Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

lessthan · May 24, 2004, 09:19 am

well the problem with the record industry is that the the cd they use to put the music on is like 5 cents then the artist recieves 5-7$ from the sale and the rest is given to the RIAA which is a complete sham because they really arent doing anything its all the artists hard work and time and effort put into their music i say leave it up to the artist to decide whether it is right or wrong

Lava · May 26, 2004, 07:33 pm

In some countries the law says the record company is the legal owner of the work, and others may not legally give it to everyone. In some countries when an artist releases music it is in the public domain, and passing it on for free is legal. In some places there is a fixed fee paid by each music station for each track played, with that money going to the record co IIRC.

Which of these is more moral? On what basis? On what real basis is one right and the others wrong?

In capitalism it is those with power that make the rules, and they make a lot of them in order to keep much of the money in the hands of guess who... those with money. Ways to keep you working and keep you paying.

MP3 sharing is very popular now, widespread, so one can only conclude that most of the population does not believe it is morally wrong. One might speculate that perhaps some dont seem to take the existing laws seriously.

You can quote authority and law, but at some point you need to come up with a valid basis for that law. If you dont have one, and its solely about profit... well, then its just about profit.

Regards, Lava

lessthan · May 27, 2004, 11:08 pm

ye but these people arent mentally stable i mean come on all they want are laws that appeal to their satisfactory. This is not right because no one will think the same exact thign and want the same exact thigns for them its just inevitable that their will be some sort of civil war or revolution. its going to happen mayb not in 10 years or my lifetime but it will because the people will become unhappy with all these always changing laws that affect them and they will take it upon themselves when they realize that the politicians they elect arent really doing what they are there for.

Suburbanite · May 28, 2004, 03:10 am

The only victims of file sharing, and I do actually feel bad for them, are software companies. People like Adobe have had to raise their prices extensively, and are unable to combat or work within the system. I couldn’t give two shits about record companies, they are hardly innovative and they are so plentiful that they are replaceable.

Lava · May 28, 2004, 06:50 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburbanite,
The only victims of file sharing, and I do actually feel bad for them, are software companies. People like Adobe have had to raise their prices extensively, and are unable to combat or work within the system.

Are you sure? Given that Microsoft has made over a billion from selling software its hard to believe that its a big enough problem to kill off software companies. Maybe the incompetent ones, yes. If a company is unable to work within the system, then its unable to work.

Quote:

I couldn’t give two shits about record companies, they are hardly innovative and they are so plentiful that they are replaceable.

I think record cos need to change their business model to stay alive. They arent doing because what they have is proven by the past, instead they want to hang onto what they are fast losing. Their argument really seems to be just that

a) they dont want to change their business model
b) their millions arent enough

Its no wonder they get so little sympathy.

Regards, Lava!

samsara15 · May 31, 2004, 09:33 pm

I don't think file sharing is morally right, but I think that the copyright people are out of hand as well. After all, some of the songs of a few years ago are now so much part of public disourse that they are poart of our culture, and people wopuld get overcharged for their usage. For example, in Europe, they are trying to define a Pizza. God forbide anyone ever got a patent on a pizza.

LogicaLunatic · May 31, 2004, 11:16 pm

I don't have a single problem with file sharing so long as the downloaded song/movie/application is then put to use privately.

In other words, it IS wrong for a DJ to download songs for free and then charge to have them played at a wedding reception or dance(*1).

It IS wrong for a web developer to download a cracked version of Dreamweaver or Frontpage and charge people for creating web sites(*2).

It WOULD be wrong if I... Er... A friend of mine downloaded Windows Server 2003 to host websites for a fee(*3).

It WOULD be wrong for a person to download a movie and then charge others to view it or for a copy of it.

All in all, I think the entertainment industry makes too much money as it is. I don't think people should be paid millions of dollars for "playing" anything whether it be a game (especially golf!), a song, or a part in a movie.

1: The DJ could charge an equipment rental fee and perhaps a setup/service fee and it would be fine

2: REAL web developers don't use crackpot applications like Dreamweaver or Frontpage. REAL web developers use a text editor.

3: I... Er... My friend doesn't charge to host websites.

LogicaLunatic

admiraladz · Jun 15, 2004, 12:41 pm

[1st post] Here the debate slides into the inevitable "theft vs. freedom".

Like it or not you are taking food off someone else's table. The long and the short of it is this (IMHO- and I know because I'm in a touring band with 2 CD's out!)a band pays for the venue, the PA, the staff, the security, the ticket printing, the drinks promos etc etc, and after all that you usually find the only money the BAND actually makes is off merchandise sales (e.g. hence Eminem charging £35 for a T shirt on his tour).

