mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 A copyright-infringing download does not automatically mean that the person would have definitely bought the CD; so you can't say for certain. True however the less chance there is of said user being able to copy the data whether its audio or otherwise then the more chance there is of them purchasing it. Like said above its an assumption and there are other means of copying said data whether its from a friend or else where.
webman Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 So are we saying that the downloader just takes it because it's free, and doesn't really care for the band in question? It depends on the person - there is no one single answer. Surely there must be some incentive to spend the time downloading something? I'd never download an album for a band I didn't like. Again, already been covered - people can use this method to trail a band, and then go on to buy tickets to see live performances, buy merchandise, or full albums.
sidewinder Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 From the beginning of P2P to the present Ive done the same thing: download albums I'm interested in, if I listen a few times and really like then I (eventually) buy it, if I dont like then it gets deleted (what would be the point in keeping it?) Copyright infringement? yes, stealing? I dont see it as so but obviously some here do. I feel alright about what I do, especially as a lot of what I buy is by smaller record labels/independants. Most of the people I know who download and dont buy anything never bought anything before, there are some people who just dont buy albums period. Thats where nothing is being lost. If they couldnt get it free they just wouldnt bother.
mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 It depends on the person - there is no one single answer. Again, already been covered - people can use this method to trail a band, and then go on to buy tickets to see live performances, buy merchandise, or full albums. Afaik - amazon have snippets of each track(s) on albums so you can listen to snippets to see if you would like it or not - not sure how this goes as far as copy right etc
webman Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Afaik - amazon have snippets of each track(s) on albums so you can listen to snippets to see if you would like it or not - not sure how this goes as far as copy right etc What if they don't have the CD? Or don't have the previews for the CD you want? Are you claiming that using the Amazon preview snippets is theft, too?
localzuk Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Isn't that what trailers are for? This argument does seem to get rolled out a lot, but to take an example if I were to download an electronic copy of a book for free, bypassing the copyright, and find that I liked it but not enough to actually buy a physical copy, this doesn't apply. What about those who download episodes of things they have seen on television instead of buying the copies that are available legally? Well, to be honest, I download episodes of things myself. I also buy boxsets, and pay for BT Vision. I re-watch shows I like over and over (I could probably quote any part of any episode of The Big Bang Theory or Chuck for example). TV episodes are an odd one in the UK, with the BBC and TV License. Also, trailers are hardly ever a good example of a movie. Many times, a movie maker will take the 30 seconds of action in their movie for a trailer, and the other 90 minutes will be boring nonsense. And with electronic copies of books - I do use electronic copies like previews myself. O'Reilly have a lot of their stuff available electronically and if I find it useful, I buy the book and keep it in my collection (I spent about £5k on books when I was at uni...). I don't want to buy things I won't use - it means I can't afford to buy things I can use!! I can see that there's some validity to the argument, but it doesn't apply in many cases. I've heard it rolled out with relation to music and movies, but what about games and other software, or music where the artist doesn't actually do shows, or simply doesn't have a tour date within reasonable distance of the downloader? The artist should look at their demographic then. If they're not catering to their audience properly, then that is their fault. Software and games - interesting really. Again, I pay for both, but have at times downloaded both without paying to make sure they do what I want. Demos often limit functionality horribly. Again, the makers should look at their market and see what they want - not at what they want to force on them. Yes, why don't they do that? It would be a good idea (in many cases, there are exceptions). However the point isn't whether it would be a good idea or not, the point is that they don't do this at the moment. Again, I seem to be being accused of music industry sympathies - I don't have them, and I agree with many of the things that people say about them needing to update and revamp. The difference is I don't feel that this justifies my, or anyone else's, copyright infringement. Because, every movement to get laws changed involves 'law breaking'. It is more a case of civil disobedience than criminality though. If I object to the way that they sell music, I won't buy it, and I won't hear the music. Same applies with films and games. Why does their bad practice justify other's illegal practices? Because how do you know if you like that music or not? Why should those artists be punished with no listeners, and potentially no live audiences/merchandise sales simply because you disagree with the industry methods? Surely that's even more immoral? At no point have I said that. I do not defend the music industry, and I do not agree with them. I also hold out hopes that things will change. What I don't do is engage in illegal practices because I disagree with the way things are, and then try to justify it by saying that someone's out of date. Hopes don't change things. Action does. Sitting around and hoping artists get a better deal will get nothing done. Forcing the hand of the industry (which is what is happening) is more likely to get results. Okay, so if I go into a bookshop and photocopy a book, its okay so long as I use my own materials and disagree with the publishing industry? It isn't theft, that's for sure. It is copyright infringement - that is the law, plain and simple. I am, by the way, now convinced by the 'not theft' arguments and will stop using that term. I still don't see any reasonable justifications for illegal activity however. Theft = deprivation of goods. What is being deprived?
