Music Thief Confession

[Jacob Mathews]

 

is a matter of freedom to operate.

 

 

They can do whatever they want. It's their right. Businesses are allowed to fail if they want to. They are also allowed to alienate potential customers if they feel like it. All I'm saying is wake up and innovate. There's money to be made by those who dare to try, as opposed to swimming against a current that will only get stronger over time.

[Kramerguy]

"Oh but its all those DOWNLOADERS fault!" Great, glad you think that. No business owner in their right mind would think they can improve sales by yelling at and assaulting their customers. Companies are not innocent bystanders.

 

... changed my mind, see next post.

[Kramerguy]

 

They can do whatever they want. It's their right. Businesses are allowed to fail if they want to.

 

 

Now THIS I can agree with. I think the problem is that the business is failing while their product(s) are being enjoyed by almost everyone in the world. Which brings us full circle to the ultimate problem: the cost of producing the content vs. people taking it without paying. No business can survive even the most innovative of ideas using that model.

[Poker99]

"Oh but its all those DOWNLOADERS fault!" Great, glad you think that. No business owner in their right mind would think they can improve sales by yelling at and assaulting their customers.

 

Are they customers? A "customer" buys a product. If he takes it for free illegally, he is not a customer.

 

I'm not really at war with illegal downloading btw... Just wanted to share my ideas on your points...

[Jacob Mathews]

 

Are there times where an artist may not wish their music to be out there without structure? Well, strict samay comes to mind Neil Diamond was originally not going to allow the use of "girl you'll be a woman Soon" in Pulp fiction on grounds of taste (he was later convinced otherwise as the was lead to understand the context better)

 

 

Licensing music for film and broadcast is completely different from someone checking out music on their home PC. One is a simple phone call to an entertainment lawyer to fix, and the other is more gray area. I think that's pretty obvious.

 

Sure, someone can download your song and claims its theirs. They can do a remix. But if you are the copyright holder, you can prove them wrong and even bring it to court. These things are a case-by-case type of deal. It's wrong when a housewife who has no clue about copyright downloads a few dixie chicks mp3's and is brought to court and is bankrupted by legal fees. So my opinion is, there are definitely channels to deal with copyright infringement even in the digital age. But casual downloaders come nowhere near destroying artists rights in the way a plagiarist or unlicensed use can. The damage is negligable for the free airplay. Isn't airplay the real bottom line for what all true artists want, nay, CRAVE?!

[slight-return]

Also, I wasn't yelling at you specifically, just frustrated with archaic attitudes toward file sharing that should have died 10 years ago.

 

 

That's why they say "an atty who represents himself has a fool for a client"

 

get too emotionally involved and the frustration happens and the amygdala start juicing up and ...

"O judgement, though art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason" -- Billy Shakes

 

I wish people would open their minds a little, even if what people are doing is technically illegal.

 

 

It works both ways and it ties back to the frustration "I wish the other guy wasn't so close minded. Oh myyyy mind is open...it's that other guy"

 

It's like litigation, at least half the litigants (sometimes all of em) are going to be of the opinion that there has been a "gross miscarriage of justice!" in the ruling

 

so the other side maybe goes wow, these pirates are really close minded...they tie copyrights to "the man" and think "the genie is out of the bottle" and don't want to look into solutions or social reform or just go "it's the way it is" and admits to not even caring! or something like that riff

 

Ifs you ain't a Hatfiels you'se a McCoy and i'ma gonna shoot ya!

 

 

 

 

I think we are way overdue to re-evaluate fair ways of dealing with such an issue.

 

it's an ongoing process - I think a lot of people don't pay that much attention to the legal (both legislative and judicial) process around em.

They look at, maybe, some sensational headline "13 year old gets dinged for Disney music" and even then they only read news stories about and don't even bother reading the decision

 

I mean "fair use" is the USA equivalent of "fair dealing" in other countries and that gets examined on a case-by-case basis

 

It just seems companies want to resort to the most brutal methods when they have plenty of options left on the table.

