good, liddas dear - but how do hypothetical future solutions make it okay NOW for people to just take
whatever they want, simply because the technology exists that allows them to do that?

Quote
with sssoul
good, liddas dear - but how do hypothetical future solutions make it okay NOW for people to just take
whatever they want, simply because the technology exists that allows them to do that?

Come on, open your eyes!

Do you see any so called "artist" starving because of P2P?

I see none!

And why?

Becasuse downloading IS NOT DAMAGING THEM!!!

C

And in all cases, read the book, it is a great work!


C

And I thought this is a message-board for grown-ups but after reading comments from ssoul and BV himself I think this could be more a podium for more or less self-righteous people, isn't it?

I'm a software-developer as well BV and when you write "you have decided to put yourselv above the law and decided you are superior to others" because I downloaded the 2CD-set you lead me to think "oh yes, in this special case without a cause". Hope you won't take it personally but nonsense is nonsense - no matter if this board is yours or not.

silkcut

Well, here's my view.

I know where I can download Shine A Light for free and I know how to do it.

I'll be buying the DVD when it comes out though, not because I think the Stones need the money, because I'm sure they don't. I'll be buying it because I'm a Rolling Stones fan and also because the trailers look awesome!

That's how you market something properly - you show people a trailer that makes them want to buy the DVD.

This forum is not the place to post links to illegal copies of any copywright material, and it's a bloody cheek to suggest that it is the right place.

JMHO.

Rolling Stones Tribute

Play Rolling Stones

liddas, yes i see artists hurt by it - quite regularly! i live with some of them, you see.

wasn't it you who said a few pages ago that dropping record sales mean that musicians
don't make more music, they go out and find other jobs to survive? (not an exact quote, but close)
is that your idea of a situation that's good for music and musicians?
and nota bene: people downloading your work without paying you for it are taking away more than your income.
without record sales, what status do artists have in "the industry"?
where is the "leverage" they need to make/market their music in accordance with their artistic vision?
what happens to the incentive to invest in finding/promoting diverse artists?

and yes, i agree that the record companies have not traditionally been brilliant at giving artists any of the above -
but fans simply taking the artists' work without paying for it is not a solution.
it's part of what's leading to changes - but how can i believe the changes will be positive for artists and for music
when perfectly intelligent music fans think no further than "aw it doesn't really do any harm"
or "well someone else should pay them, but i'm not going to"

and you forgot to mention, liddas: where is the work you do for a living available to download for free?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-29 23:06 by with sssoul.

>> this could be more a podium for more or less self-righteous people, isn't it? <<

LoFL: exactly! we are all more or less righteous and more or less self-righteous too.
we all have different boundaries, and all do what we feel comfortable with, right?
a discussion doesn't change that.
meanwhile, does any of the software you design do Polish tax returns, by any chance?
i need some free software for that. it's a special case

well this an intriguing discussion, at least for me, and there's no need to put it personally so, silkcut, wont you please just explain your opinion about all this stuff.

that said i have the strong impression that, even if "free of charge" my (and liddas) posts are not being read but replyed a lot since the accuse is still the same...

ok, you want me to get down on my knees and confess. LL
i download music from P2P networks
I even publish that confession in the form of of a thread in a public forum
some of the music I download I buy afterwards
The result for me and my relationship with the record industry is this
15 years ago, with no internet and P2P around, i used to by lets say 25 pieces of copyrighted material a year
Now it is probably around 30
Part of this increase in my contribution to the record industry is due to the fact that now I am able to listen to WAY MORE music than before
Did I mention that for this reason, not only I have given more money to the record industry but I feel I am a better person in terms of music culture. That my horizons have widened, that i am able to listen to more different things while in the past I bought pretty much the same music and shift little slowly from my usual "musical backyard"?
That counts
So I think I am going to repeat this the last time
I confess my practice that is now illegal (well actually a recent european decision stated that you can be prosecuted only if you make a business yourself of the download while the "use" is not be punished)
I confess I am startled at how you sssoul, kent etc dont see that there's someone that, differently from me and liddas who use a technology, have made and MAKE HUGE MONEY out of the existence of the P2P networks and illegal download in the form of selling faster and faster internet connection at lower and lower prices to more and more people.