jamesb Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 What if they don't have the CD? Or don't have the previews for the CD you want? Try somewhere else online? Some band sites allow you to listen to their songs on-site. Or, god forbid, go out to a music store where they let you listen to music before you buy. Are you claiming that using the Amazon preview snippets is theft, too? I think all he was saying was that he didn't know what the copyright situation was in that case. 1
mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Theft = deprivation of goods. What is being deprived? The only thing I can think of in the artists case is "money" Also that I did not want another arguement / debate or w/e you want to call it - one is enough thanks lol
localzuk Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 The only thing I can think of in the artists case is "money" But as I said, that is a fallacy. 1 download != 1 lost sale. Also, as I said, what happens when that person who downloaded the song then goes on to buy merchandise and go to concerts? Those sales wouldn't have happened if they hadn't downloaded to listen. This is how I got into the band Tool, for example. I downloaded an album of their's, found I couldn't stop listening to it, bought the special edition boxset including videos and the like, bought tickets to see them at the download festival a few years ago, bought tickets to go see them live again at a concert, bought t-shirts etc... I wouldn't have picked up their CD from a shelf, and I certainly wouldn't have heard their music on the radio... 2
mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 But as I said, that is a fallacy. 1 download != 1 lost sale. Also, as I said, what happens when that person who downloaded the song then goes on to buy merchandise and go to concerts? Those sales wouldn't have happened if they hadn't downloaded to listen. This is how I got into the band Tool, for example. I downloaded an album of their's, found I couldn't stop listening to it, bought the special edition boxset including videos and the like, bought tickets to see them at the download festival a few years ago, bought tickets to go see them live again at a concert, bought t-shirts etc... I wouldn't have picked up their CD from a shelf, and I certainly wouldn't have heard their music on the radio... Ok point taken - so this band tool - any links or where did you get this from ? Guessing its a windows tool If thats the case why don't they make it legally available for download but can only use it for a week or so many days worth or w/e that way you can download whatever music you want and if you like it then force them to pay for it
sidewinder Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Ok point taken - so this band tool - any links or where did you get this from ? Guessing its a windows tool lol...
