equal value for what they gave up.

I don't see them expecting something for nothing. I think there is generally an underlying tone of our society that "society, at large, owes me something".

21 Aug 2003 | fajalar said...

"Don Schenck: Bring Back the Love"

Includes old-fav tracks such as:

"I'll Plant My Foot in this Squarefoot Garden"
"Cigar. Cigar smoke. Good gar."
and the timeless ballad,
"Surfin' in PA"

This album is not sold in stores. Available for immediate download at DonSpeaks.mus.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

... more likely than people who don't download music online Bill. The extreme downloaders are the very people who would just duplicate the music collections of all their friends if they didn't have online access. And no, Bill, get real, the extreme downloaders are not more than making up for the average user.

Point aside: why is the assumption that a download is a lost sale? Does anyone really think that the few extreme downloaders would have bought all of these records?

You still haven't answered Paul's question either. If her were a mechanic and needed to borrow tools he could. How, legally, can he borrow the software he needs. Have I missed all the lawsuits from spanner manufacturers attempting to sue everyone who lends a wrench? Hell, I could buy myself a new wrench and pass my old one on to Paul. Am I at liberty to give him my old copy of Photoshop? I mean, I paid for it and all.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

ha ha TOO funny. Thanks.

I'm "on" today ... must have been that great El Rey Del Mundo Corona Maduro I had last night.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Paperhead ... can't I legally UNINSTALL Photoshop from my computer and then let Paul install it on his?

Seriously ... I'm asking. Because if *that* isn't legal, then someone needs to kick some asses. Or at least win a lawsuit.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

You make an analogy to being a mechanic. I know for a fact, as my brother went to trade school for precisely that profession, that there are no tools required of you (the job may require them, but you are not required to provide them) that cost anything near what people pay for Illustrator/Photoshop/Director.

I was speaking of tools in principle. The analogy is apt because you need those tools (or practice with those tools) to become proficient at a job that requires you to have your own set.

You can borrow software from someone. I've got a copy of Studio MX that I'm not using. My friend is learning Flash by downloading the trial version of Flash MX. If thirty days elapse and he still needs to use the software, I would lend him my CD of it and ask him to uninstall it when he's done. He'll respect my wishes because we're friends. In the interim, I will not use my local copy. I could uninstall mine, but, thinking in principle, the difference is negligble.

You are a great example of exactly the attitude that Jason is deriding. You want a job doing computer work, but you don't want to pay for the tools to do that work. You act like the job is your right and that, consequently, you're entitled to the software as well. Guess what? You're not. If you're not willing to buy the software to learn your trade better (presumably you learnt something in school, though you didn't indicate what subject you studied in college), then you must trade on the knowledge you acquired in school to get you a job or do your work with free software. Them's the breaks, kid.

Imagine if you somehow were able to learn to become a web designer without having all the fancy tools (I've heard that it's possible; wait, I did it without them!) and you started doing freelance work. Further, imagine if someone (or company) stole your designs for use on their own site without compensating you for them. You get hot and bothered, to which they reply, "do you think I can afford all of the applications that are necessary to build my web site. Photoshop alone would break my bank, let alone Illustrator, After Effects, Fireworks, Director, Flash, etc. Designers are even more expensive."

Would you treat that with kindness and sympathy? Or would you get a lawyer to seek out redress? Okay, you're going to say that you'd look at the company's means and decide if they really couldn't afford it. Such is the safety of the hypothetical. In reality, you sick a lawyer on them and get extra damages—with justification and righteous anger on your side. Would the situation change if the company was a conglomerate with more money than you could imagine? Yes, your lawyer would tack on another zero or two to the damages being sought.

Why would the righteousness disappear because it's you against Adobe or Macromedia? What about this new situation changes the moral principles involved? You may clamor for the software because of your need, but you're really selling your integrity for the price of Photoshop. My integrity is much more expensive than that; I personally consider it priceless.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Point aside: why is the assumption that a download is a lost sale? Does anyone really think that the few extreme downloaders would have bought all of these records?

Exactly my point: they wouldn't have bought all of those records. That's why your citation of the factoid is disingenuous. You know it and every other advocate of Kazaa, Napster, and Gnutella knows it. You're upset because the RIAA knows it now.

You didn't even address what I thought was the best part of my reply: The question is how many equivalent CDs have they downloaded? I would surmise that it's more than one and, more probably, a lot more than one.

Whichever music these average online music downloaders download, listen to, and keep that they don't then buy legally is a lost sale, with negative impact. I'm sure that you'll cite some fabricated statistic that the average user downloads 9 tracks from a Eminem CD and then rushes out to buy it once he or she knows that it's a good CD. And deletes the ones downloaded that he or she doesn't buy. It's ludicrous to believe that this represents an average user or even a statistically-significant number of users. Most downloaders download a lot more music than they ever buy and look for a new service once the one they use gets shut down. They're eager consumers of music coupled with the moocher's spirit.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Proverbs 22:1.

I live by it.

21 Aug 2003 | Randy said...

Bill Brown -- I'm no longer a student so access to educational versions of software and computer labs are out of the question.

You don't have a right to the tools of your trade. If you can't afford them, then you should work another job that doesn't require them until you can afford to purchase them on your own.

21 Aug 2003 | Sonia said...

"Paul, you work, you save your money, and you buy the tools you need. It's that easy.

Might take a while ... but if that's the case, work two jobs."

And where exactly do you live? (we're in Spain)

We won an MX package, which we don't use that often (small projects, css, xhtml and open source - thank god for open source) but if it weren't for that or open source (or Notepad), we'd have to download and live on the free to get started as mentioned above.

Software and tools are a different issue than music, but know what, you can't get design tools prorated to your countrys GDP.

In my experience, the 'global' internet has a lot to thank for 'stealware'. Sadly that may come back to bite hard working (and innocent?) North Americans in the butt.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

"you don't want to pay for the tools to do that work."

"You act like the job is your right and that, consequently, you're entitled to the software as well."

