archpaladin

Two people convicted of sharing copyrighted material in US:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119342,00.asp

I don't think we've heard much about file sharing in the media lately, but the issue certainly isn't dead. The RIAA is still filing lawsuits against people who use certain p2p file sharing software, and it shouldn't be surprising if the MPAA decides to join in and start sueing others.

As I sit here and read the news report on two new convicted felons, I have to wonder what the general public thinks. I'm not particularly convinced that everyone thinks file sharing can be illegal, even considering material that is clearly copyrighted. Others may think that the RIAA and the MPAA are trying to fight back an inevitable change in the way media is distributed and the way copyrighted material is handled by the general public. And still I think that others believe the creation of paid distribution software like Rhapsody or iTunes Music store is the solution, and that the problem has since been solved. I personally believe that the file sharing situation has yet to find an appropriate resolution, even with the availability of paid distribution services. I listen to a lot of music that no one else has heard of, and my music can't be found on any service that I know of, so for me, there's no point in using said services. Not to mention the idea of tagging DVDs so that they only work in certain areas of the world in which you bought them is downright ridiculous. Every time you move you would have to start a new movie collection.

So I figured I'd present this before all of you and see what you thought about the file sharing issue. Is the topic of file sharing copyrighted material dead? Has an appropriate solution been reached? If not, what are some possibilities on compromise? (Is it even possible to compromise with the RIAA?)

Willravel

File sharing (to me) is the natrual backlash for overpricing of media. Explain why I have to pay $22.99 for a copy of The Bourne Supremacy when it costs a few cents to make. If the media were a more fair price, then we might see the dissapearing, or at least less use, of p2p networks. I've spent in excess of $500 on my DVD collection. With one month of digital cable internet (able to download at least 1 MB/s) along with a decent p2p, I could have downloaded most of the same movies for nothing but the cost of the internet (maybe $19.99-$39.99/month).

Fourtyrulz

Right on will,

I was at the mall today shopping for my girlfriend's birthday and out of some corner of the mall a man named Sam Goody ran out, raped me in the ass, and ran back into the shadows. I dropped 35 bucks on 2 DVDs and a ($4) magazine, and that was WITH a "buy 1 DVD get the second 1/2 price" coupon. The only time I really buy CDs anymore is at that particular band's live show, where A) merch. is hell of a lot cheaper and B) I know that more of my cash is going to support the band, if not the band then at least the tour company. I'm talking about club shows for non-major labels here too, $15 tickets and even cheaper CDs...no $50 arena ticket ripoffs for me. (35 bucks for a shirt???)

Until record companies decide to lay off the gluttonous overpricing of music, they can count on me not paying for their CEO's third beach house.

Edit: What's up with movie companies re-releasing older movies that you could find for relatively cheap, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for example, jam packed with 3 discs of worthless extras and charging 30 bucks for it? I can't even find a regular version of Groundhog's Day for under 20 bucks without all the "deluxe" bonus features.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Ilow

Yeah, the RIAA will say that it's the piracy that's forcing them to raise their prices, but I doubt any of them are eating Top Raman! My feeling lately is that the anti-file-sharing people are definitely going more after the movies rather than the music downloaders, but I don't have any evidence in front of me to back that up. BTW has anyone else tried Limewire? It's pretty damn fast.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

C4 Diesel

If they had a reasonable internet platform where one could DL music/movies (at a reasonable price) then I'd use it. This would allow them to distribute movies and music at a very low cost, and no, 50 cents an MP3 is not a reasonable cost when pretty much all they have to pay is bandwidth. I'd pay 3 bucks for a movie, or 10c for an MP3, but that's pretty much the only value I'd place on it. Anything higher than that and I'll stick to I2hub, which, for those not on an internet-2 enabled college campus, is absolutely amazing and blazing fast (I've gotten up to a meg / second transfers).

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

Zeld2.0

i2hub is hailed by many as a great great program

Willravel

I used Limewire for a few years. I recently switched over to Acquisition because of the compatability. It's just as fast and it intergrates into iTunes better than anything on the market.

*And* I still buy CDs and DVDs. I only download internet bands or music that's unavailable (same for video). While I think that the RIAA can mortgage their third and fourth homes and shove the money up their colelctive asses, I still believe that piracy is wrong. I only break the law when it is absolutely necessary. I woun't judge anyone else for their "piracy" (actually "copyright infringment" is a better label than "piracy"), but don't expect me to put myself in an actionable situation for a few songs, videos, or games.

