Another LONG rant about people not paying for music

[zenmindbeginner]

The theft of a binary file which wasn't stocked in a store, sitting in a warehouse or in someone's place of business or home is not the same as stealing someone's inventory or personal possessions out of their home

And this statement is EXACTLY why so many people rip off other's intellectual property with no feelings of wrong... because they don't believe they are actually stealing anything. Every other thing you claim comes down to the simple fact that you don't believe copying electronic data is theft, or you know it is but don't give a shit.

With all your philosophizing about the free market and the music industry, wouldn't you argue that if you yourself cannot afford to acquire a product legally, that you shouldn't have the right to enjoy the product? Maybe you need to go work harder so you can pay for those .99 cent downloads. But you have no incentive too, because hey, it's only electronic data, right?

The same argument could be said for buying used CDs... it's theft of the artist's royalties right? Is buying a used CD criminal? Absolutely not, but most of you would be crying THEFT! The artist did not get his 10 cents!!!!!! Arrggghhh!!!!!

First of all, I work plenty hard thank you.

Second of all, if Kmart buys a DVD player for $30 cost and someone steals it, they actually PAID $30 for the physical item that was stolen and so are out at the bottom line, the cost of the item plus any profits they would have made on the unit.

If someone steals a grill that was in my backyard and I paid $50 for that grill, then the thief effectively made out with a grill that I paid money for.

A binary file is simply not the same thing as a physical item that was purchased at cost or personal items that were purchased with income.

My point is that iTunes doesn't buy pallets full of CDs and stores them in a warehouse... the two forms of theft are different by nature.

[SteveB]

A binary file is simply not the same thing as a physical item that was purchased at cost or personal items that were purchased with income.

My point is that iTunes doesn't buy pallets full of CDs and stores them in a warehouse... the two forms of theft are different by nature.

looks like you formed your reply before I "depersonalized" mine a bit, but anyway.

Lets say I make a recording, in a studio, hire a band, spend time writing songs, make an album. I decide not to bother with physical media, and just put the album up on amazon and iTunes for download. It never had physical form. People deciding to share the mp3's around the world for free rather than downloading for .99 cents certainly will be theft, unless all the work I put into creating the album in the first place has zero inherent value. The medium is meaningless, that is why it's called INTELLECTUAL property.

[zenmindbeginner]

A binary file is simply not the same thing as a physical item that was purchased at cost or personal items that were purchased with income.

My point is that iTunes doesn't buy pallets full of CDs and stores them in a warehouse... the two forms of theft are different by nature.

looks like you formed your reply before I "depersonalized" mine a bit, but anyway.

Lets say I make a recording, in a studio, hire a band, spend time writing songs, make an album. I decide not to bother with physical media, and just put the album up on amazon and iTunes for download. It never had physical form. People deciding to share the mp3's around the world for free rather than downloading for .99 cents certainly will be theft, unless all the work I put into creating the album in the first place has zero inherent value. The medium is meaningless, that is why it's called INTELLECTUAL property.

Steve, I agree with everything that you said, I'm not arguing against your point, just trying to make a small nuanced one around shrinkage and loss prevention.

I do however, believe in the concept of theft of intellectual property and your example was perfect.

[RichRS6]

At least with a used CD someone has, at one point paid for it so the artist has had a payment.

I'm no expert but with the "olde worlde" model once the record company advance was paid off royalty payments will still keep on coming in year after year so long as the product keeps on being bought and played on the radio so the artist is going to make money after this point.

If you take or use someone property physical or intellectual without payment IMO it's theft, different types of theft but still theft .

[zenmindbeginner]

If you take or use someone property physical or intellectual without payment IMO it's theft, different types of theft but still theft.

This is getting a little tiring... I know good and well what theft is people.

My entire point is that sometimes, illegal downloading does not always adversely affect the incomes of the artist.

But you guys want to have a simpleton argument about the dictionary meaning of theft with me like I somehow don't believe on the concept or stranger yet, don't know what theft really is.

That's what a damn straw man is.

I love to argue.

[MCChris]

They used to get less than nothing back in the day... sort of a way to funnel the wealth of artists up into the suits and corporate overlords. Very clever racket I must say.

What in blue blazes are you talking about? So all the limos, private jets and Neverland Ranches were just a mirage?

[zenmindbeginner]

They used to get less than nothing back in the day... sort of a way to funnel the wealth of artists up into the suits and corporate overlords. Very clever racket I must say.

What in blue blazes are you talking about? So all the limos, private jets and Neverland Ranches were just a mirage?

Michael Jackson's success was wild and exceeded reality... there will never be another MJ. His music got played so damn much that his royalties from just radio and MTV were enough to make him über rich along with his tour profits, licensing deals and paid appearances. The mechanical songwriting royalties were probably much less and we all know he died in massive debt.

[RichRS6]

Zen, my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

My point was not about what theft is but if that term can be applied as equally to an intangible or intellectual property as a physical one.

It can and should be IMO.

I like to argue too !!