"If you're not willing to buy the software..."

Hey Bill......I never said any of those things.

I'm willing to buy the tools to do the work, I'm just not able to buy them; there's an obvious difference between the two.

Also I freely admitted that I'm not enititled to the software, I merely posed a question.

It's easy to make a point when you put words in other people mouths.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

Thanks for your insite Randy - nobody's pointed that out yet.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Paul, when someone says that they can't afford a piece of software and then says, "What do you expect me to do?" you'll have to excuse the readers for concluding that you're both pirating the software and okay with such piracy.

The difference between willing and able is quite obvious to anyone who is not independent and wealthy. You're willing to get a job as a web designer but you're not able to because you can't afford the tools. My suggestion to you is to get the tools, make do with what's free, or get a different career. Notice the omission of steal what you need on the premise that this job is your right and you're thus justified in taking whatever course of action you need to get to it.

Instead of thinking of it as "putting words in other people mouths," I like to think of it as finding the underlying and unstated premises. Note, this is possibly one and the same action depending on your skill level.

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Several random comments:

I doubt there are very many purists in this realm. I happen to agree with the standpoint that file sharing invites both legal and ethical problems, and that there are legal and ethical bases to say "this is wrong." But do I have songs I didn't pay for on my iPod? Yes. Do I have software I didn't pay for or have kept beyond the evaluation period? Yes. Do I make a habit of it? No.

A certain part of me wants to credit the people who say they'd never pay for music with honesty. Although, one ethical positive mark doesn't cancel out an ethical negative mark.

The record industry as we know it is dead. No one knows what the new model will be, but it's over. The entertainment industry is actually very, very conservative (witness the outcry about radio, television, VCRs, DVDs, etc.). They need to recognize that consumers' habits have changed dramatically. The record industry has geared itself in recent years not to nurture and develop a band over years in hopes they make it big (a la R.E.M.) but to churn out one-hit-wonders that happen to sell 3 million units for that one album. Consumers, for the most part, are rebelling against that. This is part, but not all, of the reason that record sales have gone down over the past few years.

By the way, it's a bit sad that in my early 30s, I'm already displaying a lot of age by using the term "records" over and over again. Anyone from about 25 on down probably has never even seen one.

It's nearly impossible to have any sympathy for the record industry. When CDs first came out, they charged a premium, saying that production costs were more because of the low volume, but that as volume increased, prices would come down. Was anyone shocked when prices still were at $15-18 typical retail when the CD became the dominant format? I miss paying $10 for an album like I used to on vinyl.

Even more reason not to have sympathy for the record industry: they're couching all of this as a battle for artists' rights, which couldn't be further from the truth. How many of you are familiar with standard recording contracts? I am. Under the standard industry deal, an artist has to sell about 3-4 million units to make a dime. That's because the record companies charge the artists for promotion, marketing, production, and every other conceivable expense. So, the services the label is providing ultimately is paid for by the artist anyway. Of course, labels take losses for those things on several artists since they're not able to pay, but it's a phenomenally profitable arrangement for the labels. It's a good reason for supporting independent labels, too.

Artists deserve money. The record companies by and large prevent them from getting it. It's the dirty little secret in all this.

As for the future of file sharing, someone needs to come up with a good system to allow this: my use of file sharing is to download several tracks of a new artist I'm interested in so I can evaluate whether I'm interested in them enough to warrant buying a full album. I've been burned far too many times from liking one or two songs, and finding those are the only worthwhile songs on the album. If I'm interested, I go buy the album. If I'm not, I delete the tracks. My music consumption has demonstrably gone *up* because of my ability to do this, because I can be confident that the $12-15 I spend is a worthwhile investment. I'm willing to pay for such a service, although I don't think 99 cents is necessarily the right price point. Maybe a limited-use license, like 30-60 days, can be developed, and those tracks can be sold for 25 cents or something like that.

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Sonia, it makes no difference WHERE you live. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

As Bill said, you do NOT have a "right" to the tools you need. If I can earn a copy of Dreamweaver in 10 hours, and it takes you 200 hours, well ... that's just a function of your economy.

On the plus side, that means you will have less competition in your area, right? Every coin has two sides.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Thanks for your insite Randy - nobody's pointed that out yet.

Rude and uncalled for. Plenty of replies might have come through while he was composing his reply. Cut him a break.

Also I freely admitted that I'm not enititled to the software, I merely posed a question.

Which question? This one? I realize that using unlicensed software is both illegal and immoral, but -- as I asked before -- what do you do in this type of situation? I've bought software as I can save up and afford it, but until then, am I to live a life of shame?

If you're as aboveboard and honest (and your question is sincere, which I doubt), then you have no reason to live a life of shame. Doing without something that you really want until you can afford it is a very honorable and rare thing. I applaud the fact that you don't steal any of the software that you need so desparately. Weaker people would have caved in.

Oh, wait, the implicit premise in living a life of shame is that you're stealing like crazy and want a psychological pass on any guilt you might be feeling. Never mind.

21 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Software and tools are a different issue than music, but know what, you can't get design tools prorated to your countrys GDP.

Actually this presents an opportunity for governments in not-so-wealthy countries to lend a helping hand. Do you know why prescription drugs are so cheap in Canada compared with the United States? Because the Canadian government negotiates deals with the pharmaceuticals companies to keep prices low. Something like that could work with software. In Spain's case, the Spanish government, or more likely the European Union, could negotiate deals with software companies to reduce the price of Web design software. It's an investment after all, and probably something the E.U. might be willing to do to help promote economic development in Spain, Greece, and Portugal.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Artists deserve money. The record companies by and large prevent them from getting it. It's the dirty little secret in all this.

Hmm, I saw the house that Courtney Love occupies on an episode of The Osbournes yet she was crowing the loudest. It didn't look like she was "prevented" from getting money. Or maybe she was homeless and squatting in an unoccupied house—not as unlikely as it sounds given her clothing and demeanor.