I agree that file sharing is the best kind of promotion ... FREE! But there has to be a line, otherwise what is the incentive for a band to do 45 tour dates in a row, sleep in a van with 5 other guys, and eat crappy take-out food for a month and a half? Is it supposed to be the overwhelming sense of Karma derived from writing songs for free? It certainly isn't the 18 hour days, and most bands never get famous enough for the bikini babes and cocaine parties (usually some lil' jailbait schoolgirl and a 40oz!)

So (finally) getting to the point - Whatever your stance on the subject, in the long run piracy is going to have an irreversible effect on the music industry - for better or worse! It will most likely just convince the record bosses to re-release yet another cover version of some old song they already own the publishing on, and subject us all to the next sugar-soaked boy/girl band.

But for arguments sake, let us just assume that the worse-case scenario doesn't happen, then all we really have to look forward to is recorded music being freely available to everyone and used purely as a promotional tool by which bands can convince YOU to go to their live events. But you all do that already with all these new bands you're discovering about FREE everyday... or was that general agreement about bands making all their money off live dates just an assumption that EVERYONE ELSE is going to the gigs?

[/rant]

castille · Jun 15, 2004, 12:50 pm

Its funny how theft can be justified if you are anti-capitalist.

If I become a Communist, can I kill soemone and claim it was class war? Maybe the Triads should start claiming they are oppressed by the evil Chinese police, and that their "protection scams" are simply an underclass fighting for its independence.

Sonart · Jun 15, 2004, 02:01 pm

For 15 years I was a free-lance illustrator. That means I was usually commisioned by advertising agencies or publications to create artwork for ads or to illustrate stories or editorial opinion.

In negotiating the value of my work, it usually depended on how many people were likely to view it. An illustration on the cover of a national magazine was far more valuable than a small piece of art on the inside of a local newsletter. Therefore the starting point of the negotiation was that it was MY artwork. I created it and I owned it. I was simply selling rights to use it. Now in most cases, the art was so specific to a client that there would never possibly be any purpose for me to use it again. But by owning that artwork, it gave me the leverage to negotiate a fair price based on its use and to control exactly how it was used. If a client wanted to own the artwork outright, then we'd negotiate a considerably larger fee.

I learned this lesson the hard way as a young, starving commercial artist, just starting out. An agency asked me to create a black and white drawing for a local Savings & Loan, to go on a small brochure. Because of the limited usage, and my infant career, I charged a mere $50. And I DIDN'T negotiate terms. Imagine my surprise, and anger, when that art began appearing on billboards, posters and newspaper ads all over town.

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

My point being this. When someone creates a product, they created it, they own it, and it's theirs until they sell the rights to it. If you turn around and mass market that product, even for free, without the consent of its creator, you are a thief. Period.

bishop · Jun 15, 2004, 03:34 pm

the crap that these record companies are doing as far as licensing is concerned.. they even go so far as to require deejays to pay certain fees in order to spin their records in a club. that is way over the line imo. (and congress's gift of subpoena power to the riaa is another beauty).

and then you have the grossly inflated prices that they charge for the music. they mark this stuff up worse than nike.

i've pirated music and software for years. well before napster and all this user friendly stuff. call me a thief, i have no honor.

btw - i've definitely bought my fair share of cd's and dvd's and software...

Suburbanite · Jun 15, 2004, 03:39 pm

The Music Industry IS changing with the times. iTunes anyone?

bishop · Jun 15, 2004, 03:55 pm

i'm kind of lucky i guess.. i'm all about electronic music - and you can legally find all sorts of it all over the net. :)

castille · Jun 16, 2004, 09:15 am

If you consider any music on your computer as yours, can you also say any book you own is your property, and you have the right to duplicate and sell it?

**Pooeypants** · Jun 17, 2004, 10:23 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Suburbanite,
The Music Industry IS changing with the times. iTunes anyone?

I have a question, isn't iTunes charging 1 USD per song in the US? Why does cost the equivalent of 1.4 USD in the UK? (£0.79).
It doesn't make sense, the servers might even be in the US for all I know, nothing has changed, we in the UK are still being ripped off...

Sonart · Jun 17, 2004, 11:20 am

Quote:

I have a question, isn't iTunes charging 1 USD per song in the US? Why does cost the equivalent of 1.4 USD in the UK? (£0.79).

Shipping?

