PDA

View Full Version : Latest in music piracy combat - RIAA targets dead people



Tranquility
2005-Feb-05, 01:26 PM
The Recording Industry Association of America, known for prior overzealous efforts, has mistakenly targeted 83 year old Grandma Walton. Except Grandma Walton has been dead since December...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4587.html


A suit filed recently in US District Court named 83-year-old Gertrude Walton as a defendant, accusing her of serving up over 700 songs onto peer-to-peer networks. Now, the RIAA has gone after grandmothers before. In 2003, they mistakenly targeted a 66-year-old woman for allegedly sharing gangsta rap. But this case goes a bit further, as Mrs. Walton actually passed away in December 2004.

Anyone thinks this method of stamping out music piracy is inherently flawed? Any other suggested methods?

Discuss!

Kristophe
2005-Feb-05, 04:45 PM
Lower CD prices - they're pretty good here, and strides have been made by some, but I hear prices are pretty outlandish in some places

Sign performers based on tallent rather than cup size - Why do people who look pretty but can't sing get radio time anyway?

Pay performers fairly for their album sales - People buy albums for two reasons: They like the music, and they want to support the artist. I don't like the idea of the money I spent on one performer being used to promote another performer who's been entirely manufactured by the business while they let the first performer rot somewhere.

Stop assuming outright that their customer base is largely criminal - It does become a self fulfilling prophacy. People these days are spiteful...

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-05, 06:52 PM
Personally, I think people are illegally downloading music because it's easy to do so and chances of getting caught are very slim. It's not like downloading is hurting people, it's just not acceptable with the current businesses.

I think the recording industry is outdated and enforcing P2P laws is nearly impossible. Businesses fail when technology no longer supports them.

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-05, 07:16 PM
Uh, I really hate to go there, but I must. I'm married to a recording artist who literally does make part of his living off his art -- which is copyrighted and has shown up at illegal download sites. He's not signed by a major company nor is he RIAA, but instead sells his own stuff via his website. It's his work to sell and not others' to give away for free just because they don't like RIAA.

Ripping off his work is no different from stealing flowers from a florist or candy bars from the store. It's good to think of ways to make things better for listenrs, but why assume that every recording artist is ripe for the rip-off?

Kristophe
2005-Feb-05, 07:43 PM
So, your husband isn't a c-cup, money from his record sales aren't promoting Britney Spears latest garbage, and he's charging what he feels is a fair price for his work. So long as he doesn't file any lawsuits against 8 year olds, or insist that all his work be distributed on vinyl LPs, I don't see the issue. This isn't a morals debate, but rather a "how do you stop people from comitting a crime" thing.

Spacewriter
2005-Feb-05, 08:46 PM
So, your husband isn't a c-cup, money from his record sales aren't promoting Britney Spears latest garbage, and he's charging what he feels is a fair price for his work. So long as he doesn't file any lawsuits against 8 year olds, or insist that all his work be distributed on vinyl LPs, I don't see the issue. This isn't a morals debate, but rather a "how do you stop people from comitting a crime" thing.

Whoa there. Can the attitude. I was responding to the previous statement about how the recording industry is outdated, etc. The recording industry isn't monolithic and neither should the solutions to the lawsuits you mention (which are no excuse for ripping off artists) be monolithic nor sarcastically treated. There are serious issues here.

ktesibios
2005-Feb-05, 08:53 PM
Personally, I think people are illegally downloading music because it's easy to do so and chances of getting caught are very slim. It's not like downloading is hurting people, it's just not acceptable with the current businesses.

I think the recording industry is outdated and enforcing P2P laws is nearly impossible. Businesses fail when technology no longer supports them.

Not hurting people? Besides examples like Spacewriter's husband being denied the right to sell the product of his labor by a bunch of thieves, I can think of quite a few recording facilities here in LA that have folded in the last few months or are about to fold, throwing many people out of work. The people who are being hurt aren't the clueless suits who run the RIAA, they're the people who love music enough to have done all the hard work of learning to make it and record it at a professional level.