 

 

That my be due to your frustration - it could, potentially, get yet more brutal

 

 

 

They can do whatever they want. It's their right. Businesses are allowed to fail if they want to. They are also allowed to alienate potential customers if they feel like it.

 

yup - they are (allowed to do that), it's part of freedom

 

All I'm saying is wake up and innovate. There's money to be made by those who dare to try, as opposed to swimming against a current that will only get stronger over time.

 

That's a biz question - dare and try - take a biz plan to em, start a label and do it

seriously, I don't mean that fecitiously (which I can never can spell)

 

Be the change

[Jacob Mathews]

So i guess the conclusion we have come to is:

 

[AluminumNeck]

Are they customers? A "customer" buys a product. If he takes it for free illegally, he is not a customer. I'm not really at war with illegal downloading btw... Just wanted to share my ideas on your points...

 

You have no ideas and your points are not valid in todays world.

[slight-return]

 

Licensing music for film and broadcast is completely different from someone checking out music on their home PC. One is a simple phone call to an entertainment lawyer to fix, and the other is more gray area. I think that's pretty obvious.

 

 

notice the question I was addressing

Is there honestly a musician on here who wants to be able to control who CAN and CANNOT listen to their music, even if its through illegal downloading?

 

(the strict samay example, for instance, doesn't have anything to do with film licensing.)

 

the question asks if there are times when an artist might NOT want the free exposure

 

what you are talking about there is the mechanics of redress (which can be problematic which goes back to the "why don't they enforce" issues), but the original question

 

Sure, someone can download your song and claims its theirs.

 

That would be infringement based on attribution

 

They can do a remix. But if you are the copyright holder, you can prove them wrong and even bring it to court.

 

that would preparation of a derivative work

 

It's wrong when a housewife who has no clue about copyright downloads a few dixie chicks mp3's and is brought to court and is bankrupted by legal fees.

 

and that would be reproduction

 

So my opinion is, there are definitely channels to deal with copyright infringement even in the digital age.

 

well, yeah, they are each dealt with in a different section of code.

 

But casual downloaders come nowhere near destroying artists rights in the way a plagiarist or unlicensed use can.

 

that's what gets to be handled in assigning damages (there are different levels for even statutory damages regarding willful infringement and non-willful infringement for instance)

 

There is even a body of thought (I don't believe it has undergone legal test at this time) that excessive damages runs afoul of substantive due process

 

The damage is negligable for the free airplay.

 

 

Gonzales did try try to forward that sort of argument (didn't stick)

 

 

 

 

Isn't airplay the real bottom line for what all true artists want, nay, CRAVE?!

 

not necessarilly

 

An alternative theory on that goes "copyright gives the artist the ability to decide" if this is so for their purposes

[slight-return]

So i guess the conclusion we have come to is:

 

hmmm, no I think that probably has more to do with that frustration you were talking about

 

I don't know if we can even really consider it concluded - it's an ongoing process

 

Yes, we have current laws structures and we have a legislative process leading to new legal structures

 

so we can comment on where we are now relatively concretely

and where we want to go (maybe less concretely being in the future and all)

 

and we can even be part of the process!!

[Kramerguy]

You know...

 

I HATE marijuana laws... I cannot fathom WHY in the hell it's illegal when drugs like alcohol have far greater consequences, both short and long term.

 

That being said, I used to smoke it. I quit 10 years ago, simply because the RISK of getting caught grew with the supply and demand constraints at that time.

 

Have I made posts questioning the laws about it? YES

Have I made posts in favor of legalization? YES

 

Have I made posts claiming it's not really a crime, just because I don't agree with it? NOPE.

 

I don't give a crap that you illegally download songs (I can't change you), but it bothers me that the attitude is that it's just fine and a-ok just because you don't see a point in it being illegal... What you guys are doing is illegal, it's just that simple. There's no depth, nothing to discuss.

