Quote from StewartFisher :

True. I have a desire to own a Ferrari...do I have the right to 'indulge it freely', should an 'opportunity' be created?

Not a like for like comparison really, but yes, you do, and yes, people have: http://www.racecarsdirect.com/ ... /Ferrari_360_Replica.html

Unfortunately for the music industry, their product is infinitely more reproduceable than a Ferrari... Tough break, but that's capitalism for you. The only way for the industry to carry on as normal is to artificially limit supply and demand (which means becoming a policeman - not really in the original job description)

Quote :

That's not our decision,

It bloody well is. I have only one thing to say to companies unable to adapt: "Time to cash in your pension and sod off. For record companies to survive in today's market requires the type of imagination you do not have. The market no longer requires your services."

Quote from Hankstar :

Radiohead may have been laughed at by some people for saying "pay what you want to download our new record", but they made more money doing that than they did combining all the online sales figures of all their previous records. What that says to me is (a) EMI are greedy arseholes and (b) people are basically honest and are happy to pay for the things they want. Treat them like criminals and they'll continue to act that way, say "screw you" and rip whatever they want, using WMP, iTunes and every other legally-obtained software program out there.

Reminds me a bit of Jonathan Coulton´s (the guy who wrote the Portal song) website. He sells his music on his website and you can also listen to each of his songs as an MP3 on the site. This effectively means that everyone who can read the tiniest bit of html can download all his songs as MP3s for free.
Surprisingly enough unlike with other music, "pirating" his leaves a sour taste afterwards and the largeish number of donations he gets from people who have downloaded his songs for free in the past and now would like to pay for them after all shows that the distribution method seems to work.

Quote from nihil :

Not a like for like comparison really, but yes, you do, and yes, people have: http://www.racecarsdirect.com/ ... /Ferrari_360_Replica.html

Why isn't it a like for like comparison? A company sells a product which you desire. You seem to think it's legitimate to steal it if an opportunity is made available.

Quote :

Unfortunately for the music industry, their product is infinitely more reproduceable than a Ferrari... Tough break, but that's capitalism for you. The only way for the industry to carry on as normal is to artificially limit supply and demand (which means becoming a policeman - not really in the original job description)

Mugging old ladies is infinitely easier than mugging professional boxers...Tough break, but that's capitalism for you.

Quote :

It bloody well is.

It is not our decision how to run record companies. You seem to have misunderstood my point. I also note that you conveniently ended the quotation there to avoid having to answer my question.

Quote :

I have only one thing to say to companies unable to adapt: "Time to cash in your pension and sod off. For record companies to survive in today's market requires the type of imagination you do not have. The market no longer requires your services."

How does that legitimise stealing their product? If you don't like the way a company operates, the response of the market should be to stop doing business with that company. That does not make it acceptable to acquire their product by illegal means.

I understand that the recording industry is smarting after the event of the MP3, and its profit margin is suffering. And how! It was a hell of a profit margin, all said.

For 20 years, I paid increasingly extortionate prices for music. I bought the rights to listen to the same music several times.. vinyl, then cassette for my car, and then CD. Each time, the price I paid was disproportionately more excessive. By the time I began re-buying CDs, the £15 I would pay per CD represented profit in the region of thousands of percent. From me as an individual, I would estimate that the music industry has had around £40,000 in clear profit alone. I knew it at the time, and so did everyone else, but there was no alternative. The music industry made sure of that.

What the music industry didn't bank on.. what it didn't foresee.. was a situation where the extorted masses, who had lost all affection for the likes of Sony and EMI during the rip-off years, would ever have an opportunity to redress the balance. Today, the music industry is being "ripped off" by the same people it had enjoyed "ripping off" for decades. The worm has turned, and has firmly bitten back.