When theft has made it impossible for any composer or musician, whether they do it all themselves or use professional services to make recordings, to earn any compensation for the work involved in fixing music in a reproducible medium; when the only possible return for the effort is just ego gratification, who will bother to do it and what will you do when you want music in your life? Go out to live shows 365 days a year? Listen to the radio? What will the radio have to play?

Musashi
2005-Feb-06, 12:08 AM
Why do some people think that musicians (and other artists) shouldn't get paid for their products?

Gullible Jones
2005-Feb-06, 12:52 AM
1. The RIAA was, as usual, being utterly stupid.

2. The record companies really ought to pay the artists more.

3. The record companies are already leaving artists cheated enough, so potential music pirates: if you can't think of a legitimate use for file sharing software, then stick yours where the sun don't shine!

Makgraf
2005-Feb-06, 01:29 AM
Most artists make the majority of their money off concerts and merchandise. Logically, the more people who listen to your music the more those will increase. Most of the money when you pay for a cd will not go to the artist.

Speaking about cd prices a couple of years ago the big recording companies settled a lawsuit, admitting that they had engaged in price-fixing to drive up the price of cds and thus stealing millions of dollars from their customers. So their position is: Stealing is wrong, unless we do it?

SKY
2005-Feb-06, 01:57 AM
Why do some people think that musicians (and other artists) shouldn't get paid for their products?

I don't think that (most) people don't think the artist should get paid. I use to use Napster to download (way back when they were going through court) and the thing that got me started on it was a particular song I couldn't find anywhere. I tried every record store I could and was told by every one of them that the record was discontinued. I tried the artists website and it said that the record was no longer in print, so I was stumped as to what to do. At the time I had heard about Napster and decided to try it out, and that's where I found the song. I used that service to download off and on until they were forced to shut down. My complaint was always that I hated to buy a full CD for one song that I wanted, and so I usually wouldn't buy the CD. With that service I was able to listen to the other songs and decide if I wanted the CD, and this is the honest truth, I bought more CD's while using Napster than before I did. If there were about three songs on the CD that I liked then, to me, it would be worth buying...and I would. I know people may find that hard to believe, but I hated the quality of shared music (usually around 128 kps). It was usually distorted and low in volume and I preferred to have the music sound good, so if I liked the music, I bought the CD. If I didn't like it, then there was no point in keeping the songs and I deleted them. Now, I'm not saying what I did was right and I know that a good majority of the people who use file sharing networks now don't use it for that purpose, but I never thought that the artist shouldn't get paid for their stuff. I think most people now who use the file share networks are more interested in sticking it to the RIAA. I'm not saying I agree with it, but there was some kind of poll done where they showed where more people were downloading from file sharing networks at that time then they did before the RIAA started suing people, and, from what I've heard, there still isn't any decrease in activity with the networks. So, I think the RIAA needs to rethink it's strategy. Stop strictly going after and punishing the people who want the music and instead work with them to get the music they want in a compromise. After Napster, a lot of artists websites started offering there music for samples and even for download for a price per song, which I thought was an excellent idea (and is one of the reasons I haven't used a file sharing software since Napster). Some of the record companies started to follow suit and use that idea. I know it didn't decrease the file sharers by much, but I think it was a good start. Then some file sharing programs that you pay per song came out (ITunes, etc.) and I thought that was an excellent idea. But almost immediately the RIAA started suing 80 year old grandmothers because their grand child shared some music on a network that she had no idea existed.

I know I sound cynical, but I honestly feel the same way that most everyone else here feels when it comes to copywrited material, I just don't agree with the way that the RIAA is handling the situation. Record companies and artists seemed to start on the right track with the many legal ways to obtain the songs that people wanted, then to immediately have the RIAA sue people without giving those alternatives a change to blossom, I think made a lot of people sour with the RIAA. And it is my feeling that that's why there is still a problem with file sharing networks, people are eager to tell the RIAA that they don't scare them.