Differently from radio stations or tvs or other media companies THEY DONT GIVE A F*****ING DAMN BUCK TO THE ARTISTS

The record companies seem ok with that and instead ask the goverment to try and find a way for me, the final user to pay those bucks

This create the paradox - at least it is to me that believe in how the free market laws - that economy should lie onto some kind of taming of a new technology instead of the invention of new ways of producing goods and money out of it

So I've given my idea for a change and a solution
If governments legalize "payed" - as it is now - download record companies would be obliged to turn to the internet industry to ask for the money for the artists
Then the internet companies probably would turn back to me asking the money they had to pay (because it seems that advertising is yet not such a business as it is for radio and tv stations to cover the costs of copyriight)
I think that it would not pass a lot of time before some provider comes to may mailbox with an offer like this: "Hey dude how much you pay for you internet connection? X, well give that to me, copyright rate is included!"

Anyway sssoul if you think that my argument can be summed up to this metaphor...
"i'm going out to a restaurant tonight, and since it costs me something to get there,the petrol companies should pay the restaurant for my meal - so i won't pay, dammit! i've paid enough already!
and i'll take the salt-and-pepper shakers home with me too. someone should pay for those as well, so i don't have to."
well i really dont know what to say

and, uh, by the way before going out tonight dont forget to set your VCR or DVD recorder to catch the episode of your fav serial on your fav payed cable station so that you dont miss it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-30 09:28 by maumau.

Quote
Differently from radio stations or tvs or other media companies THEY DONT GIVE A F*****ING DAMN BUCK TO THE ARTISTS

huh?? but the do pay for every airing of each song they play.
that's what the LC code is there for.

...and about SAL, you're let off - I guess.
see this [www.iorr.org]

Quote
open-g

Quote
Differently from radio stations or tvs or other media companies THEY DONT GIVE A F*****ING DAMN BUCK TO THE ARTISTS

huh?? but the do pay for every airing of each song they play.
that's what the LC code is there for.

:-O that's exactly my point. Tv and radio stations pay the copyrights. Providers of broadband internet connections DONT.

Quote
with sssoul
liddas, yes i see artists hurt by it - quite regularly! i live with some of them, you see.

Well, I know lots of them, and what I see is that when downloading is a "problem" for their CD sales then their popularity is to a point where revenues flow in also from many other sources (possibility of charging higher prices for concerts, merchandising, sale of image rights etc.)


wasn't it you who said a few pages ago that dropping record sales mean that musicians
don't make more music, they go out and find other jobs to survive? (not an exact quote, but close)

No

is that your idea of a situation that's good for music and musicians?

Well, we are going slightly OT here, but my idea is that if someone wants to be a professional in music (i.e. make a living in this industry) he has to accept the rules of the market or be smart/strong enough to impose new rules. It has always been this way, even before the Stones' management "asked" Ian not to be an official Stone ...

and nota bene: people downloading your work without paying you for it are taking away more than your income.


This is, again, seeing things from your perspective. We are discussing here the morality of downloading music, or, better expressed, if the current copyright laws are good or bad laws. I can tell you that in my job (lawyer - in Italy) "stealing" is called "quoting" and is, usually, a matter of pride for the author of the quoted writing.

> without record sales, what status do artists have in "the industry"?

In 1960 almost all football teams made money almost exclusevly from ticket sales. Now their income comes principally from merchandising and license of broadcast rights. Times do change.

> where is the "leverage" they need to make/market their music in accordance with their artistic vision?

Are you assuming that popular mainstream artists TODAY make music according to their "artistic vision"? Are you kidding me?

what happens to the incentive to invest in finding/promoting diverse artists?