Is it right? Of course not. It's no more right for us to shaft them than it was for them to shaft us. Royally. Do I pity the industry? Oh, no, not one iota. Frankly, I'm enjoying seeing the beast get a taste of its own medicine. Ultimately, I'm sure it will regain the upper hand, but for now I'm personally enjoying getting some of my £40,000-worth back. I still have a long way to go before I've ripped back 50% of that. When I get to that point, I may call it evens and start buying music from EMI and Sony again.

Quote from StewartFisher :

If you don't like the way a company operates, the response of the market should be to stop doing business with that company. That does not make it acceptable to acquire their product by illegal means.

LOL.... Look its really simple - if the whole world starts 'stealing' from you, then its time to look in the mirror. The party is over.

What you insist on calling theft is just a market reaction if you change the way you do business. (btw, that's my answer to your question)

As a musician I've always objected to P2P sharing of tracks.
But as someone who was poor for a long time I just had no other choice. Like Sam said, being forced to pay for each format was sometimes unavoidable. There's a few times I've had to buy CD albums I already had tapes of because they were either worn out or I couldn't get a tape recorder. Doesn't seem fair that I'm charged twice for something like that.

But take it from me, record companies will no longer exist in a few years time. Because recording music on home equipment is now so easy and so cheap, there's no call for the massive advances that they used to give out to bands. And now because it's easy to set up a website or an online store that distributes your music, there's really no call for publishers or corporate-owned studios.

If the artists can do it themselves and keep 100% of the profits, why the hell would they commit to a record company with a contract and then only see any returns if they pay off the advance? No way. So you might not be able to give up your day job right away, the freedom is well worth that.

Add to that dwindling hard sales. Nobody really cares about CDs now anyway. It's all about the mp3 (or your favourite DRM format). And mp3s are so cheap that you can't rely on them as a form of income. So record companies get absolutely nothing out of the deals now. They're crying out for artists because they need someone for a quick boost of income.

These days musicians make most of their cash from merchandise and gigs. Which is frankly quite scary, and complete reversal of what it was in the 60s and 70s. It used to be you lost money on tours but made it up with increased record sales. These days you're pretty much releasing songs to get people into your gigs (which is why tickets seem to have suddenly jumped in price, to anyone who regularly goes to proper famous artist concerts). You get 2000 people at £15 each, there's £30000. Maybe 500 t-shirts at £12 a pop, there's another £6000. Nearly £40,000 for 2 hours work. Okay, some of that will be taken to pay for the venue and staff, but you're still talking about a year's salary in one night - and that example is a small venue. If you can fill Glasgow's SECC (about 9500 people) or even Wembley (about 50,000 for a gig), you're talking an absolute assload of cash.

And the record companies don't get any of it, artists keep ownership of their songs and are free to work at their own pace without an exec forcing them to release something in a hurry.

What was I talking about again? I can't remember

Quote from Dajmin :

What was I talking about again? I can't remember

Wow... I think you were outlining how the digital revolution, infinite reproduceability, and the advent of home studios were, contrary to expectation, generating a demand for live music and reinvigorating the prospects for performance venues across the world.

I think....

Quote from SamH :

For 20 years, I paid increasingly extortionate prices for music. I bought the rights to listen to the same music several times.. vinyl, then cassette for my car, and then CD. Each time, the price I paid was disproportionately more excessive. By the time I began re-buying CDs, the £15 I would pay per CD represented profit in the region of thousands of percent. From me as an individual, I would estimate that the music industry has had around £40,000 in clear profit alone. I knew it at the time, and so did everyone else, but there was no alternative. The music industry made sure of that.

No alternative? The alternative to having a luxury item is to not have that luxury item and get on with life. You claim that you've paid 'extortionate prices' for music. You would have been aware of the cost at the time of purchase and if you handed over the money, you decided that the value of the item to you was equal to or greater than the price you paid. The only person you have to blame for the 'extortion' in this case is yourself.