 

Illegal downloading is illegal. Stealing is wrong. You can't justify taking something that cost money to make, without paying for it. Period.

[satannica]

As a musician with major label experience, and someone who's worked with touring bands, as far as I'm concerned I don't consider someone who steals your album, t-shirt or concert ticket a fan! They really aren't.

 

You don't necessarily want to control who can and cannot listen to you, you want to maintain some control of the medium with which they listen. Piracy has always existed, but the scale at which it exists today is exponential compared to the 80s/90s. Sure, everyone knew copying your mate's tapes ro whatever was technically illegal but who the hell was going to give you a spanking? Nobody because it wasn't widespread.

 

With downloading, one copy can turned into millions with a day! In most cases, this happens before an album is even out! Some reviewer, cd plant operative, studio technician, etc, makes a digital copy and has it up on the pirate bay (in a few occasions I know of) before the artwork was even signed off!

 

The "exposure" argument does not hold water! Sure I would love everyone to hear my music and get a taste of what I'm like! But in reality it's not possible. Underground metal bands have thrived for decades without so much of a look in from the major labels! Most of it was through fanzines, word of mouth and people in the scene. So no, you don't need to rely on popular methods of advertising though you do need a significant budget to advertise to your audience.

 

I still say that this hoary old argument of "I downloaded, but I go to the concert, buy the merch so the band gets paid" is completely stupid on all fronts.

 

Firstly, by not buying an album, the record company will seek to recoup their losses from the artists themselves and can be a major factor in why a lot of artists suddenly disappear into obscurity. The artist needs CD sales to help pay back for their work. If the record companies aren't making the money, they will most certainly take it from touring costs. Ergo ticket prices are rising to stupid amounts to recoup these losses haemorraged in people illegally downloading. Who gets hurt? The fan who can't now afford a ticket! {censored}, the last couple of bands I've seen have run me between £50 to £120 for one ticket!!! And these aren't top shelf artists either! The days of £7 to see five good bands are gone, yet that was only about 6 years ago!

 

Secondly, the day the technology comes about where you can magically alter the image on a t-shirt electronically with a PC and USB connection is the day people will stop buying merchandise. Because then they have a right to it all over again! Uncontrollable losses which means a lot more people lose money. Moving more futuristically (though I don't think this is all that far away), the day technology can recreate as good as perfect the sights, sounds and atmostphere of attending a concert is the day people stop going to concerts.

 

Really all these people who download and profess to be on the side of the musician really are not!!! All their favourite bands would have been nowehere without music sales! It's that simple! Do you honestly think if Nine Inch Nails released Pretty Hate Machine right now I can guarantee you people would be downloading it all over the place and Trent would have a much harder job of managing album #2. Let alone #3.

 

The fact is, we will never have a big rock icon ever again! The age of the Led Zep, Ozzy Osbournes, et al have gone down the pan with digital downloading being the final nail in the coffin. It's swansong was Marilyn Manson and he is the last rock icon that the kids go crazy for, vast extravegant shows and parents tut tutting at (which is what made rock so appealing in reality).

 

Eventually that will filter down - in fact has already - to more non mainstream (or even extreme) artists. There's a lot less of them and a lot more formulaic bull{censored} out! There are more Nicklebacks, Slipknots, Bullet for my Valentines and that {censored} out than there has been in a long time! All follows the formula, all earning top spots in wal mart right next to Shakira or whatever.

 

Music is dead. And illegal downloading, whilst not necessarily the complete cause, is most certainly the final nail in the coffin in the urine entrenched grave!

 

 

 

As part of my day to day work, I personally know of a software company who have released three software titles on the Sony PSP platform and have reported near 95% piracy. As of today, I know six of their major projects have been put completely on hold and will most likely not be complete.

 

If you don't think this applies to music then you really are a fool!

[DeuceyBaby]

well you know the riaa sues people for like 18 million dollars a song right?

