HydrogenAudio

So it's been some time since the invention of torrents, 2001 to be exact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)) I know some would rather ignore this difficult subject, but it's one that constantly makes me debate myself on whether the benefits out-weigh the cons. It's obviously a touchy subject for many of us, especially those who are artists, work in the audio world in some capacity, or even if you're just a music lover.

By now I'm sure most everyone is familiar with what Torrents do and what they are mainly used for, also I'm guessing you've all heard the main points for and against the trend that is changing the music and even the entertainment world as we speak. In fact I'm sure there is a great deal of members who use or have used torrents for some purpose.

For a basis of pros and cons I will try to cover just the main points most commonly brought up whenever I hear discussion brew about the subject.

The main arguments I hear for it:

1) It levels the music playing field, allowing unsigned or small budget artists and better chance of getting their art to listeners.
2) As greater amounts of music potentially reach more listeners the artist can benefit through growing fans supporting them at concerts, merch. purchases, etc.
3) A great deal of fans that may have not otherwise heard of these artists, will also buy the CD, vinyl, or legit digital downloads to further support the artists.
4) It is helping to cut out the big industry labels, who typically take the lions share of the profits anyway.
5) It isn't really stealing as the music can be duplicated without any physical copy, an infinite number of times. Nothing is being stolen, it is only being duplicated.

Main arguments against it:

1) It's immoral to steal art, and point 5 from above doesn't hold water.
2) It hurts the growth and creativity of music in general, as musicians like anyone, need money to support their efforts.
3) Many people who used to buy and support music no longer do, since they can get it for free. (This is highly debatable, as to whether more or less people are buying music since the creation of torrents and torrent sites. Many studies have been done, but its impossible to accurately quantify.)
4) Since music can be stolen this lowers the "value" of music, making less people willing to support art and the artists.

So I want to hear your thoughts, have I left any arguments for or against it out? Does the poll need re-wording? Should I post this somewhere else? I know if any place can be civil and discuss this complex topic it's this forum. I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say. I encourage you to really think about it from both sides before replying. This poll should be very interesting. What do you think, is torrenting a good or bad thing?

I can't vote in that poll...

I say yes to torrents, but only for things that are not available  commercially.
For example I download lots of live concerts via torrents (Dime).

But I say strictly no to torrents of official CDs/LPs etc etc.

Why torrents in the subject? Why not P2P/P4P ("tomorrow")/darknets? uTorrent/Emule/DC++/whatever? Blogs with RapidShare links? IMHO, the whole topic/poll is flawed, I'd replace torrent words with piracy since that's what your topic is about.. though the arguments you listed have things about marketing/distributing/etc.

Sorry. You wanted to hear my thoughts.


EDIT: I'd have to say that piracy is a bad thing. Though it helps me to check out new artists/albums that can't be found in free services (e.g. Spotify). I don't consider myself as a pirate if I download albums (not randomly, only when I get a tip from somewhere else), test listen to them max 3 times and after that erase them from my HD. AND if I liked what I heard, it goes to my shopping list. How I use piracy is only helping artists/labels. I've a feeling that I'm in the very little minority.

if I download albums (not randomly, only when I get a tip from somewhere else), test listen to them max 3 times and after that erase them

scout's honor

if you are leecher you won't have time to listen the album 3 times, so nature already took care of things, like always

As Akkurat has posted above, the topic as presented in the original poster isn't "torrents" at all - and it is being addressed as such due to the term gaining meaning far and beyond its technical meaning, and totally unrightly so.

'Bittorrent' is a technical protocol. Means. The arguments 'for' are first and foremost that the 'means' should never be confused with any kind of gained-public-attenetion-use: It would be similar to ban all motor vehicles because many robbers use them in order to get away with their loot, therefore they must be the work of the devil.

The means to transfer files between a group of people is not limited to, aimed at or originally sought after the use of piracy - and yes, there are many legitimate companies who put it to practical use. Many Unix releases are being released using the bittorrent protocol; many small applications have an option to download them via bittorrent; and yes, I have seen at least two independent artists who put their albums to download via the bittorrent protocol. This goes along the argument of 'helping getting the artists spread their art around', without the apologetic connotation of it being "even though it's piracy" - no, it isn't, no more than a legitimate, law-fearing citizen buying a Black BMW needs to apologize for choosing a vehicle associated with the Mafia. He might just happen to like black, and may just have shelled every penny he paid for it with hard-earned labour.

The means cannot be "wrong". Therefore there is nothing wrong with Bittorent, nor with eMule, nor with Rapidshare nor with Usenet. Those who don't know enough and have only heard about it from the media might connect all of those to piracy, and from there to hackers, and from there on to "getting viruses through them" and on goes the rubbish - well, I happened to be around before such forums existed, and such theme-based discussions thrived over Usenet.

In such discussion I always remember a short animated film I've seen some twenty-odd years ago, where "cars have been put on trial for being dangerous to civilians". At a certain point, the defendant portrayed the same "dangerous vehicle on the road" scene sans the car: the driver was still acting like a lunatic. It's not the car that drinks and drives, it's the driver that gets high and loses control over himself. And the point is, that he's just as dangerous losing control of himself behind the wheels or not: there isn't a shortage of stories of whackos losing their wits and starting to shoot all around them, or kill someone with their fists, or rape a girl in the park. It's not the car's blame, it's not the gun or knife per se, it's not the park's fault: it's how people chose to take advantage of them.