Are we speaking of "artists" or professional musicians?


and yes, i agree that the record companies have not tradtionally been brilliant at giving artists any of the above -
but fans simply taking the artists' work without paying for it is not a solution.

It is not a solution. It is what, as a matter of fact happens as a result of the sales policies of the record companies. Why do you believe that indpendent lables exist?

it's part of what's leading to changes - but how can i believe the changes will be positive for artists and for music
when perfectly intelligent music fans think no further than "aw it doesn't really do any harm"

Once again, open your eyes! Just see how many groups who years ago could sell only in their local area have turned out BIG because of allowing their music to be more or less freely downloadable.


or "well someone else should pay them, but i'm not going to"

Better rephrase, "someone else is already payng them". As I wrote some posts above, even me when I record my OWN music!

and you forgot to mention, liddas: where is the work you do for a living available to download for free?

Unfortunately my work is not on the internet. It is some times published on the old paper. And when so, I am proud if someone cares to quote my ideas for his own purposes! AND I can assure you that a good share of my work goes out absolutely for free.

C

What about bands 'downloading' or plagiarising the music of other artists in the form of ripping off styles, riffs and songs wholesale. There were plenty who did it in the 60s blues boom. I don't need to mention any names but Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Willie Dixon and many other black artists got a raw deal from some groups who went on to become the biggest bands of all time. But then that's OK because it's artistic license, isn't it?

I don't feel bad downloading stuff. All Stones releases, I buy anyway. Some of the stuff i'm downloading I wouldn't have bought in the first place, so the artists / recordcompanies don't lose any money that way. If the recordcompanies didn't get as greedy as they did in the 80's / 90's we probably wouldn't have this problem. Bootlegging is also illegal due to artists / recordcompanies not making profit on their copyrighted material.

[www.reverbnation.com]

>>>>we all have different boundaries, and all do what we feel comfortable with

I wish I could say I am feeling comfortable, but I'm not. My practical behaviour is sometimes fully contradicting my morality and ethics. The flesh is not as strong as I would like it to be. The lower the treshold to obtain music without properly paying for it, the easier it is to step outside ones own bounderies.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-31 12:47 by marcovandereijk.

Quote
with sssoul
>> this could be more a podium for more or less self-righteous people, isn't it? <<

LoFL: exactly! we are all more or less righteous and more or less self-righteous too.
we all have different boundaries, and all do what we feel comfortable with, right?
a discussion doesn't change that.
meanwhile, does any of the software you design do Polish tax returns, by any chance?
i need some free software for that. it's a special case

I'm sorry to tell you with sssoul, the answer is NO. For the last few years I've been designing for insurance companies and as I'm getting older and older I don't see any big changes to come anymore. I'm rather waiting for my retirement...only 20 more years to go ;-)

Interesting tread!

Found this article (University of Oxford 17 Mar 08): [www.ox.ac.uk].

"Digital piracy has been claimed to endanger whole industries. Unauthorised copying of software, music or films, so-called digital piracy, may have benefits for the affected companies, an Oxford researcher has claimed.

In her talk at the Annual Conference of the Royal Economic Society, Oxford economist Karen Croxson suggests that piracy does not necessarily undermine profit as pirates may actually help to promote the product they steal.

Ms Croxson said: ‘Digital piracy has been claimed to endanger whole industries. A natural question to ask is: Why do some companies develop water-tight technology to safeguard their intellectual property when others appear more relaxed about copying?’

Ms Croxson points out that piracy poses a threat to sales only when those who otherwise would buy become tempted instead to copy. In any market there are some who value the product but never would buy. Their piracy cannot harm the seller. Quite the opposite: because, like any consumer, a pirate will talk to others about product experiences, copying which does not displace sales can actually help business. Consumer `buzz’ is hugely important for sales success, studies have shown, and piracy drives up buzz without the need for extra marketing.