I think that artists should make as much money as they can. And that's what they want too, contrary to Paperhead's absurd idea that musicians aren't interested in money. If the record industry isn't getting them money, then they need to find, create, or support something better. "But then they won't make any money," you exclaim. I thought they weren't making any anyways. Ahh, but they are making money—just not as much as they'd like. Sounds like contractual problems.

If they're not interested in money, perhaps they should give their music away like so many on here suggest. Or participate in innovative distribution means as many others suggest. At the very least, they should quit whining about the way things are and do something about it.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

"I like to think of it as finding the underlying and unstated premises."

Bill I guess you're right; everything is open to interpretation. To
me this sounds like your putting words in my mouth.

Also - "What do you expect me to do?" is not really the way I worded it. That has such a negative connotation - putting me in the position of a victim when I certainly took no such stance. What I actually said was "What, in your opinion, should people in similar situations be doing?" and later "what do you do in this type of situation?"

I'd appreciate it if you limited your comments to things I actually said.

In other news does anyone else think it's funny that there's an actual record label called Sympathy For The Record Industry? And they actually put out good records!

21 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

As for the future of file sharing, someone needs to come up with a good system to allow this: my use of file sharing is to download several tracks of a new artist I'm interested in so I can evaluate whether I'm interested in them enough to warrant buying a full album.

Apple came up with a good solution in their iTunes store: you can preview any song for 30 seconds. It's a great way to get an idea of whether you like the artist and/or the song before you decide whether to buy it. In fact I spend a fair amount of time in the store just listening to new artists or artists I've always been curious about.

...to churn out one-hit-wonders that happen to sell 3 million units for that one album. Consumers, for the most part, are rebelling against that....

I think you're giving too much credit to consumers' taste. Considering the kind of crap that becomes mega-hits today, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer to listen to noise or pablum, not music.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

"Apple came up with a good solution in their iTunes store: you can preview any song for 30 seconds."

I heard that there is a limit to the amount of tracks you can preview - is that true?

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Hurley, the other thing to note is that 3 million units are being sold to consumers. The people obviously want what the record industry is putting out and it's an elitist conceit to think that they're brainwashed or ignorant. The saw that there's no accounting for matters of taste is an ancient one.

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Hmm, I saw the house that Courtney Love occupies on an episode of The Osbournes yet she was crowing the loudest. It didn't look like she was "prevented" from getting money. Or maybe she was homeless and squatting in an unoccupied housenot as unlikely as it sounds given her clothing and demeanor.

Courtney Love has her late husband's money, and she did sell a few million units. She's also been in movies, etc. She's had other income streams. Using her to provide a counter-example to my point isn't very effective.

Artists get money from touring, primarily. Independent labels typically negotiate much better deals, where the artist is getting $4-5 per unit instead of the industry standard of a buck or two. Some artists have leverage to negotiate better deals, such as the White Stripes who found themselves in the pleasant situation of being in the middle of a bidding war.

But, by and large, all but the most successful artists make bupkus from their record deals.

And that's what they want too, contrary to Paperhead's absurd idea that musicians aren't interested in money.

Spent much time with musicians? Other than getting money to keep fed, buy new instruments or equipment, records of their own, alcohol or drugs, etc. many don't care about money. They're not in it to get rich.

If the record industry isn't getting them money, then they need to find, create, or support something better. "But then they won't make any money," you exclaim.

Please don't try to think or speak for me. I would exclaim nothing of the sort in response to the sentence before. I alluded to much the same thing when I commented on the record industry as we know it being dead. And it's part of why I'm a big supporter of indepenent labels, and other distribution models. I think we're not too far from a period where artists essentially self-distribute. There will always be labels of a sort, but not as we know them today.

21 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

I heard that there is a limit to the amount of tracks you can preview - is that true?

If there is, I haven't encountered it yet, and I've sure listened to lots of tracks (probably hundreds by now).

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Apple came up with a good solution in their iTunes store: you can preview any song for 30 seconds. It's a great way to get an idea of whether you like the artist and/or the song before you decide whether to buy it. In fact I spend a fair amount of time in the store just listening to new artists or artists I've always been curious about.

Amazon's done that for years, and I have made purchase decisions based on that. I've made some good ones, and I've made some bad ones. Often, 30 seconds is just not enough to make a decision from.

I think you're giving too much credit to consumers' taste. Considering the kind of crap that becomes mega-hits today, it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans prefer to listen to noise or pablum, not music.

Yes, there's plenty of crap out there. There always will be, and there will always be people there to buy it. Most consumers aren't willing to make the effort it takes to find under-the-radar music. Which is fine. But, witness the increasing success of bands such as the Strokes or the White Stripes, who became commercial successes not because of record label marketing, but who had already established buzz and momentum on their own, and therefore the record companies scrambled to sign them.

ANd, the fact is, record sales are down, even for the blockbuster artists. People aren't buying them as much as they used to. Part of that can certainly be attributed to file sharing. Part of it has to be attributed to shifting tastes, as well. That can be seen in much the same way as movies: if the second release crashes dramatically. Happens very, very often.

21 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

Wow - it all comes full circle......Steve mentions The White Stripes - who released a couple records on the afore mentioned Sympathy For The Record Industry.

Mind blowing.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Steve, I apologize. I wasn't intending to suggest that you were speaking. It was more of a generalized question that might occur to the reader. I should have said "one" or "you the reader" instead.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

The poster who said that taping a song as a kid robes people is off-base, taping for your own use robs no one.

Huh? If I get a copy of a song, and I didn't pay the RIAA, in their eyes, I'm ripping of the artist. Just as I am if I buy a used CD.

The reality is that there is no way to determine how many pirated works would have actually been purchased had they not been able to pirate them.

How can you possibly compare stealing music to gay marriage and smoking pot?

Umm...I wasn't. My point was laws don't have a direct correlation to right and wrong. As someone clearly pointed out better than I can, Law can (broadly speaking) be somewhate black and white, but right/wrong is a very grey area and can often go against established laws.