Piracy is not something invented by Bittorrent, by eMule, by Rapidshare or by the Internet as a whole: there are tons and tons of fake CDs being produced and sold everywhere. It seems way too convenient to point the finger at each new method someone develops that can be used in a 'problematic' way, rather than address tested and proved methods that are being used for years and which were all too easy to cover their true culprit's asses without being caught.

-- L. Ipsum

The means cannot be "wrong". Therefore there is nothing wrong with Bittorent, nor with eMule, nor with Rapidshare nor with Usenet. Those who don't know enough and have only heard about it from the media might connect all of those to piracy...

Exactly. Example, I can't even remember how many times I've heard that P2P = illegal/piracy nonsense. Here's some interesting facts for those misguided people: are you using Skype? Spotify perhaps? Those are P2P applications. And perfectly legal. Yes, when you use Spotify, you're in fact streaming/downloading from other Spotify users (and/or straight from Spotify), as well as possibly uploading to other users! Amazing!

I'd replace torrent words with piracy since that's what your topic is about..

Ohoho! Them's fighting words. This topic is not about piracy, it's about unauthorized reproduction or copyright infringement. The term "piracy" has all sorts of negative connotations and obscures the deeper legal reality of the situation. There is absolutely no parallel between unauthorized reproduction and robbery/criminal violence on the high seas.

I should have known that this would come up. I know that some of you don't accept Wikipedia as a source at all but: pirate/piracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_(disambiguation)). Also it's a common & adopted term today.. that's how our language is shaped. My 2c's.

EDIT: Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/piracy?view=uk):

piracy
  • noun 1 the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. 2 the unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work.

"Marijuana" is also an accepted term for cannabis, but the origin of the popularization of the term has its roots in racism. Because of this, I try to avoid using the term.

"Piracy" is a term being used by the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA) in an ongoing propaganda battle. The long-term result of this propaganda battle could very well be the destruction of the freedom of information on the Internet. Consequently, I do not accept the term as a synonym for "copyright infringement" and I strongly advise anyone reading this to do likewise. Don't fall into corporate newspeak.

Here is a helpful picture:

(http://imgur.com/8QgJw.png)

Excuse me for bulging in yet again, but while we're turning this [back?] into a discussion about the origin and choice of wordings and whether or not "piracy" is a proper or improper choice of words and what's its etymology's in talking about copyright infringements, I would very much like to quote a short explanation I read somewhere in one of the discussions about piracy vs. file-sharing vs. the morals behind it vs. the fight against those evil music industry corporations vs. the socialists communities of file-sharers that bring the music to the masses and free the art to their proper place, in the (again) community:

A group of people sharing something they own are called a community.
A group of people sharing something they do not own are called pirates.

-- L. Ipsum

P.S.
Practical ideas, morals and arguments set totally aside.

I don't agree with that at all. Piracy, in the traditional sense, involves forcefully removing property of others. Unauthorized reproduction removes nothing.

Drawing analogies between information duplication and transfer of physical property is intrinsically flawed. There is no such analogy that can be made accurately, as they break down very trivially under analysis.

I can't vote in that poll...

I say yes to torrents, but only for things that are not available  commercially.
For example I download lots of live concerts via torrents (Dime).

But I say strictly no to torrents of official CDs/LPs etc etc.

You bring up a good point, maybe I should reword the poll to include or specifically not-include legal torrents?

Akkurat, also brings up a good point. I do agree I should replace torrent to somehow include P2P, etc. But it does stand to reason that if you are for torrents, then you are most likely for P2P, Mirror sites, Blogs, etc. sharing "unauthorized musical content".

It seems the only way artists are able to get compensated for their work these days is to spend all their time on the road touring.  I don't think this is necessarily a good thing for them.

It seems the only way artists are able to get compensated for their work these days is to spend all their time on the road touring.  I don't think this is necessarily a good thing for them.

Of course for most that's always been the case.

[obligatory link to The Problem With Music] (http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html)

You don't you think that copyright infringement has made it worse?

Cory Doctorow, a published and reasonably well-known SF writer, expounded upon his perceptions of copyright at some length here: http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/07Doct...Commentary.html (http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/07DoctorowCommentary.html)

I can't find the original source, but he cites William Gibson as saying: "We may be at the end of the brief period during which it is possible to charge for recorded music." Musicians existed and made a living for centuries before it was possible to charge for recorded music, and they will continue to do so. Nowadays, the paradigm shift seems to be towards donating to artists for their music if you enjoy it. I do so regularly.

I don't buy into the "since they always have they always will" argument.  It must fall into some category of logical fallacy.

Piracy, in the traditional sense, involves forcefully removing property of others.

Yes, but it's time to move on with the changing world.. the "world's most trusted dictionary" makers agree. Forget MAFIAA and their stupid propaganda.. or fight against it.. but IMHO presenting that silly (other side) propaganda picture is not the right way to go.

I think that Oxford English Dictionary is spot on; "noun 1 the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. 2 the unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work.". It's nothing like MAFIAA "stealing" propaganda misusing the piracy term. I think that they should be denounced, not me or e.g. Oxford English Dictionary.

I do agree I should replace torrent to somehow include P2P, etc. And so I will do that.

Please don't, that was not my point at all. This isn't about the "means" as Lorem Ipsum nicely put it. It's about music piracy. (sorry Canar, I disagree with you)

It seems the only way artists are able to get compensated for their work these days is to spend all their time on the road touring.  I don't think this is necessarily a good thing for them.

Or to us as music collectors/lovers. I agree 100%.

You miss the point, Akkurat. By your/OED definition, fair use is also piracy, as it is unauthorized. Playing a CD at a coffee-shop is piracy. Using the OED here for definitions is not necessarily valid.

