8 ms·

So what about when a group like Pirate Bay decides to start using GPL'ed software without following the GPL rules because they don't care about copyright? I'm

So what about when a group like Pirate Bay decides to start using GPL'ed software without following the GPL rules because they don't care about copyright? I'm sorry, but I think music theft is about one of the lamest things you can do. If you really like music, you'll support the artists. I don't want to hear the BS line, "oh, they don't get any money from the record sales anyway." Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? They may not get much money DIRECTLY from record sales, but that's really not the point. If you steal music, you are completely and utterly useless to the music community, and it would be better off without you. You are a short-sighted mooch, and you're just bringing people down for your own temporary benefit.

jimmyjim 17y ago
> Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? What a ridiculous thing to say. What would happen then? The middlemen would be cut out. Artists will distribute their creations themselves. If they're not savvy enough for that, optimized CMS will sprout about that'll make it easier for them to do so. The best thing is that record-chosen records won't come to top, the best and most preferred things will (to use a crude example, they'll find their way to the top in a Digg-like fashion). This is exactly what needs to happen. This is exactly the turn that needs to be taken. As for the recording costs -- well, the only people that can afford it at the moment are the artists that are ALREADY at the top. Musicianship is a risky business to get into in the first place, and it's just really their responsibility to make smart and systematic decisions themselves in the circumstances they're in. Beside that, the matter of the fact is that it's becoming very possible to do more 1) with less people, and 2) with less money. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo -- a HQ video, that anyone reasonable would have to admit beats professionally-created movies in terms of quality (I'll myself admit that the acting isn't the best it could have been). When this happens, a new connection will be born between the artists and the customers. And I think this newfangled connection might encourage a few more people to purchase music (which, hopefully, will go at a cheaper cost than before due to this new, middleman-less, direct artist-to-customer relationship).
- pj 17y ago
  I think you really underestimate the difficulty in distribution.
  - jimmyjim 17y ago
    I have no past experience with anything having to do with distribution, so I can't really say with confidence, but I do think that once we enter this artist-to-customer model, distribution services of a new kind will come about where an artist could place an order and a service could "hook them up" with graphic artists to create artwork for album covers and all that, take care of CD-creations and ship them to customers, etc. Actually, such a service already exists, I just don't remember the URI at the moment.
  - amalcon 17y ago
    Distribution isn't difficult at all. It's happening without artists' consent as we speak. The hard parts are marketing and monetization. It's possible that someone might come around and fix those problems if the record labels weren't holding it back. That said, the best way to bring such a state about isn't to infringe their copyrights. It's to listen to music that they don't have copyright to in the first place.
    - seertaak 17y ago
      > It's happening without artists' consent as we speak. No, that's not "distribution". Suppose I own a shop in a lawless city where police are known not to enforce property rights. I place my fruit on baskets just outside the shop, and a significant amount of people steal fruit from the front of my shop. I think you'll agree that it would be trite to call this "distribution", for the simple reason that I'm not in control of the distribution. > The hard parts are marketing and monetization. It's possible that someone might come around and fix those problems if the record labels weren't holding it back. While I agree that marketing is "hard", I don't think it's "the problem". The problem is monetization: first, there is rampant piracy, and this canibalizes sales in both the physical and digital domains, and second, average prices in the digital domain are much lower than CDs. The first problem can be solved -- though