How can you rationalize stealing music as some noble crusade?

I didn't.

Laws are codifications of morality insofar as they enshrine normative evaluations.

Are you a lawyer? That smells like lawyer-talk. ;o)

I agree that some laws are based on the greater good of moral norms. Other laws are based on not-so-ultruistic reasons and often are established to favor a specific industry or political view.

I'm *not* saying that stealing music is or should be legal.

Paperheads comments show that the current big-boys of the industry simply are too big. They need to reatain a total monopoly on distribution and promotion to keep their giant profits rolling. Anything less would require them to totally change their business, and, in many ways, become obsolete.

I don't think many mature adults are *for* free music. I think they are for more affordable music, with more of the profit margin going directly to the artist. We CAN have cheaper music and artists CAN make more money at the SAME TIME *if* we figure out how to either change, or get rid of the RIAA boys.

To be fair, some artists *will* loose out. The likes of Brittney Spears, Nelly, etc. simply won't be the multi-millionairs they are without the giant push by giant media behind them. That said, a lot more artists on the lower end will begin to make a bit more of a living and get a bit more exposure. Hopefully.

What gets me going is that many of you good folks are anti Big Business, anti Globalism

I, personally, am anti-BAD-big business and anti-BAD-globalism trends. Big business can be good. I don't see the RIAA crew really doing a lot of good, though. It's merely a money grab by a few at the expense of both the consumer and the artist.

The question is how many equivalent CDs have they downloaded?

Bill, that is a pointless question. You can't measure that.

The problem with pirate advocates is they claim that every pirated copy of their wares is a lost sale. That's simply not true. The question is what percentage of those pirated wares are lost sales, and, does is that loss greater or less than the potential benefits of greater market share/larger exposure? I, of course, don't know. No one does.

Finally, let's not forget that this is an industry convicted of price fixing. We got what out of that? $15? They're now trying to convict their own consumers of sharing music. What are they suing for? $10,000 a song? C'mon. A kid stole a CD worth's of music? Sue them for $15.

They want to make the argument that that one CD was then shared with thousands of people. Well, if that's the case, then you need to either sue that one person for it all, or sue each individual for $15. What they want to do is sue everyone for everything.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

"The problem with pirate advocates " should read ANTI-pirate advocates.

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Laws are codifications of morality insofar as they enshrine normative evaluations.

I missed that earlier. At the risk of sending the thread off on a tangent, I'm going to point out that laws and morals are two entirely different things. They intersect from time to time, but this notion that a nation's laws are a reflection of its morality is an erroneous and potentially dangerous belief that needs to be stopped.

Laws are simply what are required to preserve an orderly society. Definitions of an orderly society differ - in an autocratic or authoritarian system, preservation of authority is what is defined as orderly; in republican or democratic system, a stable society with predictable standards for interaction (such as contract law, etc.) is the ideal - but laws are created to preserve that order and stability. They have absolutely nothing to do with morality. Sure, moral principles often have the handy effect of creating order and stability - it is morally wrong to murder, but it's also very much in the interests of society to prohibit murder from an orderliness perspective. Otherwise you end up with Israel and Palestine.

To try to bring this back on topic, the copyright and intellectual property laws exist in order to preserve an orderly commercial environment. It's a way to recognize that just as its contrary to order for me to take your phyical property without permission, it's contrary to order for me to take your intellectual property. No morality involved. It's simply about standardizing the rules of commerce and extending the already well-established precedents regarding personal (and physical) property.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Ahh, you equate morality with religion. I don't. Morality is a guide to living, a set of precepts and principles helping people to choose among alternative actions. Morality is about normative evaluations: this is bad for me, this is good for me, people shouldn't do this, etc.

Sound like law? I think so. I would say that law is to society what morality is to individuals. Regrettably, the prevailing morality is what tends to get ensconced into law.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

Regrettably, the prevailing morality is what tends to get ensconced into law.

Well, that isn't entirely bad, but, actually, that isn't always true.

Most modern renovations to IP law, namely copyrights have been for the sole benefit of very large copyright holders. Ie, the RIAA and Disney. IP law, in this country, was written to protect both the author AND the general population. The idea is that an author should expect to receive a decent amount of benefit (usually financial) from being innovative. A the same time, they shouldn't be able to hoard an idea forever and the idea should soon enough be put into the general public for the betterment of all.

I'm for IP law, but I'm not for the increasing leaning of the laws towards a few favored big business.

Adobe's patent on tabbed interfaces? Amazon's patent on one-click ordering? These are the extreme absurdities, of course, but it's a trend at all levels it seems.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?

21 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Benjamin Franklin was against patents. That's why the "Franklin stove" is so popular.

Just thought you all would like to know that.

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Bill, where did I ever mention religion? I said nothing of the sort, largely because I *don't* equate religion with morality. Especially when I find religion is often very immoral in its actions.

Morality is a set of standards that govern human behavior. So are laws. But there's a difference. Morality exists apart from law. If one were to live in a lawless society, it would still be wrong to steal or murder, for example.

Religion doesn't enter into it. Many people do equate morality with religion, and that's where it becomes very dangerous to have some sort of notion that laws should reflect the moral code. But even with removing religion from the equation, there are plenty of cases where what is moral is not necessarily good law, or at the very least necessary law.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

But even with removing religion from the equation, there are plenty of cases where what is moral is not necessarily good law, or at the very least necessary law.

That's my point about the law enshrining a morality with which I disagree. I can't believe that you can look at laws and not see how they're informed by a code of morality.

I talked about religion because that's the common basis for understanding morality. You gave me no indications as to whether you equated morality with religion or didn't. I had to operate from the most probably scenario from which you were arguing. I'm glad to hear that you don't make that mistake. When arguing (especially when you're trying to anticipate objections), you have to guess where your opponents are coming from. It's hit or miss. I missed.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

I can't believe that you can look at laws and not see how they're informed by a code of morality.

Alcohol is legal. Pot isn't. Is using one morally better/worse than the other?