I don't buy into the "since they always have they always will" argument.  It must fall into some category of logical fallacy.

A: Musicians made a living before it was possible to sell recordings.
B: Musicians made a living when it was possible to sell recordings.
C: Musicians made a living after it was possible to sell recordings.

A and B cannot be made to show implication of C. However, given A and B, it seems pretty likely that C will also be true. Are you making the claim that C is unlikely?

C does not follow from A and/or B; hence my statement of the logical fallacy that was presented.  Since it is you who made the claim, it is up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it.

Furthermore, we live in an entirely different world from that of A.  I would submit that there were many jobs through which one could have once made a living in a modern society which are now extinct.  Suggesting that being a full-time musician might be added to that list isn't that huge a leap.

I suspect that musicians may still be able to make a living in some places in the future, but I don't expect them able to make a living too far past the edge of poverty in a modern society and I don't see piracy as helping.  Note: I could give a flying fuck about the large corporations involved in distribution.

By your/OED definition, fair use is also piracy, as it is unauthorized. Playing a CD at a coffee-shop is piracy.

Yes, this is correct.

Using the OED here for definitions is not necessarily valid.

Sure it is, or do you have a more definitive source for the English language, since this is all that is being argued here is language/semantics?  I get that you don't like that the word is loaded but that doesn't invalidate a widely accepted definition.

You miss the point, Akkurat. By your/OED definition, fair use is also piracy, as it is unauthorized. Playing a CD at a coffee-shop is piracy. Using the OED here for definitions is not necessarily valid.

Actually, both your examples have been indeed proved as problematic, as far as the copyright holders go.

From what I remember from the published 'Fair Use' booklet printed in the UK some dozen years or so ago, the whole idea behind it is that it's a set of terms agreed upon by the [theresigned] copyright holders to be of 'fair usage' and which will not be prosecuted about, even though from a perfectly legal point of view they are and may be. So on the occasion a copyright holder may feel that someone has extended their 'fair use' rights well and beyond what they may perceive as 'fair use' and refuse to withdraw from such usage, it may well indeed be taken to court and the 'fair use' act may prove to have very little grounds, as it has no legal basis.

That as far as your abstract example goes.

As far as your specific example goes - at least here in Israel, several coffee shops have indeed been prosecuted by the "Composers, Authors and Publisher's Union" (Israel's member of CISAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conf%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_Internationale_des_Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9s_d%C2%B4Auteurs_et_Compositeurs)) for not paying royalties for their background music.

This act was indeed successful in annoying many coffee-shop owners, and gained laughable reactions with the public. It was also successful in getting the attention of both the public, the coffee-shop owners, the artists and the legal system to the fact that public places who use background music do so in order to draw customers and to enhance their pleasure, thus providing service by the merchant in order to gain more customers and revenue - and thus, paying royalties for those artists which their work is being used to do so, is quite the proper thing to do.

-- L. Ipsum

So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.

Hey great conversation guys. You've already brought up many sides of the debate I didn't think about or include.

Hey Canar you're moderator. Since I've added the poll I can no longer edit the Subject and poll. I was wondering before it goes much further can you edit it for me to include not only Torrents but P2P, Blogs, DC++, etc. Basically any "unauthorized duplication of musical art" within the digital realm of the World wide web.

Specifically I want to leave out CD, Tape, or Harddrive duplication for focus purposes and allows posters to comment on those topics in a reply if they like, as we have been doing so far.

I changed it to "file sharing".  If you want to distinguish between illegal and legal then this can be amended.  I personally think it's better that we don't distinguish and leave it as part of the argument.

It might be worth noting that Wikipedia's article on media "piracy" redirects to copyright infringement.

I do not think that even if mass-reproduction of music was ruled completely legal that musical artists would cease to exist, nor would some have difficulty making a good living.

These are just my opinions. It is clear that they are not shared here and so I shall cease to share them on this topic.

I'll gladly withdraw from the argument too since they are just my opinions and I don't know that they're any more shared than yours, Canar.  I completely concede that there will always be some musicians/performers (I don't consider Britney Spears a musician) who will be compensated rather handsomely.  I just think that the ability for someone to make a decent living playing music, especially original music, has been reduced as a direct result of copyright infringement.  I include DJs who do not pay royalties as a large part of the problem and will gladly poll musicians that I know who claim that these people have cost them paying gigs if you like.  I'm not making this shit up.

I guess that was the rant I had building which I didn't express earlier; of course unauthorized public broadcast isn't exactly included in this poll.

So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.

Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.

The union has prosecuted - and won in court - a hairdresser for allowing a playing radio to be heard in the shop, ruling it constitutes as "public broadcast" (by the shop to its clients) for which no royalties were negotiated, agreed upon or paid for.

Among the criticism it received, there was an article (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2809159,00.html#n) [Link with Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-2809159%2C00.html%23n&sl=iw&tl=en)] claiming the (correct IMO) claim that this actually constitutes as double-paid royalties: The broadcast royalties were already being paid for by the radio station, thus covering any number of listeners listening to it through Radio, effectively not limiting the number of listeners. So question is whether you track each and every listener making sure they listen to it via their own, private, personal radio unit and regard any open radio who is overheard by anyone else as outsourcing the original radio station for secondary use, or deem this route ridiculous.

-- L. Ipsum

Quote from: greynol on 2010-04-18 21:30:58

So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.

Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.

No, there wasn't, at least not with this particular example.

The union has prosecuted - and won in court - a hairdresser for allowing a playing radio to be heard in the shop, ruling it constitutes as "public broadcast" (by the shop to its clients) for which no royalties were negotiated, agreed upon or paid for.