Musashi
2005-Feb-06, 02:01 AM
Yeah. I pretty much agree with you. You will find people, occasionaly though, that think that art should be free. That is a concept I am not sure I understand.

Gullible Jones
2005-Feb-06, 02:33 AM
If you want art to be free, than you can give your art away for free. What becomes of other peoples' art is not your business. :P

semi-sentient
2005-Feb-06, 03:13 AM
Speaking about cd prices a couple of years ago the big recording companies settled a lawsuit, admitting that they had engaged in price-fixing to drive up the price of cds and thus stealing millions of dollars from their customers. So their position is: Stealing is wrong, unless we do it?

Kristophe
2005-Feb-06, 03:17 AM
I agree with you 100%, SKY. I still play "What's that song?" with myself, and I still regularly download music. If I hear something on TV or the radio that I like, I find out who performs it and download a number of their songs. If they're any good, I buy the album. And that's the way I think the recording industry should look at the advent of file sharing technology. It's a perfect shareware tool!

There will always be bad cookies out there. There's nothing software developers can do to keep their products from being pirated. Look at Half-Life 2. The Steam registration system is really thurough, and I don't think you can even play pirated copies online, but you can download HL2 without a single problem. You just have to accept that a certain percentage of the population is going to steal your product these days, and realize that if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have bought it anyway. They're not losing income, they just have some dishonest people who are enjoying the fruits of their labour.

So, start releasing singles over the internet. Have the artists or the lables release songs that, say, can only be played 10 times. After that, you have to buy the song. And don't do it in 128 kps, either. Do it at 320, so people have a reason to download it over ripped files.

The other problem with the RIAA is their PR. Suing your fan base is terrible for PR. They should be targeting the file sharing networks themselves. If they have to, strong-arm the networks into better impeding the sharing of copyrighted material. Disallow sharing of such files. Don't go looking for damages. All that does is split open the wound even wider.

In this day and age, it's impossible to stop such theft, but it is possible to not spur it on further.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-06, 04:11 AM
I agree with SKY's post too.

Yoshua
2005-Feb-06, 02:39 PM
I agree with you 100%, SKY. I still play "What's that song?" with myself, and I still regularly download music. If I hear something on TV or the radio that I like, I find out who performs it and download a number of their songs. If they're any good, I buy the album. And that's the way I think the recording industry should look at the advent of file sharing technology. It's a perfect shareware tool!

There will always be bad cookies out there. There's nothing software developers can do to keep their products from being pirated. Look at Half-Life 2. The Steam registration system is really thurough, and I don't think you can even play pirated copies online, but you can download HL2 without a single problem. You just have to accept that a certain percentage of the population is going to steal your product these days, and realize that if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have bought it anyway. They're not losing income, they just have some dishonest people who are enjoying the fruits of their labour.

So, start releasing singles over the internet. Have the artists or the lables release songs that, say, can only be played 10 times. After that, you have to buy the song. And don't do it in 128 kps, either. Do it at 320, so people have a reason to download it over ripped files.

The other problem with the RIAA is their PR. Suing your fan base is terrible for PR. They should be targeting the file sharing networks themselves. If they have to, strong-arm the networks into better impeding the sharing of copyrighted material. Disallow sharing of such files. Don't go looking for damages. All that does is split open the wound even wider.

In this day and age, it's impossible to stop such theft, but it is possible to not spur it on further.

How do you propose to make a audio file that can only be played a limited number of times? It's data on a computer and thus in the hands of the enemy if you will. Folks will figure out how it limits the number of playbacks and find ways around it. There's just no easy and simple solution like that. Off the top of my head you could probably just re-record the audio file into a non-limited format, that wouldn't even take any programming knowledge.

And please do not take this as en endorsement for piracy. I am deadset against theft in any form. I don't even steal from companies I despise (like Microsoft), I just avoid their products (though with MS this is hard since I like PC gaming). And thought I am critical of your idea, I hope you do not take it as an attack, it's not intended as such.