Is purchasing a used CD which is a sale the the artist 'lost 'morally better/worse that downloading an MP3, which is a sale the artist 'lost'? Is one legal, and the other not?

Morals are different than social norms and are different than laws. They are related, but there are differences.

21 Aug 2003 | Sonia said...

"Morality exists apart from law."

Based on this comment and Don's reply to mine above, I think that a lot of thess arguments break down when you start to examine that we are trying to apply morality to the version of 'capitalism' that exists today, and then examine the different markets/regions (globally speaking here) that you are applying it to.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

My particular belief on the morality of pot and alcohol is irrelevant. That alcohol is legal and pot isn't indicates that someone at some time believed that alcohol is moral and that pot isn't. It's helpful to think of each law (or even each part of a law since they're amalgams of compromises) as codifying a certain moral principle that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any other law.

The best example that I can think of is the anti-sodomy laws. These clearly say that homosexuality is wrong and so we must punish those committing an overt act of it. The laws come from a certain perspective that doesn't have to be consistent or coherent with the rest of the body of law.

It's not a super important idea, but it does help to understand why our laws can be so contradictory. Well, it helps me at least.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

That alcohol is legal and pot isn't indicates that someone at some time believed that alcohol is moral and that pot isn't.

Not necessarily. It may have been a moral issue, but--more likely--a political/economic issue.

Current drug laws have little to do with morals. More to do with the business of the drug war.

The best example that I can think of is the anti-sodomy laws.

Yep, that's an example of someone's morality dictating a law. So, again, sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes not.

And...uh...I forgot what this had to do with online music ;o)

21 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

In a sense, Bill, I think you're saying some of the same sort of thing I am. At least in the sodomy example, someone's morality influenced a decision to the point that it was codified that such a thing was wrong. And what I'm saying is that it's not proper for the law to be a tool of moral views, in that manner. One big flaw I realize I've had in my argument is that I've been using words like "is" when I should be using "should." The law is not intended to be a moral code. It operates best when it's not. But it's often used that way, in part because of the erroneous assumption that a nation's laws should reflect its morals.

Regarding the alcohol/pot example you mentioned, it's not necessarily a reflection that someone believed alcohol is moral and pot is not. It could, and probably did, come down to simple commercial interests. Laws, at least in capitalistic society, often do.

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

ok, ok, form an orderly queue.

Don.

You don't like sharing things? And you came to a public blog to tell us that. Man ... thanks for sharing ;)

Steve.

Record sales are falling? According to the whining incompetents who run the major labels they are. They seem to have a way of counting so that if they sell less records, then sales are falling. That's not the same as the industry as a whole.

Bill.

Oh Bill, where to start with you? You make some good points Bill. It's a shame that mostly you do this by claiming that people have said things that they haven't actually said:

I think that artists should make as much money as they can. And that's what they want too, contrary to Paperhead's absurd idea that musicians aren't interested in money.

Did I say that Bill. I'll help you out here. No I didn't. I've said that musicians tend to get ripped off by the record industry. I said that people worked as musicians before it was possible to make a fortune out of it. I said that most professional musicians only make a decent living and that many of them would and do continue working as musicians without becoming multi-millionaires because they are doing something they love doing. Did I once say they weren't interested in money. No I didn't.

I'm sure that you'll cite some fabricated statistic that the average user downloads 9 tracks from a Eminem CD and then rushes out to buy it once he or she knows that it's a good CD. And deletes the ones downloaded that he or she doesn't buy.

So. Bill. Why would I cite a fabricated statistic? I have no need to. If you're attempting to imply that the other material I have been discussing is fabricated, just come out and say it. I'm happy to discuss sources. If someone rushes out and buys the CD because they've heard and liked some of the songs on an album, why would they keep the lower quality downloaded copies? And that's disregarding the arguments around whether or not you should be able to make copies for your own personal use.

What you also seem unwilling or unable to take into account is that the actions that you deem immoral and/or illegal are in some places not considered immoral and most definitely are not illegal. Why shouldn't I be able to copy a CD for my own personal use? If I buy a blank CD I've already paid money to the recording industry based on the assumption that I am going to use it to duplicate a music CD, yet they subsequently want to use protection systems to prevent me from doing something that they have already charged me for in advance.

Basically Bill, you've made one point repeatedly: you disagree with it because you think it's immoral. Whoopy-do! Now be a good netizen and don't waste my dial-up page download time by typing it out again for the umpteenth time, we got it the first time.

Oh yeah, BTW:

You didn't even address what I thought was the best part of my reply: The question is how many equivalent CDs have they downloaded? I would surmise that it's more than one and, more probably, a lot more than one.

1. don't flatter yourself.
2. when you surmise, is that more objectively reliable than me not using fabricated statistics?

_ _ _

You use TiVo Bill? What about the poor video rental companies? How are the film studios ever going to manage to make any money?

21 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

OMG! Bill lends DVDs to his friends. Can't they buy their own copies Bill? What about all those lost royalties? What about the poor video rental companies?

Converting your VHS library into DVDs? Why aren't you buying them afresh in the new format? Copying's bad Bill, um-kay.

Oh Blockbuster! he careth not for thee!

Hypocrite.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Darrel, discussions morph. Get over it.

21 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

Darrel, discussions morph. Get over it.

Was I complaining, Bill?

You're a bit sour, aren't you?

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Steve, I think we've got some sort of a fundamental divide going on that I don't really care to try to bridge. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Paperhead: Wow. Where to begin! First, I'm sorry I attributed a comment made by Steve to you: Spent much time with musicians? Other than getting money to keep fed, buy new instruments or equipment, records of their own, alcohol or drugs, etc. many don't care about money. They're not in it to get rich. In the free-for-all discussion that spans pages and pages, I didn't wade through to find something that I had read and thought I remembered you expressing the sentiment. I suppose I should have just omitted the linking unless I was certain.

If you read what I said about keeping the downloaded copies (and you even quoted it verbatim, so I don't know why you missed it), I said that they would delete the music they didn't buy. No big deal.