Quote :

Is it right? Of course not. It's no more right for us to shaft them than it was for them to shaft us. Royally. Do I pity the industry? Oh, no, not one iota. Frankly, I'm enjoying seeing the beast get a taste of its own medicine. Ultimately, I'm sure it will regain the upper hand, but for now I'm personally enjoying getting some of my £40,000-worth back. I still have a long way to go before I've ripped back 50% of that. When I get to that point, I may call it evens and start buying music from EMI and Sony again.

OK, so you admit that what you're doing is wrong. Interesting, then, that you continue to do it. There is nothing 'wrong' with what the music industry has been doing. How can you claim that the music industry has 'shafted' you when you were the one who walked into the record shop and opened your wallet? If you don't think music is worth the price the record companies are charging for it, don't buy it. It won't be the end of your life just because you can't listen to a particular CD.

Quote from nihil :

LOL.... Look its really simple - if the whole world starts 'stealing' from you, then its time to look in the mirror. The party is over.

What you insist on calling theft is just a market reaction if you change the way you do business. (btw, that's my answer to your question)

Right...so theft is now the fault of the victim? I'm not denying that the record companies should change the way they do business, but that is for them to decide, not you or me. The point here is that the record companies haven't changed the way they do business, so it's still theft!

Quote from StewartFisher :

Right...so theft is now the fault of the victim? I'm not denying that the record companies should change the way they do business, but that is for them to decide, not you or me. The point here is that the record companies haven't changed the way they do business, so it's still theft!

While you cling to the inaccurate analogy of a single theft from a single victim, then you and I will never have much to say to each other on this subject.

Its not a single theft. It is so commonplace that it amounts to a paradigm shift that only a fool will attempt to resist. If you wish to adopt a passive stance to the market then that is your perogative, but its simply not true to imply that we, as consumers, have no voice, no right to determine how we do business.

Quote from nihil :

...but its simply not true to imply that we, as consumers, have no voice, no right to determine how we do business.

As my post says, for those who actually read it - the consumers have spoken and the business model is being forced to change to reflect that.

I knew I had a point somewhere

I have downloaded music, so the music industry must hate me right? Well not if they look at my collection of albums, I estimate I have spent about £1200 on music CD's. What happens is I hear about a cool song, I download it, listen to it and think 'hmmm that is cool' then I go and buy that bands album.

Quote from StewartFisher :

No alternative? The alternative to having a luxury item is to not have that luxury item and get on with life. You claim that you've paid 'extortionate prices' for music. You would have been aware of the cost at the time of purchase and if you handed over the money, you decided that the value of the item to you was equal to or greater than the price you paid. The only person you have to blame for the 'extortion' in this case is yourself.

Music is life. Simple as. I'm not a fan of monopolies, I favour a free market economy, where consumers stand a greater chance of a fair price. What we have been charged has not been a fair price since the 60s. Don't believe me? Ask anyone.

Quote from StewartFisher :

OK, so you admit that what you're doing is wrong. Interesting, then, that you continue to do it. There is nothing 'wrong' with what the music industry has been doing. How can you claim that the music industry has 'shafted' you when you were the one who walked into the record shop and opened your wallet? If you don't think music is worth the price the record companies are charging for it, don't buy it. It won't be the end of your life just because you can't listen to a particular CD.

Your perspective, while understandable, doesn't actually relate to any form of market force or Westernized society. For me, it's not what is right or wrong, but what is karma. Right and wrong are so subjective, but karma.. I love karma. The record industry is getting its come-uppance, and I'm happy to watch it happen. A lot of us have been resentful for a long time.. so this level of karma is glorious to us.

And the music industry, through its monopolies, has most assuredly shafted us. And the artists too for that matter. I don't know if you've ever known anyone high up in any of the labels, like EMI etc, but I have. I can tell you, they're like the mafia. One or two of them HAVE BEEN the mafia. They've just had a wealthy, polished and glossy-looking exterior for a long time. Underneath is not even slightly appealing, and in places it's been rotten to the core.