Ms Croxson’s analysis considers the temptation to copy a product illegally. This comes down to quite personal factors. Relevant parameters include the value of time, fear of penalties, and moral costs. Modelling this behaviour enables her to predict the variation across markets in the genuine threat to sales and the optimal response of the seller in different cases.

Computer games, for example, are protected heavily because their products are aimed at the youth market. Younger people tend to value games most, but may worry less about copying illegally and have more time on their hands. Piracy may be cheap for them, but their copying, because it undermines sales without generating extra promotional benefits, is detrimental to business. A taste for draconian anti-piracy measures, unsurprisingly, is prevalent among games manufacturers.

In contrast, business software producers appear to put lower effort into protecting their products against piracy, and the reasons may not be immediately obvious. The model provides some explanation. Professional users are known to attach a higher worth to office software than, for example, students. At the same time, they are likely to have higher piracy costs as their time is more precious and they may focus more on legal repercussions.

Ms Croxson explained: ‘With valuable users shying away from copying, the sellers in the business software market find themselves more naturally insulated against lost sales. Those more inclined to pirate, perhaps students, probably wouldn’t have bought the product anyway, so represent virtually free promotion. This helps explain why business software companies do not put as many resources into protection as computer games manufacturers.

‘Building a theoretical model of `promotional piracy’, it is possible to distinguish markets that are best advised to put considerable resource into safeguarding their products from others which may live quite comfortably with a higher incidence of digital piracy"

though she doesnt seem to consider music in her study i think this is the kind of approach we need to the problem, that is a scientific and not a moral approach. Define the matter of facts and not make general statements about what is right and what is wrong. I like it. In it you can see how come into the picture possible different policies and business strategies of the industry and seller. I wish she would have considered the music industry and its strategies and policies.

...that make me want to push up again this thread
in my previous posts here i argue that music industry managers' strategies and "defenders of the poor artists"' claims, that is: "downloading music is immoral and shhould be banned and/or prosecuted" is at the same time short sighted,, authoritarian and utopian. That is not effective in solving the problems the new technologies put forward.

In opposition to that I argue that a legalization of file sharing is auspicable and it is in the huge amount of money the Web 2.0 is moving that the money for the artists should be found.

I argue that tlc companies are making a huge amount of money selling broader and broader band to the consumer at a lower and lower price. And that it is going onlike this for years now. Of course the "need" of a faster internet connection is "implicitly" related to the capacity of downloading bigger and more numerous "files". So the "legal" market is making money on an "illegal" practice.

Make it legal and give a fair slice of the cake to the artists, I say.

Now, something happened to me yesterday that I think quite confirms my theory

I called my telecom company to complain about the cost of my internet connection and telephone bill hinting at the possibility that I could move to some other company

They say: ok we can lower the cost of all the services you use (internet, phone calls) of 45 euros AND we offer you our IPTV for free (decoder plus a bunch of free programs)

If I want more programs i pay for them.

This tells me the the margins of the profit are sooooo wide there will be a lot of space there for a legalization of file sharing as a service included

passing popcorn

What can I say? I'm a downloader and PROUD of it, damnit! Over the past twenty years, I have spent thousands of dollars on purchasing the entire 'official' catalogues of many bands (Stones included, of course), on vinyl, cassette and compact disc (and if the Universal reissues have anything new to offer I'll probably do it all over again!). My brain hurts thinking of the amount I've spent...so needless to say I don't feel the slightest amount of guilt by downloading the stuff for mp3 purposes; I don't think I owe these bands a goddamned thing.

Not trying to wind anybody up, but how many of the people here trying to take the moral high ground possess library cards? Is signing a book out of the library or -god help us- borrowing a CD and ripping it to your computer stealing as well? I mean, you're not paying for it, right? Sure, the library might have, but most likely at a drastically reduced price. So, should I be reimbursing Stephen King the money it would have cost to buy the book instead of getting it from the library first to read it. Damned if I'm gonna shell out $50 for a 700 page hardcover piece of crap. Besides, I doubt Stephen King needs the money any more than the Stones do.