Guest Guest Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Ok point taken - so this band tool - any links or where did you get this from ? You'll have to go out and buy the CD if you fancy a listen
Guest Guest Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 If thats the case why don't they make it legally available for download but can only use it for a week or so many days worth or w/e that way you can download whatever music you want and if you like it then force them to pay for it Because the record companies were too heavy handed with their implimentation of DRM. You cant put legally obtained tracks on your (old) mp3 players, sony installed rootkits on your computer... Like most things they spoiled what could have been a useful tool to them
jamesb Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Also, trailers are hardly ever a good example of a movie. Many times, a movie maker will take the 30 seconds of action in their movie for a trailer, and the other 90 minutes will be boring nonsense. Which is why I'll generally use my blockbuster rental subscription to try out films if I'm unsure about buying them. And with electronic copies of books - I do use electronic copies like previews myself. O'Reilly have a lot of their stuff available electronically and if I find it useful, I buy the book and keep it in my collection (I spent about £5k on books when I was at uni...). I don't want to buy things I won't use - it means I can't afford to buy things I can use!! I don't want to buy things I won't use, which is why I generally look at reviews, listen to word of mouth, and so on. The artist should look at their demographic then. If they're not catering to their audience properly, then that is their fault. They're selling their music, I'd say that's catering to their demographic. With an international audience why should an artist have to do tours over the world in order to make money? What about an artist who works purely in the studio? How do they tour? Merchandising has been mentioned, but why bother buying a band t-shirt when you could just download the design and print it onto a t-shirt yourself? Software and games - interesting really. Again, I pay for both, but have at times downloaded both without paying to make sure they do what I want. Demos often limit functionality horribly. Again, the makers should look at their market and see what they want - not at what they want to force on them. I agree, I'm not a fan of demos but I still won't download a game (exceptions made for digital distribution games obviously, but I'll still pay for those). I might ask around and see what people's opinions are, consider whether I've enjoyed similar sorts of games in the past, and so forth. Because, every movement to get laws changed involves 'law breaking'. It is more a case of civil disobedience than criminality though. No it doesn't, there's also campaigning, petitioning, lobbying and so on. Besides which it doesn't seem to be the law as such that's the problem, but the industry. Because how do you know if you like that music or not? Why should those artists be punished with no listeners, and potentially no live audiences/merchandise sales simply because you disagree with the industry methods? Surely that's even more immoral? Hearing it on the radio, samples on band websites, spotify and so forth. Legal methods, all. Besides, its not like I'm refusing to pay a price for something and still feeling entitled to it, I'm accepting that I don't want to pay for it, and therefore I don't have it. Hopes don't change things. Action does. Sitting around and hoping artists get a better deal will get nothing done. Forcing the hand of the industry (which is what is happening) is more likely to get results. Yep. Hadopi 2 is a very successful result, as are the various lovely court-cases going around. Boycotting would've been a better option maybe. It isn't theft, that's for sure. It is copyright infringement - that is the law, plain and simple. Theft = deprivation of goods. What is being deprived? It depends how you view something. I view something I've made, whether it by code, art or otherwise, as a product of my time, creativity and effort. All of those are worth money and so I expect a fair reward for them. The fact that I have created something does not entitle others to access to it, except under my terms. If I choose to open-source some code then that's all well and good. If on the other hand I choose not to open-source it but to charge for it, why should others be entitled to my creation? They are taking my time and effort for their own gain, even if it is only a tiny portion that they take. However, I'm trying not to call copyright infringement theft. I just feel that if I make something then I am entitled to determine how others should be able to make use of it, and in return for what. If others don't like those terms then they have the option of not making use of it - in no way are they entitled to make a copy of my work, against my will, because they feel I charge too much or use an archaic mode of licensing.
mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 It depends how you view something. I view something I've made, whether it by code, art or otherwise, as a product of my time, creativity and effort. All of those are worth money and so I expect a fair reward for them. The fact that I have created something does not entitle others to access to it, except under my terms. If I choose to open-source some code then that's all well and good. If on the other hand I choose not to open-source it but to charge for it, why should others be entitled to my creation? They are taking my time and effort for their own gain, even if it is only a tiny portion that they take. However, I'm trying not to call copyright infringement theft. I just feel that if I make something then I am entitled to determine how others should be able to make use of it, and in return for what. If others don't like those terms then they have the option of not making use of it - in no way are they entitled to make a copy of my work, against my will, because they feel I charge too much or use an archaic mode of licensing. Thats sort of the lines I was thinking along because if people copy microsoft products as has been proven on ebay as there has been cases against individuals selling Microsoft items that were copies on ebay that they were swiftly removed from ebay and possibly other actions taken and that was for software which is not physical aside from it being on a copied cd so as far as I can tell ( correct me if I am wrong ) is still the same as a digital download of audio also digital data ie not hardware or something physical excluding the fact that the OS is stored onto a cd ( cd - r or cd - rw )
mac_shinobi Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) lol... You'll have to go out and buy the CD if you fancy a listen Was worth a chuckle after the debating lol Edited September 28, 2009 by mac_shinobi
localzuk Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Which is why I'll generally use my blockbuster rental subscription to try out films if I'm unsure about buying them. So you're paying for something you potentially wouldn't like... I don't want to buy things I won't use, which is why I generally look at reviews, listen to word of mouth, and so on. And as you've seen on here - reviews can appear which don't reflect the truth. They're selling their music, I'd say that's catering to their demographic. Don't go into marketting my friend. lol With an international audience why should an artist have to do tours over the world in order to make money? What about an artist who works purely in the studio? How do they tour? Merchandising has been mentioned, but why bother buying a band t-shirt when you could just download the design and print it onto a t-shirt yourself? The only person who is charged with making money for the artist is the artist. If they think touring for money is not a worthwhile endevour, that's their choice - and their wallet should reflect that. I agree, I'm not a fan of demos but I still won't download a game (exceptions made for digital distribution games obviously, but I'll still pay for those). I might ask around and see what people's opinions are, consider whether I've enjoyed similar sorts of games in the past, and so forth. So you still potentially end up having paid for a pup. No it doesn't, there's also campaigning, petitioning, lobbying and so on. Besides which it doesn't seem to be the law as such that's the problem, but the industry. Yeah, right. You ever tried getting things to change by writing a letter to a company? Hearing it on the radio, samples on band websites, spotify and so forth. Legal methods, all. Spotify is almost brand new - only capable due to the way the music industry was forced into allowing new business models to form. Samples are not normally a good way to figure out if you like a band. And radio? Eugh. 90% junk just to listen to a single song you *may* like. Besides, its not like I'm refusing to pay a price for something and still feeling entitled to it, I'm accepting that I don't want to pay for it, and therefore I don't have it. And as I said, by you not listening to things, and potentially liking them, you are cutting off vast swathes of music from your collection. Music that you may well have enjoyed and then bought cds of, merchandise and concert tickets... Yep. Hadopi 2 is a very successful result, as are the various lovely court-cases going around. Boycotting would've been a better option maybe. You mean the law which was shown to be fundamentally flawed, and had its central part thrown out, and has been challenged by the EU due to it infringing on the right to a fair trial? Corruption in government will of course create things like this, but as we all should know from history - it just causes fiercer fighting by those against it. It depends how you view something. I view something I've made, whether it by code, art or otherwise, as a product of my time, creativity and effort. All of those are worth money and so I expect a fair reward for them. The fact that I have created something does not entitle others to access to it, except under my terms. If I choose to open-source some code then that's all well and good. If on the other hand I choose not to open-source it but to charge for it, why should others be entitled to my creation? They are taking my time and effort for their own gain, even if it is only a tiny portion that they take. However, I'm trying not to call copyright infringement theft. I just feel that if I make something then I am entitled to determine how others should be able to make use of it, and in return for what. If others don't like those terms then they have the option of not making use of it - in no way are they entitled to make a copy of my work, against my will, because they feel I charge too much or use an archaic mode of licensing. You are entitled to do so - but you should also understand that you have to cater to those that want to buy your product. ie. don't think you can force them into a certain way of doing things simply because you created it. You have to work with your customers, not against them. That's a fundamental part of business.