Quote from Dajmin :

As my post says, for those who actually read it - the consumers have spoken and the business model is being forced to change to reflect that.

I knew I had a point somewhere

Yep, the music industry really stands a chance of not actually suffering, if you consider the industry to be the artist rather than the machinery, the bright lights and limos.. the back-room profiteers etc. There's a genuine opportunity for actual artists to rise to popularity, fame and WEALTH because of the value of their product, more than ever before. All they need is good music, a bit of word of mouth through the new format, and they're away. There's still some work to be done regarding distribution, but the potential to cut out "Knuckles" and create a more direct relationship between the artist and the fan is massive.

Power to the people, Sam!
Let's you and me kick start this revolution and change this damn country!

/quickly makes a Rebel Without a Cause skin and dons his leather jacket

Quote from SamH :

For me, it's not what is right or wrong, but what is karma. Right and wrong are so subjective, but karma.. I love karma.

Last time I checked, the law didn't work on karma... but on principles of what is right and wrong. However much you disagree with how the music industry operates, it *is* their prereogative to charge whatever they want for their product.

Face the facts, they'll charge what people will pay - if you aren't happy with it, don't buy it. However, you have absolutely no "right" to download any of their products because you feel you've been shafted... Try asking your nearest lawyer if he thinks "well, I felt I was being shafted by the industry" is a suitable defence for a breech of copyright - or maybe you can imagine what he'll say?

I presume, if you work on the basis of defying anyone who rips you off, you stole your last TV, car, (insert random appliance here), car insurance contract, etc. The point of business is to make as much profit as you can, and that will always result in consumers feeling they've been 'shafted'. No-one is successful in business by giving away their products for the benefit of their customers.

Quote from Dajmin :

As a musician I've always objected to P2P sharing of tracks.

How large of a musician were you? If you were not on a major record label than, as I see it, P2P and the like are the greatest thing that could happen to the music industry. It gives an outlet to people to freely experience and be exposed to new bands. I've found an absolute ass-load of music through P2P services. I've spent at least $2k on music in the last two or three years just on bands that I've accidentally found. That includes concert tickets, albums and merch. Without P2P services I would never have discovered these bands. I've spent a hell of a lot more on these 'accidental discoveries' than on the shit record companies throw into your faces on commercials, radio and television. Does that make downloading music illegally for free right? No, of course not. But quite frankly, I don't give a toss.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

I have downloaded music, so the music industry must hate me right? Well not if they look at my collection of albums, I estimate I have spent about £1200 on music CD's. What happens is I hear about a cool song, I download it, listen to it and think 'hmmm that is cool' then I go and buy that bands album.

I'm the same way. Truth be told it is the best, and sometimes only, way to find new bands in the genre(s) I most listen to.

Well it's a good way of getting known, but not so good if you want to try and sell your tracks But again, there's plenty of services to do that now. I've never advanced beyond semi-pro in the music stakes, but I'm still young enough (or at least look it) to have a few years left to try

Another way to find new music is via Machinima. That's how I found Breaking Benjamin. Their track "So Cold" was used as the backing to a great HL2 movie ("I'm Still Seeing Breen" in case anyone wants to check it out) and I liked it, so I did a bit of searching for more of their stuff. I've heard several songs I like that way from different bands, sometimes in genres I wouldn't normally think about. Try it

Quote from JamesF1 :

Last time I checked, the law didn't work on karma... but on principles of what is right and wrong.

Actually, no it doesn't. The law works on what is percieved to be right or wrong in a given set of circumstances at a particular time. The law is always open to change, given enough pressure, and is in no way an absolute system.

Quote :

I presume, if you work on the basis of defying anyone who rips you off, you stole your last TV

No, I got a monitor for free (from freecycle) without any reception capabilities. Broadcast TV is shit and there was no way I was going to pay a licence fee just to watch my dvds.... Yep, Its the right of anyone in business to charge what they like, but consumers will generally route around anything they don't enjoy doing.