I mean, even after all these years, the thought of Metallica going after Napster can still send me into a frantic fifteen minute rant. Lemme get this straight: after years of encouraging their fans to tape and/or film their concerts, as soon as Lars and the boys hit it big time the greed got the best of them. Hypocrisy, pure and simple. And look at the damage it did to their image and reputation.

Look...I've said many times that the advent of Bit Torrent and P2P has spoiled us beyond belief. It's a @#$%& curse, really. But I think I speak for the majority of us here when I say that, official albums aside, I am quite sure that if the Stones opened the vaults and started releasing shows like Brussels Affair that no matter how many copies of the boots we may own we'd still shell out whatever it costs for the official version. So it's a double edged sword, really: we're evil if we download the material -official or otherwise- but are the bands any better by witholding material they KNOW full well there is a demand for?

Hey...look at Radiohead's last album: they offered it for downloading exclusively...and how many people actually paid for the thing????

Quote
Jesus Murphy
Hey...look at Radiohead's last album: they offered it for downloading exclusively...and how many people actually paid for the thing????

Hey! I paid for the thing. I made an offer of 3 pounds i think

I dont see it as a revenge for the money I spent in the past
The problem of make te market go so that new artists can have their share is a question I care for indeed.
A market closed by prohibitions supported by companies (wih interests both in music and internet) and by politicians (and artists and common people) who make the rhetoric shortcut between the consumer buying the good and the "salary" of the artist does not work

popcorn

Quote
ChrisM
Downloading commercially available material without paying the artist or person who owns it is wrong in my view. But in the case of live shows or studio recordings that are unreleased by the artist, and hence not a source of revenue, I don't have any qualms about it. However if they were to offically release the aformentioned material then I would buy it even if I had already downloaded it or obtained it by other means. To my way of thinking that would be the right thing to do.

I have enjoyed the Hot Stuff section here as much as anyone, but I always like to point out when these discussion come up every now and then on here that boots and official songs have the SAME copyright protections. Once someone puts pen to paper their work is copyrighted. It is not like a patent that needs to be applied for and approved. If one of you sitting at home wants to sue the Stones because you wrote Rough Justice in your den in 2002, you would have a viable case. It would be dismissed in five seconds court without some strong proof on your part. However, in the case of us downloading Stones boots, we all know who the artists, and more importantly, the authors are. We are violating their copyright and owe them money!

That has always puzzled me - back before CDs came out, I made many compilations on tape from vinyl. Then when CDs came out I made many comps on tape. Some people taped a copy of my tape.

I guess I was already doing illegal sharing back then.

How come with downloading it's a crime but taping a record and letting people copy that etc...isn't?

If the Stones were to release ANY live show from 1969 on I would buy it. Maybe not every damn one, say 10 shows a tour but easily one show a tour. I've got one Steel Wheels boot and 2 Voodoo boots (as in real bootlegs, not internet downloads) and a few Tattoo You tour boots (as well as some TY tour internet downloads).

Hey, if it's a crime to sell bootlegs, ask Lippy who ran Magic Bus in the French Quarter (he got me the Voodoo Brew/Stew box sets among other things) because he got busted for selling bootlegs while Uptown that piece of shit record store The Mushroom, with their overpriced pieces of shit bootlegs, got zero trouble.

Funny how the quality place got busted and the shithole didn't.

So to me, that says all bootlegs are illegal, because my friend got popped for selling them. So we're all criminals, pirates of rock'n'roll music.

I guess the whole thing still is if I bought it and I want to share it, it is mine to do with what I please.

So it is legal or not legal to download live bootlegs?

Quote
thomas guitar
So it is legal or not legal to download live bootlegs?

not sure what the laws may be where you live, but in the good ol' us of a, it ain't illegal to own bootlegs and it sure as shite ain't illegal to download them....

Quote
thomas guitar
So it is legal or not legal to download live bootlegs?

Imho, is not illegal to do it,but l know many here will have a different opinion, so to each its own....

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"