...and rightly so!

Such suits have happened in the US as well.  There's usually a stipulation about, "the private use of our audiences."

The more I think about this the more I realize that what I believe will be the decline of the professional musician will be due to a combination of a number of factors, not just illegal distribution.  We've discussed illegal broadcast already.  We haven't discussed the consolidation of the media industry which I believed has really shut the door on artists from independent labels.  Neither of these are covered by this poll.

Quote from: Lorem Ipsum on 2010-04-18 22:01:11

Quote from: greynol on 2010-04-18 21:30:58

So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.

Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.

No, there wasn't, at least not with this particular example.

It all comes down to interpretation. Examining your original stated scenario again:

So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties [...]

(My emphasis and snip)

The [legal] debate comes down as to whether it should be covered by the [original] broadcast or is a radio playing in a shop constitutes as a (new? secondary? derived?) broadcast in itself.

The court obviously agreed with the latter; The article claimed the former. Personally (and this is a bit of editing my own "correct IMO" statement in my previous post) I can see how it may go either way.

Using a radio as background music for a place where part of the "experience" is hanging-out, atmosphere and the background music adds to it, is pretty much using it as part of what the place is about. An open radio in a barbershop, or in a side grocery store which main aim is to provide its seventy-year-old shopkeeper some company and letting him get newsflash updates is, well, a bit streching it.
All IMHO, of course, as always.

Point is that both uses may be problematic from the legal point of view; However - and back to what seems to be part of the original debate in this thread - all such rulings, opinions, debates and decisions come down as to the use of the content, in what surrounding and to what purpose; under no circumstances was the debate whether "Radio" is a GoodThing™ or BadThing™ per se, only its particular use in a certain context.

And I believe that's what both me and Akkurat have a problem with regarding the original poster's choice of words in presenting the matter.

-- L. Ipsum

My interpretation is the coffee-shop owner is broadcasting music and not paying royalties.  It seems pretty black and white to me.

If the place is gaining business as a result of publicly broadcasting something that is intended to only be broadcast for private audiences then there is no question in my mind that they should pay royalties.  If they aren't gaining business as a result then they should probably not bother.  Of course this is my opinion as well and since I love acronyms, let me offer one: IANAL.

Unless the OP wants to include broadcast in the poll, I'm thinking this part of the discussion is going off-topic and will gladly leave it up to we agree to disagree, or if one of us changes our mind or isn't fully understanding the other then we actually agree to agree.  Either way, I've probably out-worn my welcome here.

Biggest issue I see with enforcement is how to determine liability.  If some grandmother's 6 year old Windows ME computer is wholly-owned by a botnet and is being used for copyright infringement / digital theft, how do we prove it? It is simply too resource-intensive to do in-person interviews and computer forensics for every instance of illegal downloading.

If I were the record companies, instead of spending money on litigation, I would spend all that money on hijacking and spamming P2P / Torrent networks with bad files.  It wouldn't be too hard to make garbage media files appear valid - headers, checksums, metadata, partial copies, etc.  Throw in some DDoS attacks as well.  Might even set up sleeper agents to share good files for a year, infiltrate big sharing organizations, and then destroy them from the inside.  Take the fight to them.  There are plenty of hackers who would joyfully take down other hackers if they were being paid.

I say keep the discussion coming greynol and everybody else. You guys all bring valid and broad aspects to this immensely huge and complex topic.

And hellokeith, you bring up a good point about record companies trying to protect their industry. I know for a fact record companies do just this: , "I would spend all that money on hijacking and spamming P2P / Torrent networks with bad files. It wouldn't be too hard to make garbage media files appear valid - headers, checksums, metadata, partial copies, etc." And this is one of the very reasons many file sharers have migrated mainly from P2P to private Torrent sites or other means where the content is more closely monitor, policed and reported if the files are malicious, incomplete, or fakes.

Obviously after reading all the great comments and aspects on this subject I realize more and more. File sharing is probably to big and too complex to ever stop or monitor. How this will affect the artists, culture, industry and consumers, be it positive, negative, or even neutral, is very hard to predict.

I only hope others read and jump in on this subject. I have to say I'm already surprised by the results in the poll so far.

I have to say I'm already surprised by the results in the poll so far.

I haven't voted in the poll because I can't find an option I support. I don't think the technology is the issue.  Unless you are meaning to say file-sharing = digitally-enabled infringement / theft, in which case everyone should be voting "it is bad".

"Marijuana" is also an accepted term for cannabis, but the origin of the popularization of the term has its roots in racism. Because of this, I try to avoid using the term.

"Piracy" is a term being used by the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA) in an ongoing propaganda battle. The long-term result of this propaganda battle could very well be the destruction of the freedom of information on the Internet. Consequently, I do not accept the term as a synonym for "copyright infringement" and I strongly advise anyone reading this to do likewise. Don't fall into corporate newspeak.

Here is a helpful picture:

Come on now, you're doing the same thing as the industry guys here. You're using the fake "MAFIAA" to make a point about the RIAA & MPAA.

I see topic title has been changed away from a technology-centered one. Nevertheless:

Technology is an issue here. By default, a BitTorrent client will not only download, but also share. That means, you do not only download for yourself (you = honest guy who would always buy if you find it worth after three listens (and of course you need to download a lossless to hear on your portapros that it sounds more hifi than she s**tquality you just heard on YouTube and would never pay for

• )[/size]), you are also spreading to everyone else (= leeches who would never pay for the CD, and would probably never see the artist live unless by sneaking in for free). Zealot words? Moi?
  