Tranquility
2005-Feb-06, 03:12 PM
How do you propose to make a audio file that can only be played a limited number of times?

This happens today. There are digital rights management schemes built into a music file that cause the file to delete itself after its license expires. You can't write the same file for instance to CD. But when you buy an actual track from a music store, most of the time you can burn it to CD.

Yoshua
2005-Feb-06, 04:30 PM
How do you propose to make a audio file that can only be played a limited number of times?

This happens today. There are digital rights management schemes built into a music file that cause the file to delete itself after its license expires. You can't write the same file for instance to CD. But when you buy an actual track from a music store, most of the time you can burn it to CD.

This is assuming a player that supports the scheme. And isn't written to spoof it but allow the user to actually play the file indefinitly. Or feed the audio output to another source for recording in a non-limited format.

I get a laugh at companies who think they can secure their data from people after it is on someone else's machine.

You basiclly lose any real control over the data once it's out there and on people's machines. Ways will be found to get around such protection schemes. Your locking all the doors and windows, but leaving a barrel of keys on the front lawn for everyone to use. These kind of schemes have been tried again and again for computer games. They wind up harming the end user's ability to use the product while doing nothing to prevent the software from being pirated (someone mentioned Half Life 2, I'd suggest google'ing for articles about it's launch and just what a pain in the neck Valve's security was for legitimate customers).

I don't know what the answer is really, but this isn't it.

Kristophe
2005-Feb-06, 04:48 PM
No, you can't stop someone who's determined to steal your stuff. You can do this with physical goods, either. It seems you only read select parts of my post, and glossed over the parts you didn't think were stupid.


There will always be bad cookies out there. There's nothing software developers can do to keep their products from being pirated. Look at Half-Life 2. The Steam registration system is really thurough, and I don't think you can even play pirated copies online, but you can download HL2 without a single problem. You just have to accept that a certain percentage of the population is going to steal your product these days, and realize that if they had to pay for it, they wouldn't have bought it anyway. They're not losing income, they just have some dishonest people who are enjoying the fruits of their labour.

The point is to dissuade people from pirating by putting legitimate shareware versions of their product out there. I mentioned Steam as an elaborate security system that doesn't work. It's very, very easy to steal HL2 and play the single player. When you buy an audio CD, you only get to judge the whole body of work based on one or two songs that get radio play. Right now, if you want to sample an entire album before buying it, you either have to know someone who owns a copy already, or illegally download it. The option to try before you buy and not be a criminal doesn't exist.

SKY
2005-Feb-06, 09:09 PM
How do you propose to make a audio file that can only be played a limited number of times? It's data on a computer and thus in the hands of the enemy if you will. Folks will figure out how it limits the number of playbacks and find ways around it. There's just no easy and simple solution like that. Off the top of my head you could probably just re-record the audio file into a non-limited format, that wouldn't even take any programming knowledge.

Well for one, only offer the "Limited Playback" file as a low quality file (between 64 and 96 kbps) that way it's not as tempting to try and work around the encryption. Then if the person wants to buy the song, offer the download version at CD quality. That way you only get the CD quality version when you pay for it.

You could say that a flaw in this is that the person now has a CD quality version to share, and your right. As Kristophe and yourself have stated, there's no way to stop everyone from sharing. But, in all honesty, there's nothing stopping people from sharing a 320 kbps (CD quality) file now. I keep copies of all my favorite CD's on my hard drive (and no, I don't share them :wink: ) and each one is at 320 kbps. It takes up a huge chuck of my hard drive to keep those CD's there. Most people on the P2P networks share at 128 kbps for disk space. I think that if most people were able to download their songs for a price at CD quality, they would probably keep them on their hard drive long enough to get a couple of them, burn them to a CD, then (hopefully) delete them. Of course there will be flaws in that system as well, but I can't think of a single system that wouldn't have some sort of flaws. :)

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Feb-07, 05:25 AM
I ... sue ... dead people!
:lol:

Enzp
2005-Feb-07, 06:22 AM
I am in the music biz as well. So you may consider that in my response.