Hardknock

FUCK THE RIAA

I'm boycotting those assholes. I still download all my media and I'll never buy again as long as this bullshit pricing scam remiains in effect.

retsuki03

I use BitTorrent for the big stuff, Emule for the harder to find big stuff, and WinMX for mp3s.

I had never heard of i2hub before reading this, but i am interested.


Update, damn. It appears to only work if you are on campus?

trickyy

i heard the price breakdown of the mp3s...they actually lose money if the tracks are less than 40-50 cents. this was in an npr story a few weeks ago but i can't find it right now.

funny sidenote. the itunes store has at least 291 tracks of silence for sale, according to harpers this month.

flstf

The digital cat is out of the bag and there is no getting it back in. Whether you believe downloading music is OK or not once it is digitized it is just too easy to share and all the laws in the world can't stop it. They might as well legislate that water is not wet. Wonderful things these little 0's and 1's and hard to corral once they are out there.

Hardknock

Isn't it though?

Seaver

Yeah I heard that, I also know they're full of crap. Look there IS an overhead with it still, you still need to pay the artist while they're producing, you still need to advertise the artist I know. But lets face it, when they spend MILLIONS of dollars advertising Ashlee Simpson as someone with talent and who is an "individual" or "rebel" NO ONE takes it seriously. Might as well save those millions and find an artist with talent.

The_wall

I'm just curious if anyone knows what the best and wortse p2p programs are. To me quality is mostly how quick the program is, next priority is how safe I from the RIAAA and the like, and interface being the least, but still very much important factor.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

kutulu

I do a lot of file sharing but I have no illusions about the wrongness of it and I do not begrudge the RIAA or the MPAA for doing whatever they can to protect their assets. You can hide behind all the technical bullshit you want to but the fact is that you ARE stealing from them.

I'd believe that they lose money if it is less than 40-50 cents per song. I think up to 75 cents per song would be fair. You can get a full album for less than $10.

archpaladin

I can relate to the sentiment, but isn't that contributing to the problem? By downloading everything, we're making all their claims about losing money to file sharers and copyright infringers true, which makes it easier for them to prosecute.

I would think that there's a reasonable solution out there for everyone involved. Personally I don't mind 50c for an MP3, but I don't want to have to use some proprietary media player or subscription service to get it. I would go for something like Amazon.com but with bigger selection and no signup requirements sounds good.....I have yet to hear of anything that mimics that.

kutulu

I think any service for downloading music would have to offer multiple formats and possibly multiple levels of quality at a range of prices. I don't see why the lable needs a middleman to sell their product at all. They could just set up their own servers.

thinktank

Rob from the rich and give to the thinktank. I only support artists doing it on their own, I have no problem downloading the upcoming 50 Cent album, but i would never take a dime away from people like the Subterraneous records crew. I guess i'm like that in all aspects of life though, a psuedo "honor amongst theives" mentality. I'd steal from a Blockbuster without thinking twice, but never a locally owned and operated video store. The RIAAs interests are in that of the labels and bigwigs, and not of the artists themselves, and when it all boils down to it, they are the ones i consider to be important anyway.

kutulu

I think that's a seriously fucked up way to behave.

Go ahead and download music, I do it too. But recognize the fact that it is wrong and accept the consquences without complaining if you get caught. Also, don't kid yourself into thinking that it is somehow honorable to pick and choose who gets your money.

thinktank

I never said it wasnt wrong, i know the law. I've never been caught, and although if i was i would fight as much as i could within the confines of the law, i would accept the associated punishment. You're reading into things, and, i think saddest of all, judging someone over the internet. Cheers man, that e-horse is pretty fucking high.

Bill O'Rights

I actually agree with...kutulu. Uh-oh...isn't that one of the seven signs of the apocolypse?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

kutulu

quite possibly

SitizenVZ

Asking this question here is like asking what people think about 2nd amendment at an NRA rally.

ubertuber

Kutulu - I agree with you 100%. And by the way, I think there is a reason that the labels can't distribute directly - maybe something to do with anti-trust. I know that Loews theaters (exhibitor) used to be one with one of the distribution companies but court action forced a split of production/distribution and exhibition. I'd imagine it is a similar thing.