 

most people who make most of there money off sales dont have all their stuff on limewire like that anyway

[DeuceyBaby]

 

Well, back in the day, people actually used to buy the albums and then buy the concert tickets, too. In fact, there was a strong correlation between album sales and concert ticket sales. Aside from that, saying that paying for one thing justifies stealing another is just intellectually lazy. It's a bit like saying I should be able to steal gas with impunity because I spend a lot of money buying and maintaining a car. I repeat: stealing music only happens because technology has created a format and a means that makes the probability of getting caught and punished nearly zero. No one stole thousands of vinyl records or manufactured CDs before now. The only thing that's different is the format. Jumping through moral hoops to explain and justify one's actions may be comforting to the one doing the taking, but the argument is meaningless, since the same factors applied when records were on vinyle and tape. The record companies were just as greedy, the artists got paid just as little, and so on. It's true, no one loses any physical property in an illegal downloads transaction (though I think it's inarguable that the cumulative effect of mass downloading is lost sales and the loss of investment that the lost revenue would have created). But it's also true that while they may not be losing something tangible, you are still getting something of value that cost them money to produce and for which you did not pay to receive. That is called an unbalanced equation, where you get something for nothing, while they get nothing for something. No business, regardless of what it is, can sustain itself with that being the current model. "But I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so by taking it, they haven't lost a sale." Perhaps, but that still doesn't explain how anyone is entitled to take and own something for free that costs someone else money to produce. Look at it like this: say you're playing a club, working for the door, and fifty people decide to crash the door and not pay cover when the doorman is taking a leak. Would they be justified in then saying, 'well, the band isn't out anything, because we weren't going to pay a cover to drink here anyway; we'd have just gone somewhere else.' Ah, but they didn't, and you're entertaining them for free. Is that fair?

 

 

 

very, very good points made here

 

perhaps the best assessment of the limewire era, ever

[DeuceyBaby]

^ read that post again one more time.

[sabriel9v]

 

The "exposure" argument does not hold water! Sure I would love everyone to hear my music and get a taste of what I'm like! But in reality it's not possible. Underground metal bands have thrived for decades without so much of a look in from the major labels! Most of it was through fanzines, word of mouth and people in the scene. So no, you don't need to rely on popular methods of advertising though you do need a significant budget to advertise to your audience.

 

 

You're quite the bull{censored} artist arent you lol. Downloads definitely help an artist gain greater exposure especially when they're at the lower rungs of the ladder. Albums like Kid A wouldn't have even been a massive success if it wasn't for Internet leaks and file sharing. The radio wasn't playing it, MTV wasn't blasting their videos in your face 24/7 (label cronies hadn't paid them off yet). Kids were getting that stuff off Napster and then telling their friends.

 

Downloading puts a once local or regional artist onto a global platform. You can get in touch with people in London, Tokyo, Cairo, wherever there's an Internet connection and computer.

 

 

Music is dead. And illegal downloading, whilst not necessarily the complete cause, is most certainly the final nail in the coffin in the urine entrenched grave!

 

 

Music is definitely not dead just because it's not as profitable as it used to be. Music is alive and well and amazing songs are being written every day.

[Kramerguy]

 

You're quite the bull{censored} artist arent you lol. Downloads definitely help an artist gain greater exposure especially when they're at the lower rungs of the ladder. Albums like Kid A wouldn't have even been a massive success if it wasn't for Internet leaks and file sharing. The radio wasn't playing it, MTV wasn't blasting their videos in your face 24/7 (label cronies hadn't paid them off yet). Kids were getting that stuff off Napster and then telling their friends. Downloading puts a once local or regional artist onto a global platform. You can get in touch with people in London, Tokyo, Cairo, wherever there's an Internet connection and computer. Music is definitely not dead just because it's not as profitable as it used to be. Music is alive and well and amazing songs are being written every day.

 

 

How many of those people who download the music are going to run out and buy it? NONE! They already own it now.

 

So all that "exposure" means ZERO revenue to the artist.