Many of the arguments presented here are based on anomaly. They sue 100 people and one of them died a month and a half ago. The other 999 were not dead. And she wasn't when they started the process. Or they accuse granny of stealing hip hop songs. Well chances ar it wasn't her, but her grandson using her computer. Most of those sued were not granny.

We talk about it was the only way we could find some song. FIne. The vast majority of downloads are not from folks looking for the esoteric, it is indeed mainstream popular material they just don't want to pay for.

It is easy to look at anything and find an anomaly and focus on it, but it is not representative of the situation. Let's talk about the 90% that is representative.

I also don't buy the well they did it defense. The sins of one man are not diminished by the sins of another. By defending your actions by pointing to others is another way of saying you plan to be the last person to play by the rules, the last to be ethical or moral.

COncert tours are for promoting the recordings and the artist. Some millions may be made in concerts, but record sales are billions. What was the last time you saw a Travis Tritt doll , and there probably are posters of Blink 182, but have you seen one? How much artist merchandise other than recordings have you purchased? Money is made from record sales, the other stuff is merely add ons. Not all concerts even make a prrofit.

I work with local bands mostly. SOme of them sell CDs of their music at shows. For a club act, selling five in a night is good. The main reason to make them is to send to potential bookings. But taking in and extra $50 is a bonus at the gig.

It is easy to rationalize that stealing the music is OK, but stealing is stealing. Oh he is a millionaire, I should get his song for free. I didn't like the whole thing so I shouldn't have to buy it, just give me the part I like for nothing.

It is OK because it is so hard to stop? Oh please. Well if that is the deal, don't lock your doors because they will just break in through the window.

Think about what you create. If you write a book to sell - and believe me that is a lot of work - how will you like seeing Xerox copies of it floating around? If you show off a greeting card you drew to sell to Hallmark, is it OK to find everyone in your office copying it to send to their friends? If you write a script for a TV show and send it to them and they reject it, but next season, there is your script produced into a show, that will be OK, right? MAybe it is just an idea. You tell a friend you are going to buy a bunch of CHristmas tins, fill them with nuts and put a ribbon around them and sell them around the office as gifts for some extra cash. Then your friend takes the idea and beats you to it. Is that OK? What will you do with all the tins now?

Musicians actually work pretty hard at their craft. Hours of practice, recording can be a big drag, touring is a real grind and so on, and there is no paycheck, you are living off the future spoils from your work. I don't care if the artist is huge or someone here's husband or wife. You create something for sale to make your income. If someone takes it without paying, it hurts your income. Stealing is wrong.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-07, 06:53 AM
As a musician I have one thing to say about music piracy.

If nobody ever pays for the music then there will not be an industry with which to create it. It doesn't come for free folks.


If someone takes it without paying, it hurts your income
And your spirit!

Kristophe
2005-Feb-07, 07:32 AM
Interesting side note: The RIAA isn't filing claims against downloaders, but rather uploaders. Stealing is wrong. Theft is a criminal act. You press charges against a thief. The RIAA is filing copyright infringement suits against uploaders. Civil actions.

My point? This is actually a poor way to prevent people from stealing digital media. Unfortuantely, it's also currently the best way. I understand the RIAA's position completely, and they're entirely in the right. But I say they're not handling their PR well at all. They're focusing more on the "It's wrong because it's illegal" argument more than "It's illegal because it's wrong" argument.

SKY
2005-Feb-07, 08:04 AM
I am in the music biz as well. So you may consider that in my response.

Many of the arguments presented here are based on anomaly. They sue 100 people and one of them died a month and a half ago. The other 999 were not dead. And she wasn't when they started the process. Or they accuse granny of stealing hip hop songs. Well chances ar it wasn't her, but her grandson using her computer. Most of those sued were not granny.

We talk about it was the only way we could find some song. FIne. The vast majority of downloads are not from folks looking for the esoteric, it is indeed mainstream popular material they just don't want to pay for.