  The technology of file fragment p2p sharing on high-speed internet with fairly good-sounding lssy cmprssion leaves the MAFIAA with less control over the distribution than when we only had *tp downloads on modem lines for .wavs, or in old days when tape trading killed the music (or was it Venom?). Same thing, higher efficiency.
  
  
  
• But then, who will settle with YouTube sound? There are simple tools around which enables you to download automatically whatever YouTube video you visit. I don't see much attention to these -- not even in the discussion in my jurisdiction, where streaming is legal no matter if the source is (while copying is legal only from a legal source).
  So: is youtubing good for music? I'd say definitely yes -- at least in the presence of other file sharing sources like p2p. It's the first place I'll go (edit: OK, I'll use video.google.com) to check out band X, and I'd guess that people don't go to youtube as a substitute for buying -- again, as long as there is p2p. I.e., I'd be very surprised if there are many who would buy more (rather than pirate off p2p) if YouTube didn't exist.

Just another thought on file sharing -- or rather, in my case: downloading.

I loathe the MAFIAA, for reasons you are very well familiar with. One thing is that they are lobbying for intruding my privacy, while themselves they are copying music without paying (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87340/canadian-music-industry-faces-6-billion-copyright-infringement-trial/). Another issue is how they are treating their paying customers (intentionally destroying CDs and computers blah blah blah, including by software they were redistribution in an unauthorized way). Fun picture: http://i42.tinypic.com/2lc9068.jpg (http://i42.tinypic.com/2lc9068.jpg) .

So sometimes I download, just for the hell of it. If I hear that a (1) record company tricked an artist into a lousy deal, or (2) they have "no plans to reissue" a recording which they could with a minimum of effort have sold as file (no pressing costs here!) but keep hostage against the musicians -- or just as well, (3) when I am tipped about a good bootleg recording which was never released in the first place.

wget --user-agent="Middle_finger_to_the_MAFIAA" for nerds.

So sue me. This is music the MAFIAA would never get paid for by me in any case -- case (1) because I'd boycott the release, (2) because they won't sell it to me, (3) because they are not the rightholders in the first place. I am so fortunate to live in a jurisdiction where I don't risk much as long as no-one can document a loss. They could maybe argue that they suffer an indirect loss because I am downloading underground material rather than buying something else, but hell, they'd be better off without the bad PR.

Especially considering that they would have to argue that it is because of piracy that my > 5000 item record collection isn't growing to much anymore -- not by the fact that I am so severely p*ssed off at the way they treat paying customers, that I frown at supporting them anymore.



Underground labels who join their bands out on tour selling CDs from the merch booth, on the other hand -- that's something else.

By your/OED definition, fair use is also piracy, as it is unauthorized.

No no no.

Unauthorized = without permission.
Fair use = permission not needed.
Fair use != unauthorized.
Fair use != Piracy ("the unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work").

..public places who use background music do so in order to draw customers and to enhance their pleasure, thus providing service by the merchant in order to gain more customers and revenue - and thus, paying royalties for those artists which their work is being used to do so, is quite the proper thing to do.

Same thing here in Finland. Plus I vaguely remember some commotion about taxis playing radio music and paying royalties for that. It seems that everything that creates a revenue or enhances a service (can't be directly shown as to create more customers and/or revenue) should be (privately) taxed (not my opinion.. I'm a bit undecided, in some cases I agree, but disagree in others). Difficult issues to solve.

File sharing is probably to big and too complex to ever stop or monitor. How this will affect the artists, culture, industry and consumers, be it positive, negative, or even neutral, is very hard to predict.

I came to the same conclusion after I tried to get back to the (changed) topic at hand.

Since the topic/poll subject changed, I've to say that I initially voted "null" but now I guess I would slightly lean to vote "File sharing is not good for the music world." option.. IF "file sharing" here means illegal file sharing (like it seems to).

BTW Soulster, I do apologize for my last answer ("Please don't, that was not my point at all.") to you, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I had to stay awake the whole Sat/Sun night, so in the Sunday evening I was pushing way too much waking hours to comprehend what you meant.

Since the topic/poll subject changed, I've to say that I initially voted "null" but now I guess I would slightly lean to vote "File sharing is not good for the music world." option.. IF "file sharing" here means illegal file sharing (like it seems to).

I intentionally left the legal/illegal part ambiguous, but would really like the OP to clarify as to what he actually wants.  FWIW, after thinking about this some more if I could change my vote it would be from "not good" to "tough to say".  Everyone has made excellent points and I think that Canar and gaekwad2 especially led me to changing my mind.

The fact of the matter is that the technology has forever altered the playing field and adjustments to the business model will have to be made.  Hopefully both the consumer and artists will benefit (I could care less about those who have treated music as little more than a commodity from which to profit).

I was clearly in a "not good" camp but realized while I was writing my previous post that it had shifted. Still "not good" but only barely.

Everyone should follow the link (http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html) gaekwad2 posted. It wasn't a big "eye opener" to me but details always make an impact. The binding "deal memo" duping made me want to puke. MF's.

Interesting (to me at least) thing I just noticed: posting in some subforums don't increase the post count (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=45845&view=findpost&p=404995).

greynol, I would have worded it,"unauthorized file sharing" as authorized file sharing isn't really being debated. I originally worded the poll for torrents because i believe studies show that torrents are the lion share of "unauthorized file sharing" at this point. But i quickly realized i wished to broaden the poll to include any "unauthorized file sharing" DC++, blogs, rapidshare, youtube ripping, etc.