[zenmindbeginner]

Zen, my post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

My point was not about what theft is but if that term can be applied as equally to an intangible or intellectual property as a physical one.

It can and should be IMO.

I like to argue too !!

I agree with you but you were arguing against a point that I didn't make.

[Cary]

At least with a used CD someone has, at one point paid for it so the artist has had a payment.

Sort of like any other property. When I resell my car, FoMoCo isn't going to get a cut (unless I trade it back to the dealer).

[MCChris]

Michael Jackson's success was wild and exceeded reality... there will never be another MJ. His music got played so damn much that his royalties from just radio and MTV were enough to make him über rich along with his tour profits, licensing deals and paid appearances. The mechanical songwriting royalties were probably much less and we all know he died in massive debt.

Yeah, but a lot of musicians made a lot of money and lived quite well without flushing all of it down the toilet. Jim Peterik is a great example. The guy lives LARGE in the Chicago 'burbs off "Vehicle" and "Eye of the Tiger."

Few of any people on this forum (or anywhere else for that matter) make more money than their employers. They'd probably be surprised at how small of a percentage they earn compared to their employers. Why should the music industry be any different?

[zenmindbeginner]

Michael Jackson's success was wild and exceeded reality... there will never be another MJ. His music got played so damn much that his royalties from just radio and MTV were enough to make him über rich along with his tour profits, licensing deals and paid appearances. The mechanical songwriting royalties were probably much less and we all know he died in massive debt.

Yeah, but a lot of musicians made a lot of money and lived quite well without flushing all of it down the toilet. Jim Peterik is a great example. The guy lives LARGE in the Chicago 'burbs off "Vehicle" and "Eye of the Tiger."

OMG!!! Vehicle is like on of my all time favorite songs. Legendary songs that get used in commercials and film quite often.

Those commercial and film royalties are MASSIVE... way bigger than anyone can make off of mechanical royalties.

It is awesome that you know who that guy is and I am just now processing the things that are alike in both songs.

Friendly neighbor in the black sedan... too cool.

[jwhitcomb3]

The same argument could be said for buying used CDs... it's theft of the artist's royalties right? Is buying a used CD criminal? Absolutely not, but most of you would be crying THEFT! The artist did not get his 10 cents!!!!!! Arrggghhh!!!!!

Buying a used CD is not illegal. There's a concept in intellectual property called "exhaustion," and it says that once the CD has been purchased, the IP owner (the artist) has been fully compensated, and (ignoring duplication for the moment), when the original buyer sells the CD, he no longer has it and is no longer enjoying it, and the second owner is enjoying it in his stead.

Think of it like buying a used car: sure, the buyer of a second hand car hasn't paid the manufacturer, but once he owns it, the original owner has to buy another car if he wants to use a car. The manufacturer has put one car into the stream of commerce, and one owner at a time is using it. Once the first user has bought the car, the manufacturer is fully compensated. It is serial ownership, and the manufacturer only has a right to compensation from the first in line. This works, because in general, there is no concurrent ownership.

If everyone played by the rules, when you buy a CD, you can reproduce it (rip/tape/copy) for your own use. If you sell the CD, you are supposed to destroy your reproduced copies as well. Serial ownership of the music.

It is supposed to work the same way without the physical media: you pay a license for an electronic copy so you can use it indefinitely. The IP owner gets compensated for his work. If the laws regarding licensing of electronic files were entirely consistent with the laws of music stored on a physical medium (e.g., a CD) then if you sell your right to use it to someone else, the 2nd buyer does not have to compensate the IP owner, but you have to delete your own copies. I'm not sure if that's how the iTunes store licenses work though...they may not be transferrable at all.

In all these models, the IP owner gets his due from first sale, but not any subsequent sales, just like before. The problem with electronic copies, is that scads of perfect copies can be made, so instead of just one user enjoying the work, tens, hundreds, or thousands can have a perfect copy of a single purchased song.

The notion people have trouble wrapping their brains around, is when you buy a CD, you are buying a license to the music.Same as when you pay to download a song. The medium itself is incidental.

The artist shouldn't care at all what medium the end user enjoys the music on. As long as the artist has been paid, the buyer can use it any way he wants for his own, personal use. The disconnect here is that some people seem to think that if the song isn't attached to a physical media, then the artist hasn't lost anything when someone enjoys the music without having paid. But he has. Someone is enjoying the artist's music without ever compensating the artist. IP laws are designed to prevent this. Realistically, these laws aren't enforced because they are very difficult to enforce, and nobody is going to go after a user for a single 99 cent download. And nobody is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to go after a college student who has thousands of dollars in illegal downloads, because they'll never collect the money.

To me, it comes down to morality. I believe in compensating people for my use of their labor. I have cases of CDs in my basement that I no longer listen to, but I don't sell because I've ripped them and am still using the music. I've been a subscriber of eMusic for years. And I was doing all this years before I even considered going to law school.

[jwhitcomb3]

At least with a used CD someone has, at one point paid for it so the artist has had a payment.