localzuk Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) Ok point taken - so this band tool - any links or where did you get this from ? Originally? I downloaded it via AudioGalaxy, now defunct file sharing network. If you mean a band website, http://www.toolband.com/ If thats the case why don't they make it legally available for download but can only use it for a week or so many days worth or w/e that way you can download whatever music you want and if you like it then force them to pay for it Why does it require force? Everyone listens to music differently. Why does it suddenly require that the author *force* the buyer into a situation. This is why the whole concept of trialware is so bad when it comes to software. Edited September 28, 2009 by localzuk 1
jamesb Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 So you're paying for something you potentially wouldn't like... As I said lower down (I'm writing this from the bottom up) its the risk I take. The only person who is charged with making money for the artist is the artist. If they think touring for money is not a worthwhile endevour, that's their choice - and their wallet should reflect that. True, but why should their audience be entitled to hear their music without paying if the artist has made the decision to charge for it? So you still potentially end up having paid for a pup. Its the risk I take if I fall for the hype and marketing, yep. Hasn't happened yet though. Yeah, right. You ever tried getting things to change by writing a letter to a company? Yep. I've had formal apologies from both the tax office and the television licensing people, along with compensation from the tax office. Not much of a change I know, but it can make a difference. Write to your MP, get your friends to do the same. Action is much better than inaction. Spotify is almost brand new - only capable due to the way the music industry was forced into allowing new business models to form. Samples are not normally a good way to figure out if you like a band. And radio? Eugh. 90% junk just to listen to a single song you *may* like. So surely supporting Spotify would be another way to show support for the new models, rather than ignoring the new models in favour of illegal downloads and so preventing them from truly getting off the ground? I'm not saying that you do this, but a substantial number of people do. If that number were to switch to Spotify (preferably the subscription one, give them a little support) then it'd be a much clearer indication of preference than avoiding both paid options. You mean the law which was shown to be fundamentally flawed, and had its central part thrown out, and has been challenged by the EU due to it infringing on the right to a fair trial? Corruption in government will of course create things like this, but as we all should know from history - it just causes fiercer fighting by those against it. That's the one, but there's got to be better ways to fight against it than breaking the law. Maybe supporting those artists who are doing something different, and are providing their own music through their own channels would be better than trying to punish those who aren't (or rather, punishing them in a legal fashion by just not buying their music). You are entitled to do so - but you should also understand that you have to cater to those that want to buy your product. ie. don't think you can force them into a certain way of doing things simply because you created it. You have to work with your customers, not against them. That's a fundamental part of business. And my customers are entitled to refuse to pay for it, which is fine. What they're not entitled to do (if I'm charging for my work) is to get it free, and use as their defense that 'I charge too much'.
Guest Guest Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 True, but why should their audience be entitled to hear their music without paying if the artist has made the decision to charge for it? Its not as simple as that though is it. The vast majority of people i know fileshare, but also the vast majority of people i know buy CDs from artists they like because they like to have something material, they like the booklets, they like teh feel of putting a vinyl on a turntable etc. You cannot simply substitute buying of CDs with filesharing, its just not as simple as that. They can (and will imo) compliment eachother in the near future as, like i have said, people like to have material things. Its only the "13yr old girl" market who dont go on to buy the album, go to the gigs, buy the merchendice... and lets be right about it, those "artists" dont make music and really are only in it for the money.
jamesb Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Its not as simple as that though is it. The vast majority of people i know fileshare, but also the vast majority of people i know buy CDs from artists they like because they like to have something material, they like the booklets, they like teh feel of putting a vinyl on a turntable etc. If they're buying the CDs or the tracks anyway, then why download? You cannot simply substitute buying of CDs with filesharing, its just not as simple as that. They can (and will imo) compliment eachother in the near future as, like i have said, people like to have material things. Its only the "13yr old girl" market who dont go on to buy the album, go to the gigs, buy the merchendice... and lets be right about it, those "artists" dont make music and really are only in it for the money. What's that got to do with it? A large part of the reason I do my job is because I'm in it for the money, does that mean I shouldn't get paid?
Guest Guest Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 If they're buying the CDs or the tracks anyway, then why download? Im sure the last 5 pages have been to answer that very question http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/sb10067504l-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=9746BFA1BA0ACA4523121C11A5DE4FEE49207362A3F24453
jamesb Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Im sure the last 5 pages have been to answer that very question And I haven't seen a single satisfactory answer, at least not one that would justify breaking the law in my view.
localzuk Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 And I haven't seen a single satisfactory answer, at least not one that would justify breaking the law in my view. That's the thing - morals aren't always the same for everyone.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now