The reason for this is I hear valid points on both side of the fence as to whether or not "unauthorized file sharing" is a good thing for artists and consumers and I only wanted to make the poll more clear. This also brings up why I choose the wording "unauthorized file sharing" instead of the common "illegal file sharing" because I feel the word "illegal" often leads some people to conclude illegal some how equals immoral or wrong. This I feel, may warp some people's opinion in the subject. Just because something may be deemed illegal by a governmental body, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or immoral.

This just in: Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole: (http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2912&blogid=14)

"As far as I know, no similar analysis has been carried out for European reports. So I thought it might be interesting to look at one particular European report on the subject — not least because I've heard that its findings influenced some of the MPs voting on the Digital Economy Act. ... the net result of this 68-page report, with all of its tables and detailed methodology, is that four out of the top five markets used for calculating the overall piracy loss in Europe draw on figures supplied by the recording industry itself. Those apparently terrifying new figures detailing the supposed loss of money and jobs due to piracy in Europe turn out to be little more than a re-statement of the industry's previous claims in a slightly different form. As a result, as little credence can be placed in the report as in those criticised by the US GAO."

Wow, who would have guessed? Next, tobacco companies demonstrate that smoking is healthy and increases IQ. Film at 11.

I would have worded it,"unauthorized file sharing"

Done.

If there are too many people that would have changed their votes as a result of the rewording from the initial "torrents" we can scrap this poll and start over.

This just in: Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole: (http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2912&blogid=14)

That's just the same as cited quote earlier:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423: (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423:)

Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates.

OTOH, luckily for EU people, ACTA can't easily pass through EU Commission, but it will need to go through EU Parliament (http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/common-eu-parliament-resolution-on-acta-tabled/)
Thanks God, no US savers here

I think that people ultimately value their music by paying for it, and that if people generally devalue their music, the market will stop investing in it.

Insofar as people still value acts from back when such music was valued - just look around you and count how many people born after 1970 love the Beatles - I think that's a bad thing. And the people who believe that music should no longer be concerned about money are lying to themselves. Some - perhaps most - of the finest classical music ever produced was made for profit: either on commission, or in an attempt to curry favor. Compare that to the proportion of classical music works in the repertoire written by academics and professors of music.....

To a very large degree - but not entirely - the reduction in production costs due to the computer music revolution largely offset this reduction in value. But the basic mechanic still exists, and will continue to exist as long as people look back on the music of the 60s-70s with such fondness as is done today.

That's just the same as cited quote earlier

Is it really? Same in what sense? As far as I understand, other was about studying impact on US economy and other for Europe. They also use almost completely different sources.

This is how the Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole (http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2912&blogid=14) blog post starts:

Last week I wrote about a report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) that examined the reliability of recorded music industry research papers seeking to estimate the loss from “piracy” in the digital field, and found all of them seriously wanting.

As far as I know, no similar analysis has been carried out for European reports. So I thought it might be interesting to look at one particular European report on the subject...

Is it same?


---
BTW. Did I see you in the Opera forums just now, do you use the same nick there too?

From what I've read it looks to me that both studies are non-sence, on which same quoted conclusion can be used

My default browser is Firefox

Ok, I understand what you mean now. But I disagree, what I understood, the studies are in many parts very different (e.g. GAO study is vaster including counterfeiting and piracy). Even the short quoted parts have differences. And in general, a (short) end result, though it might be similar to others, is not the whole "beef". IMHO.

Agreed, GAO study is more general, but nonetheless acceptable for music piracy IMHO. It's "sizable", but not "measurable"

Are you saying that there can be accurate method for estimating music piracy impact on economy (or music industry, perhaps)?

No. What makes you think that? Maybe we are talking about different things here. Miscommunication? I've been talking about the studies, not (primarily) about the reports (and in GAO case, it's not just reports) that the studies, well study.  The studies itself are different, and like I said, even only with the reports, the end result is not the whole beef. I'm still perplexed why you posted and said that the GAO study is the "same"* as the completely different (and very small when compared) "Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole" study. Both GAO and "rabbit-hole" studies come to similar end result: criticizing piracy estimates. But so what, the studies are not the same. E.g. the "rabbit-hole" has this very interesting thing in it (a bit of a beef ), according to the author: "I've heard that [the studied report] findings influenced some of the MPs voting on the Digital Economy Act".

* As in: GAO study made "rabbit-hole" study redundant?

And what of old(er) music!
Does Pink Floyd miss the money from DSoTM?
Is buying this vs unauthorized downloading going to generate more Pink Floyd music?
How about Dean Martin for example?

If not, where do you draw the line?

Good point GHammer, I made this poll "general" on purpose so that the individual voters could bring up issues such as these. Another point that I don't think has been mentioned, I have some friends who live in countries that don't acknowledge copyright laws at all. There are more places than some might think that either don't recognized American copy right laws or they don't recognized any copyrights or patents at all.

My poll basically is, Unauthorized file sharing is it good or bad for the music world? For one it's up to us to decide what the "music world" is, you could look at it from the consumers perspective or from the artists perspective, or even from the industries perspective. And what's good for one might not be good for the others.

I think ultimately I wonder, will "unauthorized file sharing" lead to good changes for music, audio and information, or will it lead to bad changes? Will artists somehow figure out a way to thrive? Will consumers lose interest in artists because of the over-stimulation potential of file sharing. The long term evolution is hard to predict. Either way their is no doubt in my mind that even if it came to pass that not a single dollar is made from music in the future, that wont't stop artists from creating.