It is easy to look at anything and find an anomaly and focus on it, but it is not representative of the situation. Let's talk about the 90% that is representative.

I also don't buy the well they did it defense. The sins of one man are not diminished by the sins of another. By defending your actions by pointing to others is another way of saying you plan to be the last person to play by the rules, the last to be ethical or moral.

COncert tours are for promoting the recordings and the artist. Some millions may be made in concerts, but record sales are billions. What was the last time you saw a Travis Tritt doll , and there probably are posters of Blink 182, but have you seen one? How much artist merchandise other than recordings have you purchased? Money is made from record sales, the other stuff is merely add ons. Not all concerts even make a prrofit.

I work with local bands mostly. SOme of them sell CDs of their music at shows. For a club act, selling five in a night is good. The main reason to make them is to send to potential bookings. But taking in and extra $50 is a bonus at the gig.

It is easy to rationalize that stealing the music is OK, but stealing is stealing. Oh he is a millionaire, I should get his song for free. I didn't like the whole thing so I shouldn't have to buy it, just give me the part I like for nothing.

It is OK because it is so hard to stop? Oh please. Well if that is the deal, don't lock your doors because they will just break in through the window.

Think about what you create. If you write a book to sell - and believe me that is a lot of work - how will you like seeing Xerox copies of it floating around? If you show off a greeting card you drew to sell to Hallmark, is it OK to find everyone in your office copying it to send to their friends? If you write a script for a TV show and send it to them and they reject it, but next season, there is your script produced into a show, that will be OK, right? MAybe it is just an idea. You tell a friend you are going to buy a bunch of CHristmas tins, fill them with nuts and put a ribbon around them and sell them around the office as gifts for some extra cash. Then your friend takes the idea and beats you to it. Is that OK? What will you do with all the tins now?

Musicians actually work pretty hard at their craft. Hours of practice, recording can be a big drag, touring is a real grind and so on, and there is no paycheck, you are living off the future spoils from your work. I don't care if the artist is huge or someone here's husband or wife. You create something for sale to make your income. If someone takes it without paying, it hurts your income. Stealing is wrong.

And I don't think that anyone here disagrees with what you've said, but, so far, the main issue in this thread (at least for me) is this: is what the RIAA doing making a difference or are they just flexing their legal muscle in an attempt to scare people into quitting the file sharing. But, before you answer, consider this. According to research done by a company here (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_040116.htm) P2P networks have increased since the RIAA has implemented it's strong arm policy. Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6726284/) is a link from a MSNBC.com article stating the very same thing:


Despite more than a year of headline-grabbing lawsuits, peer-to-peer use has not declined. An average of 7.5 million users were logged on to peer-to-peer networks in November 2004, up from 4.4 million in November 2003, according to the reasearch firm BigChampagne.

That article was posted this past December.

Enzp,I completely agree and sympathize with your statement. I and I'm sure many others here have the same feelings concerning file sharing copy written material as you do, but do you honestly believe that what the RIAA is doing is making a difference. Or, would you rather see the RIAA help it's customers get the music they want with compromises on both sides. I know it will not stop everyone from file sharing, but I honestly believe that if the RIAA did every effort to help it's customers get the music they want, that's easily accessible to people and still legal instead of filing hundreds of lawsuits every month, I think they may actually see a decline in the P2P networks.

Yoshua
2005-Feb-07, 02:10 PM
I am in the music biz as well. So you may consider that in my response.

Many of the arguments presented here are based on anomaly. They sue 100 people and one of them died a month and a half ago. The other 999 were not dead. And she wasn't when they started the process. Or they accuse granny of stealing hip hop songs. Well chances ar it wasn't her, but her grandson using her computer. Most of those sued were not granny.

We talk about it was the only way we could find some song. FIne. The vast majority of downloads are not from folks looking for the esoteric, it is indeed mainstream popular material they just don't want to pay for.

It is easy to look at anything and find an anomaly and focus on it, but it is not representative of the situation. Let's talk about the 90% that is representative.