The path of least resistance... You may have some ingrained and inflexible moral objection to this ploy, but mass movements aren't fettered by such constraints.

Quote from JamesF1 :

Last time I checked, the law didn't work on karma... but on principles of what is right and wrong. However much you disagree with how the music industry operates, it *is* their prereogative to charge whatever they want for their product.

Face the facts, they'll charge what people will pay - if you aren't happy with it, don't buy it. However, you have absolutely no "right" to download any of their products because you feel you've been shafted... Try asking your nearest lawyer if he thinks "well, I felt I was being shafted by the industry" is a suitable defence for a breech of copyright - or maybe you can imagine what he'll say?

I presume, if you work on the basis of defying anyone who rips you off, you stole your last TV, car, (insert random appliance here), car insurance contract, etc. The point of business is to make as much profit as you can, and that will always result in consumers feeling they've been 'shafted'. No-one is successful in business by giving away their products for the benefit of their customers.

James, you're skipping over an important point. I didn't say it was right. Quite the contrary in fact. But there are occasions in life where you find yourself thinking "ha!". For some, it's watching "Police Camera Action" and seeing a murderous criminal, on the run, meet a lamp post and come off worst. For me, it's watching the music industry lamenting how good things used to be.

In business, as in fencing, you should not fear an esteemed opponent. What you should really fear is a complete noob, who has absolutely no understanding, nor consideration for how the game is traditionally played, and makes up his own moves.

Or you could say.. "don't goad the vicious dog unless you've thoroughly checked the fence for holes yourself". Or you could just say "don't take the piss out of the public. It will find a way to bite you."

Oh.. and as a PS.. the legal system in the UK is expected to operate "in the spirit of the law". In many other countries, like the US, it's expected to operate "to the letter of the law". The UK equivalent of the RIAA will have a much harder time bringing prosecutions in the UK because of this.

Face it, the music industry has lost the support of the people. Prohibition, in the US, was repealed. The RIAA would do well to go back and look closely at the sociological implications of that era in US history.

Quote from SamH :

Music is life. Simple as.

Aside from that being a ridiculous statement, just turn on the radio, where music is free. What if I truly believed that 'a big TV is life' and stole one? Would I be justified because 'it is life'? Somehow, I doubt it.

Quote :

I'm not a fan of monopolies, I favour a free market economy, where consumers stand a greater chance of a fair price. What we have been charged has not been a fair price since the 60s. Don't believe me? Ask anyone.

What is a fair price? As far as I'm concerned, no luxury item can be overpriced. If people are willing to pay the price, then it's a fair price.

Quote :

Your perspective, while understandable, doesn't actually relate to any form of market force or Westernized society. For me, it's not what is right or wrong, but what is karma. Right and wrong are so subjective, but karma.. I love karma. The record industry is getting its come-uppance, and I'm happy to watch it happen. A lot of us have been resentful for a long time.. so this level of karma is glorious to us.

The problem with 'karma', as you put it, is that people define it differently, so there are no absolutes. If I took it upon myself to decide that the government were corrupt and that it would be 'good karma' for me to blow up Parliament, would my belief in 'karma' justify my actions?

Quote from nihil :

Actually, no it doesn't. The law works on what is percieved to be right or wrong in a given set of circumstances at a particular time. The law is always open to change, given enough pressure, and is in no way an absolute system.

Fair enough, apologies for not clarifiying that. It doesn't change much though, as it is still what the authorities perceive to be right/wrong, which (by nature of them being authorities) means submission to the law is not optional.

Quote :

The path of least resistance... You may have some ingrained and inflexible moral objection to this ploy, but mass movements aren't fettered by such constraints.

I don't disagree that people *will* do it and I'm not saying that what the record industry is doing is great - all I'm saying is that it's against the law no matter which way you look at it.

Quote from SamH :

For some, it's watching "Police Camera Action" and seeing a murderous criminal, on the run, meet a lamp post and come off worst. For me, it's watching the music industry lamenting how good things used to be.