My stepson was introduced to file sharing by his uncle many years ago and he now has a very large music collection that he paid nothing for. Much larger than mine. His friend then showed him how he could download free games for his xbox and he now has a very large collection of those. From what I understand there needs to be some kind of "mod" to the xbox in order for it to play some of these downloaded games. He has a friend that will do this for a modest fee. So there are obviously people making money on modding the xbox (probably other game consoles too) so that kids (and adults too I'm sure) can play free games on them. Now I know the topic is related to music but there has been some off-topic conversation on this subject as well.

The point I guess I'm trying to make is, when I was a kid I had to spend my hard earned money on albums/45s. There was no such thing as file sharing, or the internet for that matter. I still have to spend my hard earned money on entertainment. We are trying to teach this to our kids, my own kids try to download free music too and it is very hard to block these protocols. So my take on this is not so much what are the artists (and I include the people who write the software for games) losing in all this, but what is it doing to our youth?

I think artists have a right to decide how they produce their music, but that they're stupid if they think they can beat the internet. An intelligent artist in the 21st century needs to learn how to work WITH the internet, and that doesn't mean making up imaginary rules. It's not enough to whine 'it isn't fair' when there's nothing you can do to stop people. It's like a King telling me I can't hunt any animals on his land, and then getting mad that it happens anyway since his land is so vast.

Honestly, I don't really even know why artists still work with record labels. The internet makes it so cheap to produce yourself, and you'll never get a good deal with a record label even after you've gotten past the stage of 'prospect/hopeful.'

I'll continue to pay artists I like, because I want to encourage them to produce more work, but I'm not going to cry a river for record labels that are becoming obsolete. The new business should be in renting professional quality recording equipment to hopefuls, advertising for up and coming bands, and servers. If that means less ugly pieces of plastic being sold, I don't really think I'll miss them.

Really though, most broadcasting companies have even realised this, and have their episodes on the internet with ads on the site to make money. Why is an industry where it is a million times easier to create goods having trouble picking up this trend?

The point I guess I'm trying to make is, when I was a kid I had to spend my hard earned money on albums/45s. There was no such thing as file sharing, or the internet for that matter. I still have to spend my hard earned money on entertainment.

You didn't have libraries? You didn't lend things to friends? I realise the internet is much more prolific and destroys a previously viable industry, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a fact of life. What effect is that going to have on your kid? I dunno, but I don't see any reason to believe it would be negative.

what is it doing to our youth?

This is *exactly* why I say that this is not a technology problem.  Though of course the thieving behavior is not exclusive to minors.

I'll never forget when I was working in IT.  A department hired a group of contract programmers to work on-site for a specific application with a database backend and web-based front-end.  None of these contractors were older than about 25.  They came round asking where we kept "the software", because they just needed to borrow the discs and would bring them back once every contractor's computers were loaded up.  You wouldn't believe the list of server, app, and database software they wanted "to borrow".  It would have been on the order of, even with some existing volume discounts, like $5000 per machine.  They looked kinda dumbfounded when we told them to go to their department and make a purchase order.  As if *paying* for software was an uncommon thing.

Miscommunication?

Maybe.
About which EU study are you talking about? Your linked blog is talking about EU report (which seems to be product of study of course), and lack of EU analysis on the subject. Are you considering that blog a study?

MPAA, RIAA.. etc reports brought GAO study on them, which also matches that EU report example IMO
Does GAO makes future studies redundant? - I haven't said that, nor I think that's the case, but it opens future for other studies based on different reports which will base their findings on more sane data, experienced by above mistakes

Hey, what am I talking about

Good point GHammer, I made this poll "general" on purpose so that the individual voters could bring up issues such as these. Another point that I don't think has been mentioned, I have some friends who live in countries that don't acknowledge copyright laws at all. There are more places than some might think that either don't recognized American copy right laws or they don't recognized any copyrights or patents at all.

My poll basically is, Unauthorized file sharing is it good or bad for the music world? For one it's up to us to decide what the "music world" is, you could look at it from the consumers perspective or from the artists perspective, or even from the industries perspective. And what's good for one might not be good for the others.

I think ultimately I wonder, will "unauthorized file sharing" lead to good changes for music, audio and information, or will it lead to bad changes? Will artists somehow figure out a way to thrive? Will consumers lose interest in artists because of the over-stimulation potential of file sharing. The long term evolution is hard to predict. Either way their is no doubt in my mind that even if it came to pass that not a single dollar is made from music in the future, that wont't stop artists from creating.

I'm sorry to say that I find that I am set in my listening ways. I like folks from the 60s 70s and 80s. I have minor exceptions from later times, but out of my collection 429 of 919 artists are from those decades. It's unlikely that unauthorized file sharing is going to impact my music world unless I decided to partake of the 'free' music. Then it would be a benefit to me.

Do I think there will be another Beatles or the like? Nope. Not because of the economics of file sharing. Because there are far too many outlets competing for attention. And far too many people who live in there little iPod world listening to what they listen to alone. There isn't going to be AM radio's audience and disk jockeys who take a chance on playing a band.

The one thing that record companies brought to the table in the old days was marketing. And that market doesn't exist any longer. It would be impossible to command the attention that Elvis, The Beatles, U2 got in their time. I'd wager that any of them would never see 30% of the attention they got simply because of how fragmented things are today.

OTOH, luckily for EU people, ACTA can't easily pass through EU Commission, but it will need to go through EU Parliament (http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/common-eu-parliament-resolution-on-acta-tabled/)
Thanks God, no US savers here

I just parsed my daily dose of RSS and there were some bad news:

New to this draft is an option, clearly targeting European law, that would explicitly allow Internet disconnections

[on DMCA in ACTA]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...cta-is-here.ars (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars)

Our own investigation shows that several of the most controversial provisions have been tweaked for the better, though problems remain. Let's take a look.