I also don't buy the well they did it defense. The sins of one man are not diminished by the sins of another. By defending your actions by pointing to others is another way of saying you plan to be the last person to play by the rules, the last to be ethical or moral.

COncert tours are for promoting the recordings and the artist. Some millions may be made in concerts, but record sales are billions. What was the last time you saw a Travis Tritt doll , and there probably are posters of Blink 182, but have you seen one? How much artist merchandise other than recordings have you purchased? Money is made from record sales, the other stuff is merely add ons. Not all concerts even make a prrofit.

I work with local bands mostly. SOme of them sell CDs of their music at shows. For a club act, selling five in a night is good. The main reason to make them is to send to potential bookings. But taking in and extra $50 is a bonus at the gig.

It is easy to rationalize that stealing the music is OK, but stealing is stealing. Oh he is a millionaire, I should get his song for free. I didn't like the whole thing so I shouldn't have to buy it, just give me the part I like for nothing.

It is OK because it is so hard to stop? Oh please. Well if that is the deal, don't lock your doors because they will just break in through the window.

Dunno if you meant that towards me or not, but I don't think you read much of what I wrote.

A) I do not think it's ok to steal because it's hard to stop. Stealing is wrong, period. (I said that even)

B) The proposed solution was limited use files. I simply was explaining this would stop nothing. A better anaology for this would be locking the front doors and windows but leaving your backdoor wide open and assuming your safe from the crooks.

Anyways, I wasn't suggesting it was ok because it was hard to stop. I wasn't suggesting it was ok period. I was just stating why a certain method that had been suggested would not work.

mid
2005-Feb-07, 03:30 PM
My problem with the whole thing is that I don't use P2P software. I buy my own records, partly because I like the artwork they come with, partly because I'm a collector, partly because the artist actually gets to see some of that money; something that doesn't really happen with many "legal download" services, by the time the label has had their share.

So I resent being treated like I'm a criminal; 'copy protection' schemes out there install programs onto my machine without asking that stop things working, my in-car CD player doesn't like some discs, and I can't transfer the music to my PC in order to use it on a portable MP3 player.

It's actions like these that make me think maybe I should go down the illegal download route, as it is the only way to use music I want to legally own in the way I want to.

Not all companies are so pig-headed, however. Warp, !K7, Ninja Tune and a few other record labels not only release all their CDs in the correct Redbook format, but also run Bleep (http://www.warprecords.com/bleep/) - a legal download site that treats its customers with enough respect to supply high-quality mp3s that work on most devices, and can be converted if they don't.

Gillianren
2005-Feb-08, 02:29 AM
my favorite musician, Heather Alexander, actually goes so far as to put a bardic curse on her albums in hopes of stopping copying, and she specifically includes electronic. (no, I don't know if it works, but I do know that you can't find her stuff on a lot of P2P networks.) but here's the thing--she does allow us to copy her old, out-of-print album w/the band she was in 15 years ago and the stuff she did for Firebird Music, where she doesn't get any proceeds anymore. (in this case, it all goes back to the company, or maybe some to Mercedes Lackey, who wrote the songs.)

I have, in the past, bought CDs--and tapes, even--for the sake of one song. I never liked doing it, and I mostly don't listen to those CDs anymore, because one of the things I like about CDs is that I can put them on repeat and ignore them, and you can't do that if you only like one song.

would I pay to get the individual song? . . . well, when I had money, I would've. and when I have money again, I would. and frankly, quite a few of the songs I've downloaded, I've downloaded because I bought the tape in, like, 1988, and there's no way to transfer the song to disc using the system I have access to.

the music industry is losing no money on me. for one, there's always the library, if I really need to listen to something. (though it's a heck of a lot easier to find a book you want at the library than music, and there are no libraries for music.) for another, when I had money, I bought albums on impulse. there are albums that are high on my list of Things To Get When I Have Money (though I'll find the money for Heather's latest; she's got a mortgage), and I'll spend the money on them even if I download the songs to just listen to them first.