Everyone should remember that the music industry doesn't only pay artists and themselves big$$. There are people at all levels of the process making decent money - even down to some gopher at the studio that gets $15 an hour - a bit more than minimum wage, by the way - to fetch water for the band. These are the guys that will get hurt first in your boycott, not the executives or artists. Not to mention that every copy sold gets royalties for each artists involved, including the back-up band/orchestra and composers. Face it, music is expensive to buy because it is expensive to make - there is a lot of capitol and risk involved in signing, recording, promoting, and selling an artist. There are only a few people with the means to even get into that process, and they want to be rewarded for assuming that risk. There are lots of artists that have that money sunk into them that never make a dime for the label - they just lose money.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Paq

i gotta say, i don't hear one single cd out at the moment for which i'd pay more than $4...maybe less. All the pop junkie notalent girls could go on one music cd/dvd and maybe, maybe it would be $5...but that's for all of them on an entire collection.

Otherwise, I think evanescence was the last cd i paid money for and come to think of it, about the last music i bought or downloaded other than obscure stuff you can find on the web in legit sites (independent stuff).

I feel th same abuot movies. most are pure junk and overpriced ($22 for day after tomorrow...wtf? i hope that will not be what this generation is remembered for in movies although i did enjoy it) but i will buy dvd's on sale (28 days later and Wrong turn for $18.99) if they are under $10 or so. Otherwise, i can decide who gets my money.

__________________
Live.

Chris

Ilow

I understand what you are saying, but is it really our job to pay some shlub $15 an hour to get Madonna Kaballa water? Certainly studio mixers and other technical people are useful for album production (although some artists have been able to get by with a skeleton staff), but wouldn't it make more sense to cut out the fat. Frankly it doesn't seem to me as though they're contributing anything productive and they should be "hurt" by a boycott. Everyone has a right to work, but how many people who do important jobs have ended up on the street because their jobs could get by without them.
As for the promotion, i wholeheartedly agree with Seaver, it only takes one or two Ashley Simpsons to realize that most of these record companies are not making the music available to us as much as shoving it down our throat. It's too bad that there's not a more democratic process for selecting which artists are produced; I'm sure each of us knows a half dozen bands or artists who are amazingly talented and just need "that big break."

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

kutulu

There is, don't buy it and don't watch their performances.

As much as I hate Ashley, her music, and everything she stands for there is this to consider about her:

She makes money for the label. The money she makes allows the label to take a chance on an unsigned band or keep a struggling band that they believe in on the label. Unsigned bands are a huge risk and the labels lose money most of the time on new bands.

flstf

While I agree with you in principal, with digital music so easy to produce and so easy to obtain, the old business plan will not work anymore. The labels are going to have to figure out how to sell such a readily available commodity maybe similar to the way bottled water companies sell water. The technology to protect and/or enforce the distribution of digital media will not keep up with our ability to copy and share. They are the victims of new technology and must change with it.

In the future they may not have the resources to create and market the next Britney Spears or New Kids on the Block. Maybe an appeal to our sense of right and wrong may have an effect but I doubt it. The complaints of many artists that they were taken advantage of by the labels does not help their cause. I imagine the movie industry will go down the same path once storage devices become larger and less expensive.

kutulu

It will be very interesting to see what those industies look like in 2010.

ubertuber

My point is that your boycott isn't going to be felt by the executives or the artists (the "fat cats"). It'll be that guy that fetches supplies or the janitor at the studio or some other person that starts getting minimum wage. Take that as you will - I certainly don't think that you pay for a CD thinking of the dude who tuned the guitars, but I'm just throwing that idea out there.

Well, the truth is that record companies are out for nothing other than to make money. Because of that, the process they have for selecting artists actually is rather democratic - you're supposed to vote with your dollars. Each of you may indeed know of half a dozen bands looking for a break, but you won't be able to agree on them - otherwise the break would have already happened. It isn't like Sony/Universal et al aren't spending a lot of money to figure out what you are likely to pay for... Like it or not, as Kutulu pointed out, A. Simpson brings the dollars in - and revenues from her sales do two things (other than provide paychecks). First, they encourage the label to make more records with her and more records like her. Second, they subsidize the production of other things that won't make money. This might be your favorite "indie" group, or it might be the entire jazz and classical division...