I fail to see the comparison between the two? One is a law-breaker getting caught. The other is the music industry complaining that they're victims of repeated crime.

Quote :

Oh.. and as a PS.. the legal system in the UK is expected to operate "in the spirit of the law". In many other countries, like the US, it's expected to operate "to the letter of the law". The UK equivalent of the RIAA will have a much harder time bringing prosecutions in the UK because of this.

I think you'll find that doesn't extend to an obvious infringement of copyright - like pirating music. It extends only so far as to cover cases of questionable legality -

Quote :

Face it, the music industry has lost the support of the people. Prohibition, in the US, was repealed. The RIAA would do well to go back and look closely at the sociological implications of that era in US history.

I don't disagree - I don't support what they're doing. But if I felt I wasn't getting my money's worth, I wouldn't buy any music (and, indeed, I buy far less music now than before).

-------------------------

Just for reference in case it's needed later in the thread

Quote from (UK) Copyright Act, 1988 - Chapter I, Part 2.1 :

The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to do the acts specified in Chapter II as the acts restricted by the copyright in a work of that description.

Quote from Chapter II, Part 16.1 (emphasis mine) :

The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the <b>exclusive</b> right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
...

Quote from Chapter II, Part 16.2 :

Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(and there's plenty more where that came from...)

Quote from StewartFisher :

Aside from that being a ridiculous statement, just turn on the radio, where music is free. What if I truly believed that 'a big TV is life' and stole one? Would I be justified because 'it is life'? Somehow, I doubt it.

Large TVs are not life. Music is life. If you don't understand what I'm saying then I could expand, but if you don't already understand what I'm saying, you'll never understand. Perhaps you're good at math instead.

Quote from StewartFisher :

What is a fair price? As far as I'm concerned, no luxury item can be overpriced. If people are willing to pay the price, then it's a fair price.

A fair price starts at being a competitive price. Now that there is more than one way to purchase an album or track, it's more possible to pay a fair price. It's not difficult.

Quote from StewartFisher :

The problem with 'karma', as you put it, is that people define it differently, so there are no absolutes. If I took it upon myself to decide that the government were corrupt and that it would be 'good karma' for me to blow up Parliament, would my belief in 'karma' justify my actions?

No, the problem with right and wrong is that it's different for everyone. Karma is the relationship between two rights, or two wrongs. Even if your perception of right and wrong is different from someone else's, your perception of relative karma is likely to be more consistent with theirs.

Quote from JamesF1 :

I fail to see the comparison between the two? One is a law-breaker getting caught. The other is the music industry complaining that they're victims of repeated crime.

That's okay, there are laws against monopolies, and it can easily be argued that the music industry has been in breach of those laws for many years. There's just never been a proper perspective of music as a comodity in law before. Lack of prosecution != legal practice.

Quote :

No, the problem with right and wrong is that it's different for everyone. Karma is the relationship between two rights, or two wrongs. Even if your perception of right and wrong is different from someone else's, your perception of relative karma is likely to be more consistent with theirs.

But that's according to your perception of karma... At the end of the day, that's irrelevant anyway - by living in the UK, you submit yourself to UK law (and, hence to the UK government's perception of right and wrong), regardless of whether you think karma is the way forward or not.

Quote :

That's okay, there are laws against monopolies, and it can easily be argued that the music industry has been in breach of those laws for many years. There's just never been a proper perspective of music as a comodity in law before. Lack of prosecution != legal practice.

What, you mean many separate recording companies, publishers and artists are a SINGLE entity having a monopoly? Gee, never would have thought those involved in the music business would have the monopoly on the music business... just seems so illogical.

Quote from StewartFisher :

Aside from that being a ridiculous statement, just turn on the radio, where music is free.

Sorry to come back to this, but that's the strongest argument I've ever heard for legitimising music sharing. Sorry, but that's how I see it.