More:

Perhaps ACTA's most unfortunate provision is the imposition of "secondary liability." This obscure provision of copyright law holds that a business, such as a manufacturer or Internet provider, should be liable for a third party's copyright infringement.

Still... court order is required before your digital devices got searched at the borders. Have anyone experienced this visiting US?

but what is it doing to our youth?

Youth & culture? Reinforces "me-want-everything-now-and-for-free"?

I don't really even know why artists still work with record labels.

Maybe it's still attractive enough because labels have lots of resources, knowhow, connections (marketing, distribution, etc.), ?, and in "one package"? EDIT: Micromanaging might be just too much for an artist/band. [edit end] I don't know exactly.. but I guess labels do something right too, otherwise they would've fallen ages ago.

Are you considering that blog a study?

Sorry for the late reply, have been exhausted by other things. Yes. It's a study (albeit very small). What else? We agree that both of those quotes/summaries we posted included "criticism of piracy estimates". But to me the quotes, studies, the reports/studies/sources the studies study are different to me as a whole. Hopefully this makes sense, It seems that I've problems to describe what I mean. Anyways, I think that it's not fruitful to continue this. At least I can't think of anything else to say to this.


Interesting to see that the "don't know" and "not good" options have got more votes in the poll. Especially the "don't know", I guess I expected to see more clear "black/white" result.

Interesting to see that the "don't know" and "not good" options have got more votes in the poll. Especially the "don't know", I guess I expected to see more clear "black/white" result.

More votes than what?  Current vote are:

Good: 15
Not good: 7
Tough to say, it probably equals out : 12

I think there's quite a difference between "don't know" and "Tough to say, it probably equals out".  Personally I think there are both positives and negatives. I certainly know people who just stopped buying music.  I also believe that YouTube videos and using file sharing to trial music can be a good thing, in the same way that borrowing albums from a friend can be a good thing, if you then buy subsequent albums and pay for concert tickets, tee-shirts, etc.  So, sometimes they benefit, sometimes they don't.

Quote from: SnTholiday on 2010-04-22 00:14:00

but what is it doing to our youth?

Youth & culture? Reinforces "me-want-everything-now-and-for-free"?

Totally agreed.  Although it's not just the youth.  In a similar vein, we have so many people indebted to credit card companies because they seem to think that they deserve brown goods right now, whether they can afford them or not.  I guess the kids are just learning from us.

I don't know exactly.. but I guess labels do something right too, otherwise they would've fallen ages ago.

I chalk that up to tradition, and laziness. I mean, there's the old business saying "I'd rather have a little of a lot, than all of a little," but I really don't think it applies to this industry anymore. I think it's just people excited to say they've made it, and the traditional mark of that is getting a contract (although as anyone in this industry knows, that means nothing. It's sold out concerts and fans that tell you you've made it).

I think the start up cost of a band is really minimal if they just utilize the internet. I think that basically the thing they're doing right is not what they're doing, but just people in general being ignorant of their options because the options are so new... There's no footsteps to walk in yet. You wait, in 30 years when there are footsteps to walk in everyone will be doing this via internet.

Totally agreed. Although it's not just the youth. In a similar vein, we have so many people indebted to credit card companies because they seem to think that they deserve brown goods right now, whether they can afford them or not. I guess the kids are just learning from us.

And for this we're blaming the internet? I don't think the internet teaches irresponsibility. It's like blaming laptops for college/university students not doing well because they are playing games on them and not paying attention to the lecture. If they didn't have laptops they'd just be doodling on paper or finding some other way to waste their tuition. You can't blame technology for human ethics. I'd like to know what's so bad about the 20-25 year olds of today that have had the freedom the internet offers, since you think it's such a bad thing. They seem like a group of pretty hard working nice people to me. If you're talking about your teenager being irresponsible, then I'd say that's pretty much how teenagers have been in every generation. That's more to do with brain development still in action than anything else.

More votes than what?

Whoops, than when I last checked the votes.

Although it's not just the youth.

Yes, that was my meaning too behind that "& culture", it should have included "in general".

And for this we're blaming the internet?

I don't think anyone here blamed the interwebs nor technology.

Quote from: Chef on 2010-04-25 17:31:11

And for this we're blaming the internet?

I don't think anyone here blamed the interwebs nor technology.

Agreed; I certainly never implied that (although I'm not sure of SnTholiday's position).  File sharing is not the cause of, but merely a tool for, this behaviour.  Still, let's not that stop a good rant, eh?

LimeWire goes down http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64C0UP20100513 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64C0UP20100513)

...expert witnesses, Dr. Richard Waterman of the Wharton School, who testified that a random sample of 1800 files turned up copyright infringement in 93% of them, including 43.6 percent of copyrighted files owned by the plaintiff record labels. Based on the results, Dr. Waterman concluded that "98.8 percent of the files requested for download through LimeWire are copyright protected or highly likely copyright protected, and thus not authorized for free distribution."

also on doom9 forum news: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1399651#post1399651 (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1399651#post1399651)

It may look like I'm trying to push this topic but I'm not trying - it's already on top  I just read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8681410.stm) from another blog, so it's like couple of days old:

Jagger: ...people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn't make any money out of records because record companies wouldn't pay you! They didn't pay anyone!
Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone.
So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn't.

Calling file-sharers "pirates" is like calling jaywalkers "crosswalk rapists".