My next point doesn't really contradict you, but people should realize that online distribution won't make music any cheaper. Hell, in a CD, the most expensive thing you buy (in terms of physical objects) is the liner notes, not the disc itself. You might get to pay less online because the packaging is different - meaning you only buy the tracks you want, but the production cost is essentially the same. The money goes into making the master copy of the album, not the copies people buy.

There is another change that this sort of distribution will bring. Bands won't record "albums" anymore. The days of an album sold as a group of songs that are meant to be listened to in order, all in one chunk, with a planned sequence of tension and ideas are numbered. There won't be a way to get people to buy such a thing, let alone listen to it. Bands and labels will just have to strive to churn out hits. On ther surface, this may seem like a good thing, but it will only lead to further dumbing down the music for the audience. I don't know that there is a solution for this, but I see it as a major ramification of the changing distribution systems.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

roachboy

the riaa was set up in the 1940s by a consortium of record labels to protect their financial interests.

the riaa exists to enforce record label property claims---across the field of copyright law that is pitched toward these interests as well (that record labels control the copyright to the actual performance released as a record, with the artists getting points--the composer (in a very traditional sense of the term--see the james newton vs the beaties boys case for an indiex of just how traditional it is) controls rights to the composition (only what is notated in conventional/19th century modes)

these arrangements have very little to do with the financial interests of the artists...under this regime, at the height of their earning power, the beatles made 6.66 cents on the dollar.
the rest of the money went...well...elsewhere.

the position of the riaa was and to a degree remains tied to particular formats for recording and the distribution systems that were developed around them.
the ways digital recording technologies have developed--and the media that disseminate them--puts these systems of production and distribution under pressure. distributors have been collapsing left and right--of course, it is experimental and/or underground forms that have taken most of the hit (the smaller distribution systems have collapsed first).

the riaa's opposition to filesharing is a last-ditch attempt by these record labels to erase the writing on the wall, to protect their financial position.

there is nothing---nothing at all--of this that involves an ethical dimension.

what you think of it depends largely on the type of music you are involved with--i think the major record labels should simply die off. they are unnecessary as dissemination media, unnecessary for production. they continue to exploit artists and gouge audiences. screw them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

jorgelito

My price point would be $.50 per single/download, $9.99 per album.

I think the catalog needs to be expanded. I also download the "obscure hard to find" and I always feel a little guilty about it but I really don't have a choice. They don't exist on CD or are for sale.

For example: there are two Jimi Hendrix songs that are awesome, but I have never ben able to find except from file sharing. I would rather buy it (at least to obtain a good, stable quality recording). If you're interested, the two songs are:

Jimi Hendrix - "Waterfall"
Jimi Hendrix - "Angel" (acoustic)

It also annoys me that there is no "standard".

archpaladin

Of course there's an ethical dimension to all of this, because we're talking about fair compensation for music and distribution, and copyright law. (Also, saying that major record labels should simply die off is in itself an ethically-based comment.)

The question becomes, how is best to resolve what I feel is right (ie. fair compensation to the artists and inexpensive, available music to me) with what the artists feel is right (production of their music, listener entertainment, and profit) and what the RIAA thinks is right (legal distribution of music, and profit).

Sp0rAdiC

I used to download tons of movies and music, and the stuff that I really liked and listened to and/or watched several times, I would usually buy. I mainly used IRC for everything, and then when I missed a TV show that I liked to watch (due to work or something) I would grab it from bittorrent. I'd also get the occasional song from Limewire. But then a few weeks ago I got a letter from my ISP (Adelphia) that said something along the lines of... They had gotten a letter from Columbia Pictures about copyright infringement from my IP. For some reason I had decided to get the movie Spanglish off of Bittorrent, because I hadn't had a chance to see it in the movies, and it was in the news a lot recently, but of course, it would be several months before I could rent it. So I got it one night, watched it, and forgot about it. Maybe a week later I got the letter from Adelphia. Let's just say since then, I haven't downloaded much of anything, simply because that letter scared me straight. I'm a senior in high school and I'd like to go on to college, and if I were to get involved in any legal battle I'd be in a pretty tight situation. Of course, I was of the mindset "I don't download that much, nothing will ever happen to me" but I was stupid and used bittorrent for a rather popular item, and my IP traced it. This was a few weeks ago, and I haven't heard anything else from them. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, but I won't be file sharing for a long time now.

chickentribs

Kid Rock is interviewed in this month's Playboy and was bitching about the fact that as an artist he could not focus on an album again because nobody would want to pay for all the songs on one. I thought "even you know that half the stuff on your albums is crap, and you want us to feel sorry for you? Make a good album without filler on it then you schmuck!"