it's doubtful that the average consumer will like the solution because the end result will be for his net wealth or time to diminish! -- through a mixture of carrot (hulu.com, Spotify, and iTunes come to mind) and stick (the three strikes law in France comes to mind). The second problem is not so much a problem as a new reality. The equilibrium price of music is probably somewhat above its current price (due to the effect of piracy and the "everything for free" culture prevalent online in the last ten years [which appears, to my mind, to be drawing to a close]), but it is certainly below CD prices. In addition, buying patterns have changed and products like iTunes make it easy to purchase individual tracks, further eroding revenue for the record companies. I don't think this is a trend you can reverse, because any attempt to restrict the buyer to purchasing the entire album will be met with increased piracy. Record companies will have to, and are, adjusting to this by emphasizing other revenue streams, e.g. merchandising, 360 degree contracts, licensing revenue maximization, etc.
aceofspades19 17y ago
Repeat after me, downloading music is not theft, its copyright infringement
anigbrowl 17y ago
I've never downloaded pirate music or movies. Software, yes. But I have worked in the music business. Looks, all but the most successful recording artists make nothing off studio albums. The money comes from live performance and (if they're lucky) radio royalties. Revenues from CD sales or the like make an absolute pittance - most of it gets eaten up along the distribution chain, billed for marketing or whatever, and the the record companies engage in a great deal of creative accounting. If you ever read up on contract law in the recording industry you'd be horrified. Your dollar spent in a record store benefits the the artist to the tune of about $0.01. You want to really support someone you like, buy a ticket and go to hear them sing/play, for which they'll get a decent percentage of the ticket value.
- sho 17y ago
  Too right. In most cases if you pirate the CDs and then spend the money on concert tickets instead, you're helping the artist. Say you like an artist. They've got 3 CDs out. You could buy them all, or you could spend the ~$70 on tickets to their next show. What do you, as the true fan who wants to support the artist, do? If you buy the CDs and skip the show, they get maybe a dollar or two, depending on their negotiating clout with the label. If you pirate the CDs and buy the tickets, they could get a good chunk - maybe $20-30. Bring a friend, double that. Buy a T-shirt - maybe about $5 or so. Make sure you buy the shirt at the concert, they'll receive more, usually. It's true - ethical fans pirate! This is only true for artists attached to major labels, though - if they're selling their own, NIN-style, buy the music if you really want to support them. Or hell, fedex them a money order ...
johnnybgoode 17y ago
Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? I'm just going to throw this out there without going into a lot of detail at first. I'm not saying you're doing this, but why does anyone assume that music funding should be at the level it's at now? Maybe some of the resources that go into the music business would, and should, be directed elsewhere. There isn't enough space here to list all of the possible alternative uses. In other words, artificially propping up the record industry is costing us dearly.
- DanielStraight 17y ago
  I can honestly think of very few things that are a better value for $10 than a CD. ...in fact, I can't think of any.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Really? You can't think of any better use for anyone of $10 than buying a CD? That's OK. I'm sure others can and will come up with something.
    - DanielStraight 17y ago
      I should've been more specific. I can think of nothing I've bought for $10 that has produced more lasting value for me than certain CDs. I do not, of course, mean that buying CDs is more important than buying malaria medicine for dying children in Africa. Honestly, I think this was implicit. I mean when I compare things like... a few pairs of socks... lunch... a keyboard... and ATB's No Silence. There's just no comparison. Lunch is satisfying for 15 minutes. A good CD is satisfying for a lifetime.
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        OK, but how is that relevant? I assume you don't expect everyone to value a CD at $10 just because you do.