You say that what I consider immoral and illegal isn't immoral and illegal elsewhere. That's fine, it's wrong no matter what and people can ignore the immorality of the situation all they want. They'll suffer the consequences: legal fights like the RIAA is sponsoring as well as the societal degradation that originally inspired this whole discussion. Also, you say that blank media has a tax on it that is distributed to record companies. Not in the U.S. and I am vehemently against such a levy because it distributes the money to the record companies but not the artists whose work is stolen. It seems patently unfair.

If you're going to lob hypocrisy grenades at me, could you at least consider the issues or read my site in full?

TiVo is all about time shifting, which was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Aside from that, TiVo poses zero copyright issues.

There is a difference between owning the physical media and owning the right to distribute the media. Lending a DVD is like lending a book (you're not suggesting that libraries are copyright infringers, are you?). I own the physical media and it only becomes infringement if I copy it for someone.

I'm converting my VHS library over to DVD by buying the DVDs of already-owned (and purchased) VHS movies. If you read my site closely, I said "I am in the process of converting my VHS tape library into DVDs. A lot of them probably will never make the jump because it would just be too expensive or the video isn't worth the price to acquire it." Emphasis added.

In other words, I practice what I preach. Hypocrite I am not.

21 Aug 2003 | Bill Brown said...

Darrel: And...uh...I forgot what this had to do with online music

Sour? I'm just a little tired. I've been wasting my day increasing the page size of this discussion and forcing Paperhead to spend extra time downloading it. The discussion is winding down as far as I'm concerned. The format of the comments is not conducive to threaded discussion and gets very tiring past twenty or thirty comments.

Plus, it's gotten pretty personal and vitriolic, which is a style of argument that I don't enjoy. The tenor just ain't doing it for me anymore.

With that, I bow out of this. Thanks for the illuminating discussion; it's helped to clarify several things in my own mind.

22 Aug 2003 | gretzky said...

One point that's been brought up on a recent Slashdot thread disagrees with the assessment that have been made by some here, which is that users are stealing. Quoting one post from "RealAlaskan":

"... stealing is stealing, ...
Yes, it is. Funny you should say that and then follow it with:

... and if you're stealing a piece of software ...

Stealing is stealing. Infringing upon someone's copyright is NOT stealing, it's infringing upon their copyright. Stealing is stealing, and using cracked software is something else entirely. That's why each is prohibited by a different law. You can't ``steal'' software unless you grab a boxed set and run out of the store.

That may sound like a trivial distinction, but it's not: it is the heart of the matter. It's this sort of sloppy thinking that makes it so easy for Disney to get copyrights extended another 40 years every time Mickey has a birthday.

It's important to remember that property rights are natural rights, which pre-exist our constitution (that's what our constitution says). Copyrights, patents, and the like are privileges which the constitution allows but does not require Congress to grant. When we equate copyright violation to theft, we blur that distinction, and play into the hands of those who would like to enclose the commons of our cultural heritage."

Any thoughts on that?

The Slashdot thread I'm referring to can be found at:
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/03/08/21/2116210.shtml?tid=158&tid=185&tid=99

22 Aug 2003 | gretzky said...

Bill,

(you can't expect to bow out AND get the last word do you?)

In your second to last post above request to Paperhead: "If you're going to lob hypocrisy grenades at me, could you at least consider the issues or read my site in full?"

I've won't claim to have read your site in full, but one of your recent blog entries caught my eye:
" 'speed limits, only a suggestion'one of my favorite aphorisms (keep in mind that this is coming from someone who's had four speeding tickets and countless photoradar tickets that got, um, lost in the mail)."

Speeding is illegal. You are breaking laws designed to reduce the number of accidents that occur, many of which result in the injury or death of other people. Is your breaking this law OK with you because you disagree with the laws? Because a lot of other people do too? How can you take such a strong stand defending one of society's laws and then openly flaunt another?

22 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

ffs Bill, your tone has been high-handed and pompous for most of the day and now you don't like the "tenor" when someone treats you in the same way.

1. if someone downloads some tracks and then rushes out to buy the album, which tracks have they not bought?

2. Public libraries pay lending fees to copyright owners. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to guess that you don't send money away every time you lend someone a DVD. In the UK, most videos state:

"It is for private use only, and any other use including copying, reproduction, or performance in public, in whole or in part is prohibited by law."

You say that what I consider immoral and illegal isn't immoral and illegal elsewhere. That's fine, it's wrong no matter what and people can ignore the immorality of the situation all they want.

So, finally we get to it, eh Bill. In some countries this whole business is not considered illegal or immoral, but despite that it still remains immoral because you think it is. Man, is that a tree on your shoulder?

buh-bye Bill.

22 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

me:

Adobe photoshop, hard coded to your ethernet address.

surely you don't just have one license and run the program on several machines? That'd be bad me. And a copyright infringement.

Don:

A lot of software is licensed to you personally Don. So, no, you couldn't legally do what you asked.

22 Aug 2003 | Marco said...

What gets me going is that many of you good folks are anti Big Business, anti Globalism, anti IMF, etc etc. Yet, you're such slaves to fashion, e.g. music.
Seriously ... good friends ... give ear to what I'm saying. Shun the mass-marketed ideas ... toss aside your consumerism leanings ... and embrace the idea of *making your own life*.
You love music? Good ... learn to play an instrument. You want good food? Good ... start a garden (a small CONTAINER is enough to get started ... heck ... grow sprouts in a jar if you need to start small).
Honest to G-d, folks, don't get too upset about the prices of CD's, coffee, etc etc. Heck, even tobacco is so easy to grow that I'm planning to grow some next year and roll my own cigars.
Seek relationships and *real* human interaction. Let's not get too hung up on iPods and PHP when we should be walking across the hall and inviting our neighbor to a picnic in the park.

Don,
Fincher's Fight Club anyone? *grin* ;)

I agree with your points!