I may be an anomaly, but who can really say?

Enzp
2005-Feb-08, 09:43 AM
I wasn't suggesting someone thought it was OK to steal since it was so hard to stop. I was thinking the difficulty in stopping it was no reason not to try. They may be trying the wrong way, I have no trouble believing.

I recall before dish TV when folks had the huge satallite dishes and picked up network feeds and stuff. People actually wrote into magzines and newspapers yelling that they shouldn't be allowed to scramble their own feeds. Since they had been receiving them heretofore, they felt like they should have it free forever.

Prosecuting and trying to get music to people the best way are not mutually exclusive. They should do both. Are they flexing to scare or trying to make a dent? I don't know. If a few high visibility suits make that dent through fear of prosecution, then they are getting what they want. WE all know highways where you better not be speeding. same process. I would think that if there are millions downloading, they are thinking that a few prosecutions would stop them firectly, so I suspect they are making examples of these few.

I typoed back there. That was 999 out of 1000, not 100, sorry.

To say that since the RIAA actions file sharing has increased tells me little. Correlation is not causality. it goes up because more and more folks are aware of it, there are more and more of us who can, and for that matter there are more and more of us in general. FIle sharing has gotten a lot of press lately, and as more and more colleges and punlci schools are wired into the web, the main customer demographic has more and more access. I have a hard time believing that the RIAA stuff is a cause of increased downloading. "Well, I wasn't going to download Metallica, but since the RIAA is suing dead grannies, I think I will do it." I don't think so.

It's wrong AND it's illegal.

mid
2005-Feb-08, 11:19 AM
To say that since the RIAA actions file sharing has increased tells me little. Correlation is not causality. it goes up because more and more folks are aware of it, there are more and more of us who can, and for that matter there are more and more of us in general. FIle sharing has gotten a lot of press lately, and as more and more colleges and punlci schools are wired into the web, the main customer demographic has more and more access. I have a hard time believing that the RIAA stuff is a cause of increased downloading. "Well, I wasn't going to download Metallica, but since the RIAA is suing dead grannies, I think I will do it." I don't think so.


Why has it got a lot of press? Because the RIAA have been suing people. Every person I know who uses P2P software (and the youngest is in his 30s, so it isn't just a kids thing) started doing so because they heard about it in the papers, and thought "Oh really? That sounds like a great way to find obscure songs that HMV won't stock".

SKY
2005-Feb-08, 03:21 PM
Prosecuting and trying to get music to people the best way are not mutually exclusive. They should do both. Are they flexing to scare or trying to make a dent? I don't know. If a few high visibility suits make that dent through fear of prosecution, then they are getting what they want. WE all know highways where you better not be speeding. same process.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive either, except it seems the RIAA is only focused on suing it's customers and not helping to make music more available to the people.



I would think that if there are millions downloading, they are thinking that a few prosecutions would stop them firectly, so I suspect they are making examples of these few.

Except it doesn't seem to be working.




To say that since the RIAA actions file sharing has increased tells me little. Correlation is not causality. it goes up because more and more folks are aware of it, there are more and more of us who can, and for that matter there are more and more of us in general. FIle sharing has gotten a lot of press lately, and as more and more colleges and punlci schools are wired into the web, the main customer demographic has more and more access. I have a hard time believing that the RIAA stuff is a cause of increased downloading. "Well, I wasn't going to download Metallica, but since the RIAA is suing dead grannies, I think I will do it." I don't think so.

OK, but I think your being somewhat naive. P2P started around 1999-2000. And at that time from what I remember there were a steady number of about 4 million users who used P2P networks. When Napster shutdown, some stopped sharing, some when to other networks. From the time that the RIAA started to sue people to a year later your talking about a jump from 4 million users to over 7 million users. And that link only stated numbers from one P2P service!!! There are hundreds out there right now, so we may me taking about a jump in numbers that's much much more than quoted in the article I provided.



It's wrong AND it's illegal.

As I've already stated, no argument here.