Sort of like any other property. When I resell my car, FoMoCo isn't going to get a cut (unless I trade it back to the dealer).

Jeeze Cary, I was composing my post above while you were writing this. Do we really think so much alike?

[guitaround]

What an interesting... (and fun) post!!

I don't want to create a different debate but as I am Spanish, I cannot choose... I am already a music/film/intellectual property thief!.... or at least that was has already been decided.

Here in Spain, if you buy a blank CD, DVD, a hard disk, a media player, DVD recorder, MP3 player, etc... nearly anything that can be used to hold copyrighted material, it is already taxed with a "intellectual property tax". It doesn't matter what are you going to use it for, you must pay for it.

If you have a bar or a shop and you have a radio or CD player, you have to pay for it! It doesn't matter if you only play totally free music (or even your own music).. you must pay.

The main "artist association", the SGAE, is well known for taking all this money for its own benefit (well the benefit of just a few people) instead of distributing it between the artists (do a quick search about SGAE in google)

And it is getting even worse, they want to tax internet bandwidth, public libraries (they LEND books!!! for gods sake.. that is clearly "stealing intellectual property") Even if a "registered" artist give a charity concert, they MUST pay. They even put hidden cameras in weddings to then fine the marring couple for playing music in the ball (or having a band performing live music)

I know that we must protect intellectual property, but there must be a better way to do it.

Sorry for all this nonsense, but I think it was very related with the subject.

Thank you.

[zenmindbeginner]

JWhitcomb, you keep droning on and on about what is legal and what is not.

I am talking about illegal downloading not having much of a financial impact on the artist. And you wanna go on and on about what constitutes theft and what is and isn't illegal.

You just took the strawman and ran with it.

Oh and when I buy a used CD and don't purchase it new... the artist gets screwed out of his or her royalties, it's really rather simple. Who gives a shit if someone bought it in the first place, since I bought it used, I will NEVER buy it new and so the artist gets only one royalty when two people bought the CD.

Argue with yourself on the legalities of theft and intellectual property. Law is law and I NEVER made any of the points that you are arguing against.

[MCChris]

If you have a bar or a shop and you have a radio or CD player, you have to pay for it! It doesn't matter if you only play totally free music (or even your own music).. you must pay.

The main "artist association", the SGAE, is well known for taking all this money for its own benefit (well the benefit of just a few people) instead of distributing it between the artists (do a quick search about SGAE in google)

We have that in the states. BMI/ASCAP are the enforcers.

They even put hidden cameras in weddings to then fine the marring couple for playing music in the ball (or having a band performing live music)

The venue should be on the hook for that. Costs should be factored into the rental fee. Same way bar bands don't pay music licensing fees. The bars do.

[Cary]

At least with a used CD someone has, at one point paid for it so the artist has had a payment.

Sort of like any other property. When I resell my car, FoMoCo isn't going to get a cut (unless I trade it back to the dealer).

Jeeze Cary, I was composing my post above while you were writing this. Do we really think so much alike?

It's starting to scare me

[jwhitcomb3]

Sorry, didn't think I was arguing against you. You asked what I thought was a really good question about the difference between the artist not being compensated when you sell a used CD and not being compensated for an illegal download.

[zenmindbeginner]

Sorry, didn't think I was arguing against you. You asked what I thought was a really good question about the difference between the artist not being compensated when you sell a used CD and not being compensated for an illegal download.

Well, my bad then... it was incredibly detailed and informative and I appreciate the time it took you to type it. I learned from it.

You are as smart as a whip and a very good guitar player J. Please forgive me for getting hot under the collar and dropping the F bomb earlier.

[SteveB]

Another cross over post from TGP.

Here is an interesting interview I just found with Troy Carter. Troy Carter is Gaga's manager. He gave a keynote interview at a conference in Singapore and discussed various issues such as the importance of the fan/artist relationship, the changes in the landscape of the music business, and how he is optimistic that the industry will navigate through the issues and actually thrive in a new environment. He's very excited about the fact that barriers to entry in distributing music have been broken down.

It's long, but worth listening to a current major player speak who isn't negative about the modern climate.

http://www.billboard.com/news/lady-g...07391752.story

[jwhitcomb3]

Thanks, and it's all good. Lord knows I'm overdue collecting a few F-bombs for my snarky comments over the years.

[cynic]

Lord knows I'm overdue collecting a few F-bombs for my snarky comments over the years.

Fuck you

[earachemyeye]

Yea J.W. you are a good player and a good singer. Now take your licks - Fuck You.

[JohnnyB]

Weren't there several very sobering articles in the late 90's about how much artists really make off of record sales? I read several that illustrated just how very little the artist makes in comparison to the distributor and the record label.

That's always been the case. Now the artists get nothing.

Yeah. Funny how when the "evil corporate suits" were sidelined, everybody stopped making money. Could it be that artist selection and setting up marketing and distribution for worldwide sales are valuable skills? Nah!

Even the one-hit wonders of the '60s usually came away with around $30-60K apiece--in 1960s money.