22 Aug 2003 | Marco said...

Something for free will mark the end of all creative efforts. If artistes have no incentives for making good music, why will they even bother? There is even a historic precedence for it. After the French Revolution, all copyrights were abolished. In the world of french literature, it meant a dearth of books. The same can easily happen.

Sunny,

I don't think that money is the incentive for art. World's great artists does not create art because of money, they create art because they cannot live without creating art.

Ok, many professional musicians (and writers) need money to live; perhaps with a little few money, few big label corp, some indie label more, we got some good artist some time (and very few genius, one time any 100 years maybe)...

There are too much "made from label corp" artists who never worth a penny. All that because nice young girls etc. are good on tv video. This is not music.

22 Aug 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Not that it matters, but more on this issue of "law codifies morality":

That alcohol is legal and pot isn't indicates that someone at some time believed that alcohol is moral and that pot isn't.

No, I think really it's that someone had evidence or claimed to have evidence that smoking pot was more likely than alcohol to open the door toward the use of harder drugs that are more addictive even than alcohol, and that making pot illegal would thus be a way to help protect public health and safety. I suppose that codifies the morality that drugs are "bad," but I think the underlying motivation for the law was that drugs are undesirable because of their addictive effects and therefore their cost to the user who then is frequently forced to resort to crime in order to feed his or her habit, which then results in costs to society.

You can find lots of laws that have only the most tenuous links to morality. For example, exceeding the speed limit is against the law. To me, this seems like a simple matter of protecting the public health and welfare. You could argue that it is morally wrong for an individual to behave so selfishly as to endanger the lives of others just in order to get home in time to watch "Friends" on TV, or you could argue that it is morally wrong for individuals to selfishly consume more of their share of resources (gasoline) because a car is half as fuel-efficient at 65mph as it is at 55mp. But that's stretching it. Speed limits are simply an attempt to reduce loss of life and the expense to society of dealing with the aftermath of accidents, deaths, and major injuries.

22 Aug 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Paperhead, you ignorant slut:

*laugh*

If software is licensed to me as an individual, then shame on me for buying it, and boy *that* makes me angry. Seems, in that case, like a good time for civil disobedience.

Marco: I've not seen "Fight Club", but I keep meaning to! Thanks for the nudge; I'm going to download a copy ... er ... I mean RENT a copy this weekend.

*laugh*

In the end, do what you want to do folks. But if you get penalized, don't come crying to me. And you steal my stuff or infringe on my personal property and I will take it personally.

Enough; I'm off to my pool, my wine, my cigars and my garden.

22 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

Hey Schenck: that's Mr. Ignorant Slut to you ;)

22 Aug 2003 | monkeyinabox said...

If you can get something for free (illegally or not) having to pay 99 cents for the same thing does sound expensive. If I actually had an iPod, then maybe having no physical CDs might be a neat idea. It would sure take up a lot less space at home.

22 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

Gretzky, I don't agree with that argument coming from the Slashdot discussions much at all. I make my living with my mind - the thoughts and analysis it produces are the "product" I create and sell in the marketplace. If anyone can take what I create and sell it, they are stealing from me in a very physical and tangible way. Property is property, whether it can be held in one's hands or not.

Now, there is a difference with intellectual property, and the argument is partially correct here. This is why from the start copyrights and patents have had expiration dates. I have a huge problem with the extensions that have been created in the States in recent years - they are tilting the balance too far in the interest of creators v. the interest of the public domain. And let's not even get into the US Patent Office's directed bias to assuming that applications are valid.

22 Aug 2003 | gretzky said...

Steve,

I think you're right that it's theft in the example you use, where they are reselling your copyrighted software. Money that would've and should've gone to you is going elsewhere.

However, if I use a piece of software or download a song that I never otherwise would have bought, well...it's illegal, but I think it is a stretch to compare that to stealing food from someone, as Bill Brown did. From a moral point of view, I personally don't believe it is the same as breaking into someone's house and depriving them of property. You can say I'm wrong about that, but it's a view shared by a lot of people. If I wouldn't have been able to buy it in the first place, and no money would've gone to you, how have you been impacted?

It'd be impossible obviously to police whether you would've bought it or not, so it remains illegal, and rightfully so. But from a personal point of view, I don't feel bad about it, because I'm not depriving you of anything. And, speculating here, I think this is why a lot of people don't feel guilty about downloading music.

22 Aug 2003 | Steve said...

But, Gretzky, if I make my living by creating things and selling them, you are depriving me when you don't buy the thing I create. Would you be comfortable taking a painting from an artist without paying for it? If your answer is no, how is that different than taking a song from a songwriter? It's the same creative process. When you're buying a painting, you're not buying the frame, canvas and paint, you're buying the expression. Same with music. Or software.

No, it's not quite the same as breaking into someone's house and depriving them of their property. It's more like having someone do a job for you and not paying them.

22 Aug 2003 | gretzky said...

No, I wouldn't be comfortable with taking a painting from an artist. But yes, I'd be comfortable with displaying a digital copy of that same painting on the desktop of my computer for a while.

A creative work that I truly value, I'll buy. Latest CD from Tomahawk, I will buy that. Original print from a local artist to frame and hang on my wall, I will buy that.

Downloading a song from a CD that I never would've bought in the first place so I can listen to it a few times before I delete it for something else? I don't think it's the same thing. People have been recording music videos on to VHS for ages so they don't have to wait around to see them on the video station again. Would they have bought that video if it was for sale? Probably not. So is it theft, in the traditional sense of the term? It seems like a grey area to me.