My peeve is that the artists and labels don't want to give anything to the fans to even promote the music. Release a single for free download to get your fans excited! They will respond... I have bought a ton of music legit off of bands I discovered playing around and downloading a track off of them. How is it any different than putting it on the radio? We are not the enemy, suing your customers is horrible...

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

Fourtyrulz

I'm in the same boat chicken. If I download an excellent album that I think is worthy of paying 15+ dollars for, I'll order it from Amazon or Best Buy or even right from the label. And there are tons of bands I never would have even heard of had I not downloaded it myself or gotten it from friends who have downloaded it. P2P is perfect for small labels and underground bands who want world wide exposure without the cost. If major labels could recognize the potential file sharing has for promoting new albums and new artists, they would have a completely different view of technology.

But you've got to put yourself in the artists position. If you knew you're latest album that you have worked hard on for the last year was leaked by some punk studio intern, where is the incentive to create new music? The artists livelyhood comes from his album sales and if he knows his efforts won't generate the funds he needs, there's no motive for creating music. That said, most pop artists today don't even write their own songs and in my opinion don't deserve my money.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

IC3

So would you guys stop watching movies or listening to music if you couldn't get them for free of the internet? Or would you buy the movies & Cd's?

I'm not like this huge anti file sharing type of guy, But think of the millions of people downloading MP3's every minute of everyday and tell me that record company's aren't losing some money..I think i may have burnt one CD in the whole time i have been online, My passion for music is usually bigger than most peoples and i have no problem paying for the music i enjoy...Even though it could all be at my finger tips for free.

I find it hard to believe that anybody who downloads MP3's would go back to buying them even if the prices were cut, When they can get them for free anytime they wanted..I know if i downloaded music i wouldn't care how cheap the CD's were...I could get them for free.

It has alot to do with quality for me, The one CD i burnt along time ago sounded like complete shit..Which made my mind up right there that i will just keep buying my music. I just like to have the complete CD as it was recorded with the booklet.

Even now i hear people complain that they find a specific song and when they download it and sometimes there is a piece of it missing or it's all distorted etc. That would piss me off.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

roachboy

the riaa and the major labels that created it are working to defend an entire system of production and distribution that the net is making obsolete.
it is in part the fault of the major labels themselves that for example broadcast radio is collapsing as a primary system for creating demand for newer music: the creation of tightly formatted radio during the middle 1970s has resulted in the creative death of a series of genres by, for example, reducing the levels of contact between them.
it is the fault of the major labels themselves that cd rpices are and have remained as extortionate as they are.

it is not true that filesharing cuts into sales: most information i have seen on the subject tends to confirm what the previous two posters argue--that downloads are primarily ways for listeners to preview releases--which in the main they will still buy if they like it.

fair compensation in this context is a function of increasingly obsolete companies using an outmoded and unfair system of copyright law to fend off a future they cannot dominate. they wrap their arguments in ethical language, but there is nothing ethical about what they are doing. unless of course, you are of the persuasion that what exists is necessarily ethical because it exists, that what law inscribes as operational is necessarily ethical because it is legally instituted (like slavery, you know?--the position that what is legal and what is ethical are identical would have given none of us the space to oppose slavery even.)

the riaa has issued something in the area of 7000 cease and desist orders in the philadelphia region alone over the past 5-6 months. (this as of about 6 weeks ago) the vast majority of these orders have been issued to university students.

the riaa is not about artists, not about audiences: it is about record company profits and that's it.

like is said earlier, screw them, let these corporations drown.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sob

This is GREAT. Now if you oppose fiilesharing, you're like those who approved of slavery.

Although after seeing how you and so many others feel entitled to the money of others, it's not surprising that you think you're entitled to the work of musicians and programmers as well.

skinnymofo

my opinion on this is just that they should lower the costs of the damn cd's
i can understand a dvd being more because there is lots more on it, movie is more expensive and there is often much more on a regular dvd vs cd.
i think the artists need to get involved as well because we all know that they are not making the extra $$ on a cd whether its sold for 12.99 or 25.00.
there are a few bands i know of that share bootlegs, songs, and offer media to their fans as long as people dont sell them.
Those are the true artists in my eyes.