jimmyjim 17y ago

> Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? What a ridiculous thing to say. What would happen then? The middlemen would be cut out. Artists will distribute their creations themselves. If they're not savvy enough for that, optimized CMS will sprout about that'll make it easier for them to do so. The best thing is that record-chosen records won't come to top, the best and most preferred things will (to use a crude example, they'll find their way to the top in a Digg-like fashion). This is exactly what needs to happen. This is exactly the turn that needs to be taken. As for the recording costs -- well, the only people that can afford it at the moment are the artists that are ALREADY at the top. Musicianship is a risky business to get into in the first place, and it's just really their responsibility to make smart and systematic decisions themselves in the circumstances they're in. Beside that, the matter of the fact is that it's becoming very possible to do more 1) with less people, and 2) with less money. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1UPMEmCqZo -- a HQ video, that anyone reasonable would have to admit beats professionally-created movies in terms of quality (I'll myself admit that the acting isn't the best it could have been). When this happens, a new connection will be born between the artists and the customers. And I think this newfangled connection might encourage a few more people to purchase music (which, hopefully, will go at a cheaper cost than before due to this new, middleman-less, direct artist-to-customer relationship).

pj 17y ago
I think you really underestimate the difficulty in distribution.
- jimmyjim 17y ago
  I have no past experience with anything having to do with distribution, so I can't really say with confidence, but I do think that once we enter this artist-to-customer model, distribution services of a new kind will come about where an artist could place an order and a service could "hook them up" with graphic artists to create artwork for album covers and all that, take care of CD-creations and ship them to customers, etc. Actually, such a service already exists, I just don't remember the URI at the moment.
- amalcon 17y ago
  Distribution isn't difficult at all. It's happening without artists' consent as we speak. The hard parts are marketing and monetization. It's possible that someone might come around and fix those problems if the record labels weren't holding it back. That said, the best way to bring such a state about isn't to infringe their copyrights. It's to listen to music that they don't have copyright to in the first place.
  - seertaak 17y ago
    > It's happening without artists' consent as we speak. No, that's not "distribution". Suppose I own a shop in a lawless city where police are known not to enforce property rights. I place my fruit on baskets just outside the shop, and a significant amount of people steal fruit from the front of my shop. I think you'll agree that it would be trite to call this "distribution", for the simple reason that I'm not in control of the distribution. > The hard parts are marketing and monetization. It's possible that someone might come around and fix those problems if the record labels weren't holding it back. While I agree that marketing is "hard", I don't think it's "the problem". The problem is monetization: first, there is rampant piracy, and this canibalizes sales in both the physical and digital domains, and second, average prices in the digital domain are much lower than CDs. The first problem can be solved -- though it's doubtful that the average consumer will like the solution because the end result will be for his net wealth or time to diminish! -- through a mixture of carrot (hulu.com, Spotify, and iTunes come to mind) and stick (the three strikes law in France comes to mind). The second problem is not so much a problem as a new reality. The equilibrium price of music is probably somewhat above its current price (due to the effect of piracy and the "everything for free" culture prevalent online in the last ten years [which appears, to my mind, to be drawing to a close]), but it is certainly below CD prices. In addition, buying patterns have changed and products like iTunes make it easy to purchase individual tracks, further eroding revenue for the record companies. I don't think this is a trend you can reverse, because any attempt to restrict the buyer to purchasing the entire album will be met with increased piracy. Record companies will have to, and are, adjusting to this by emphasizing other revenue streams, e.g. merchandising, 360 degree contracts, licensing revenue maximization, etc.

aceofspades19 17y ago

Repeat after me, downloading music is not theft, its copyright infringement

anigbrowl 17y ago

I've never downloaded pirate music or movies. Software, yes. But I have worked in the music business. Looks, all but the most successful recording artists make nothing off studio albums. The money comes from live performance and (if they're lucky) radio royalties. Revenues from CD sales or the like make an absolute pittance - most of it gets eaten up along the distribution chain, billed for marketing or whatever, and the the record companies engage in a great deal of creative accounting. If you ever read up on contract law in the recording industry you'd be horrified. Your dollar spent in a record store benefits the the artist to the tune of about $0.01. You want to really support someone you like, buy a ticket and go to hear them sing/play, for which they'll get a decent percentage of the ticket value.

sho 17y ago
Too right. In most cases if you pirate the CDs and then spend the money on concert tickets instead, you're helping the artist. Say you like an artist. They've got 3 CDs out. You could buy them all, or you could spend the ~$70 on tickets to their next show. What do you, as the true fan who wants to support the artist, do? If you buy the CDs and skip the show, they get maybe a dollar or two, depending on their negotiating clout with the label. If you pirate the CDs and buy the tickets, they could get a good chunk - maybe $20-30. Bring a friend, double that. Buy a T-shirt - maybe about $5 or so. Make sure you buy the shirt at the concert, they'll receive more, usually. It's true - ethical fans pirate! This is only true for artists attached to major labels, though - if they're selling their own, NIN-style, buy the music if you really want to support them. Or hell, fedex them a money order ...

johnnybgoode 17y ago

Sure, so when the record companies collapse and there's no one to distribute their albums or pay the recording costs, then what? I'm just going to throw this out there without going into a lot of detail at first. I'm not saying you're doing this, but why does anyone assume that music funding should be at the level it's at now? Maybe some of the resources that go into the music business would, and should, be directed elsewhere. There isn't enough space here to list all of the possible alternative uses. In other words, artificially propping up the record industry is costing us dearly.

DanielStraight 17y ago
I can honestly think of very few things that are a better value for $10 than a CD. ...in fact, I can't think of any.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Really? You can't think of any better use for anyone of $10 than buying a CD? That's OK. I'm sure others can and will come up with something.
  - DanielStraight 17y ago
    I should've been more specific. I can think of nothing I've bought for $10 that has produced more lasting value for me than certain CDs. I do not, of course, mean that buying CDs is more important than buying malaria medicine for dying children in Africa. Honestly, I think this was implicit. I mean when I compare things like... a few pairs of socks... lunch... a keyboard... and ATB's No Silence. There's just no comparison. Lunch is satisfying for 15 minutes. A good CD is satisfying for a lifetime.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      OK, but how is that relevant? I assume you don't expect everyone to value a CD at $10 just because you do.