22 Aug 2003 | ryk2506 said...

This is an interesting thread, bound to stir up all sorts of moral and legal face offs.............let me give you my slant on this.
My kids are technonerds, and I've always encouraged it........now I'm being sued by a mega major corporation, with resources that so far outstrip my little paycheck that it's laughable. It's threatening the very fabric of our family.......I've learned what a complaint is, response, motions, summary judgement, more legal crap than I ever wanted to know. I won't be able to defend myself, no matter what. I'll have to settle, or let them have a default judgement against me, because I can't afford a lawyer or army of lawyers like these guys.
You say this is our own doing, and that's what we deserve? We're as average as they come, I've worked construction and refineries for thirty years, never been in any trouble, never sued anyone. I can't believe this is happening, and I guess there's thousands of Americans like me now, suddenly guilty. Maybe we deserve this, it'll cost my boy a semester of college, the girl will wait a year or so more 'till she gets something to drive, but the lawyers..........ah, the lawyers........life will be good.
You say how would I like it if someone stole my paycheck? Well, let me tell you............it sucks. But I'll quit whining. We'll get by.......I guess the thing I worry about is the damage done to a family like mine as opposed to the alleged crime committed. Most people don't realize that these are civil charges, not criminal, and they go branding people as thieves and felons, when that is ludicrous. I guess my deepest fear is that my employer will be prejudiced against me, and that would be a mortal blow to my family.

23 Aug 2003 | monk said...

Can we at least refer to it as copyright infringement and not stealing? You'd think that the two were interchangable.

24 Aug 2003 | Richard D. Bartlet said...

go outside
in the sun
it is free
AND legal

25 Aug 2003 | Paperhead said...

Opinion piece from The Guardian.

25 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

RYK:

My sympathies. I agree that the bigger issue, perhaps, is what the RIAA is getting away with for damages.

This is pure bullying. Their lawsuits are asking for ridiculous settlements that have no basis in real damages.

I said it before, but the fact that the RIAA gets busted for price fixing and has to dish out damages of $15 while they sue people for made-up damages of hundreds of thousands of dollars is one reason a lot of people simply say 'fuck you RIAA'. Right or wrong, it's pissing people off. And, yea, some innocent artists may be getting screwed in the middle.

If I have a 100 downloaded albums, and the RIAA wanted to sue me for losses, they only have a right (IMHO, of course) to get reimbursement for those 100 albums, and, maybe a fine on top of that (say, $15 akin to their 'fine' for price fixing).

The problem with these types of lawsuits is that they are designed to force the accused into a settlement. They still get a chunk of money and don't have to worry about their logic being judged in a courtroom. So they can safely go on suing the shit out of everyone.

26 Aug 2003 | Buddhakin said...

Coming in late here... but one entertaining paradox is how the record industry expends umpteen pounds/dollars on plugging - placing and promoting records to radio/tv/clubs - as a vital form of promotion. Here in the UK, it's virtually impossible to have a hit without massive Radio 1 airplay... yet a potentially more powerful and better-targetted form of promotion - encouraged free distribution - would not be considered. Yet radio/tv/club play is surely just a form of free distribution, albeit one where the listener has less control. Just a thought...!

27 Aug 2003 | Darrel said...

That's exactly what they want, at least here in the US. It's immensly more profitable to hand pick a few pop-stars and market the hell out of them than attempt to let a much broader selection of music hit the street.

There are some very definite ties between the media giants in the US. The recording industry and the media (mainly radio) have large ties. On top of that, clearchannel, the biggest radio staion owner, billboard owner, and concert promoter has ties to the Bush administration. It's all just very unnerving and whether what's going on is legally or morally right or wrong, people are pissed and, as such, really aren't caring a whole lot.

Also, check out this interesting article on how iTunes isn't really all it's cut out to be in terms of helping out the artist:

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

29 Aug 2003 | TruthInTruth said...

Putting any uniform price on music doesn't make any sense. Are all songs uniform? No.

Except that it's a simple business model that works. If they tried to build some complex pricing scheme that figures in the cost based on age, genre, popularity, etc. then they'd end up with a business model like the failing airlines have. Instead, they've come up with something extremely simple that just works. It's so very... Apple.

02 Sep 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fact is, my favorites -- classical and opera -- are usually available at a very low price. Supply and demand!

*grin*

02 Sep 2003 | ten.krahp said...

I'm not going to hide this: I attend one of the most "connected" technical universities in the nation, and we are considered the second worst offender of pirating software, music, and movies in the world (right behind a university in India).

I personally know people who have had their apartment/dorm raided at 11pm by the FBI, had all of their computer equipment seized, and they are now pending trial for massive counts of copyright infringement.

I understand that it is extremely difficult to grasp the ideologies and thought processes of my generation, even if you are only 10 years removed. I also realize that stealing is wrong and immoral, but if 100% of people you know are doing it, without abandon, then it is difficult to resist (especially if you live off of $50 or less a month).

Let me give you an example of a very common scenario here at _____ :

Its around 2am late on a Friday, everyone is back from where they were that night, and we're all crowding around a massive TV that is hooked up as a dual monitor to a custom-made server about the size of a small refrigerator.

"Guys, what movie do you wanna watch?"

The guy at the keyboard boots up DirectConnect (a special version was developed by a student here that only lets people connect if they are a student at this or the three nearest other colleges, read: 1.5MB/sec or higher d/l speeds).

We look through the thousands of movies available, and begin to download one... 6 minutes later its done and already loaded up on the TV screen. While we watch that one, we start to download about 15 more, getting ready for when the current one ends. When we go to bed, 30+ movies are queued and are finished by the morning.

Need a computer program? It'll be on your desktop in 10 minutes or less. Just heard a good song? You'll have it in under 30 seconds.

Its not that we don't realize that this is wrong, its just that we don't have the money to pay for it.

But don't you think that in 5 or 10 years, my peers and I will be the ones making the software purchasing decisions at large corporations, buying worldwide licenses for apps like VisualStudio .NET and Silhouette. We know that the software is good because we've already tried it for years. Now that we've got the dough and the power, we're going give it all back.

If I'm pulling in 6 figures at a computer job after college, don't think that I'd even hesitate to drop a $100 at the iTunes music store or buy a stack of DVDs from BestBuy.

That's what doesn't make it seem so bad for us. The knowledge that when we're actually making money, we'll gladly pay for it.

16 Jan 2004 | Dionise said...

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.