 

How can that model possible support *new* artists? It can't. Which is why great musicians end up busing tables at Outback steak house instead of working on new material for you {censored}ing fantastic fans...

[Kramerguy]

well you know the riaa sues people for like 18 million dollars a song right? most people who make most of there money off sales dont have all their stuff on limewire like that anyway

 

if you are going to cite numbers, at least use google and type something that has at least a remote factual basis

[Jacob Mathews]

There's absolutely no way you can prevent someone from copying your material. If it's put onto a listenable medium, it can be copied. This even applies to music players online. It should be understood as part of the accepted risk of being a commercial artist in the 21st century. The argument isn't worth having because it's impossible to stop. If you don't like that people can make unauthorized copies of your music then don't release it. Only give private listening sessions to people in your studio one at a time and pat them down for hidden tape recorders beforehand. See how much a rock star you become then!

[BlueStrat]

 

There's absolutely no way you can prevent someone from copying your material. If it's put onto a listenable medium, it can be copied. This even applies to music players online. It should be understood as part of the accepted risk of being a commercial artist in the 21st century. The argument isn't worth having because it's impossible to stop. If you don't like that people can make unauthorized copies of your music then don't release it. Only give private listening sessions to people in your studio one at a time and pat them down for hidden tape recorders beforehand. See how much a rock star you become then!

 

 

 

Of course, you are correct. But you've just proven my point: people steal music simply because they can, and not for any other reason they may have convinced themselves of. They are no different than looters who help themselves to clothes and electronics from smashed store windows during a riot.

 

Necessity may be the mother of invention, but opportunity is the mother of theft. It would be logical to expect more from musicians themselves, but I guess not-human nature is what it is regardless of what they do.

[Jacob Mathews]

So the solution to this unsolvable problem would be...

 

(drum roll)

[Guest Guest]

I make music. I don't get paid. I don't feel guilty about downloading music.

[Blackwatch]

 

I'm starting to develop a theory, which requires a lot more thought and is probably not original, but roughly it goes something like this: the utter devaluation of music is going to ultimately help, not hurt. Once all music has no value other than intrinsic value, then every form of music will have an equal shot at some kind of success. Since money won't be an initial indicator of that success, we'll have to look at other markers. I believe it is the drive for profit that innovates, in most cases, but in the arts, I think the drive for profit stagnates. It creates the constant attempt to recreate that which has been profitable, changing only enough to be identifiable as being "something new. " This is why we have the same basic band format that we've had for 50 years-guitar, bass. drums and keyboards. That format led to huge successes financially from the 50s on, and since then, everything that has been marketable has used the same basic format. Profit doesn't allow one to see how utterly stale and played out it has become. We're trying to build something new out of the same Playdough and pipe cleaners we were handed in the first grade, so to speak.

 

 

Bluestrat....you never cease to amaze me. I think you've hit it on the head. When money get taken out of the equation artists will only make money for arts sake, because they will have to.

 

But there's that old line..."Art for art's sake...money for God's Sake"

 

It seems that so many kids nowadays really want fame and money and that needs to be cleared out of the process. Art will suffer for it but it's not going away anytime soon.

 

They didn't get royalties for painting the horses in the caves........

[Dancebass]

 

They didn't get royalties for painting the horses in the caves........

 

 

Holy crap! Do you realize how many silly French Tourist Agencies have cashed in on the backs of our hapless barbarian friends!

 

This is a travesty. Typical, ASCAP asleep at the goddamn switch again!

[slight-return]

So the solution to this unsolvable problem would be... (drum roll)

 

There may very well not be a "solution" - much of what society deals with does not have a single clear solution. We can install systems to discourage (while maintaining freedom to legitimately operate) and provide redress when things happen, but these things still happen (if they didn't we wouldn't need punative nor redmidial systems)

 

wrongful death, real property conversion, personal property conversion, theft by deception, defamation, operation of a vehicle in a number of unsafe ways, child porn, theft of services, assault, improper disposal of dangerous chemicals...

 

these, too, remain unsolved