View Poll Results: Do you support the sharing of files over the internet with programs like Kazaa?
Yes, the files are my property I can do what I want with them.	18	50.00%
No, it hurts the music recording industry and corparations.	3	8.33%
No, but I do it anyways.	14	38.89%
I'm an indecisive moron.	1	2.78%
Voters: 36. You may not vote

May 24, 2004, 09:19 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	well the problem with the record industry is that the the cd they use to put the music on is like 5 cents then the artist recieves 5-7$ from the sale and the rest is given to the RIAA which is a complete sham because they really arent doing anything its all the artists hard work and time and effort put into their music i say leave it up to the artist to decide whether it is right or wrong My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

May 27, 2004, 11:08 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
lessthan Igneous Magma Location: Buffalo NY ( hell ) Posts: 196	ye but these people arent mentally stable i mean come on all they want are laws that appeal to their satisfactory. This is not right because no one will think the same exact thign and want the same exact thigns for them its just inevitable that their will be some sort of civil war or revolution. its going to happen mayb not in 10 years or my lifetime but it will because the people will become unhappy with all these always changing laws that affect them and they will take it upon themselves when they realize that the politicians they elect arent really doing what they are there for. My, my what a mess we've made Of our pretty little heads these days. It appears a heavy wind's blown through here recently. Best wishes have been made for you

May 31, 2004, 09:33 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
samsara15 Ch Latour 61 Location: Maryland Posts: 638	I don't think file sharing is morally right, but I think that the copyright people are out of hand as well. After all, some of the songs of a few years ago are now so much part of public disourse that they are poart of our culture, and people wopuld get overcharged for their usage. For example, in Europe, they are trying to define a Pizza. God forbide anyone ever got a patent on a pizza. Economic Left/Right -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian –6.97

May 31, 2004, 11:16 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	I don't have a single problem with file sharing so long as the downloaded song/movie/application is then put to use privately. In other words, it IS wrong for a DJ to download songs for free and then charge to have them played at a wedding reception or dance(1). It IS wrong for a web developer to download a cracked version of Dreamweaver or Frontpage and charge people for creating web sites(2). It WOULD be wrong if I... Er... A friend of mine downloaded Windows Server 2003 to host websites for a fee(*3). It WOULD be wrong for a person to download a movie and then charge others to view it or for a copy of it. All in all, I think the entertainment industry makes too much money as it is. I don't think people should be paid millions of dollars for "playing" anything whether it be a game (especially golf!), a song, or a part in a movie. 1: The DJ could charge an equipment rental fee and perhaps a setup/service fee and it would be fine 2: REAL web developers don't use crackpot applications like Dreamweaver or Frontpage. REAL web developers use a text editor. 3: I... Er... My friend doesn't charge to host websites. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

May 26, 2004, 07:33 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Lava Igneous Magma Posts: 716	In some countries the law says the record company is the legal owner of the work, and others may not legally give it to everyone. In some countries when an artist releases music it is in the public domain, and passing it on for free is legal. In some places there is a fixed fee paid by each music station for each track played, with that money going to the record co IIRC. Which of these is more moral? On what basis? On what real basis is one right and the others wrong? In capitalism it is those with power that make the rules, and they make a lot of them in order to keep much of the money in the hands of guess who... those with money. Ways to keep you working and keep you paying. MP3 sharing is very popular now, widespread, so one can only conclude that most of the population does not believe it is morally wrong. One might speculate that perhaps some dont seem to take the existing laws seriously. You can quote authority and law, but at some point you need to come up with a valid basis for that law. If you dont have one, and its solely about profit... well, then its just about profit. Regards, Lava

May 28, 2004, 03:10 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	The only victims of file sharing, and I do actually feel bad for them, are software companies. People like Adobe have had to raise their prices extensively, and are unable to combat or work within the system. I couldn’t give two shits about record companies, they are hardly innovative and they are so plentiful that they are replaceable.

Jun 15, 2004, 12:41 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
admiraladz Down Boy! Posts: 71	[1st post] Here the debate slides into the inevitable "theft vs. freedom". Like it or not you are taking food off someone else's table. The long and the short of it is this (IMHO- and I know because I'm in a touring band with 2 CD's out!)a band pays for the venue, the PA, the staff, the security, the ticket printing, the drinks promos etc etc, and after all that you usually find the only money the BAND actually makes is off merchandise sales (e.g. hence Eminem charging £35 for a T shirt on his tour). I agree that file sharing is the best kind of promotion ... FREE! But there has to be a line, otherwise what is the incentive for a band to do 45 tour dates in a row, sleep in a van with 5 other guys, and eat crappy take-out food for a month and a half? Is it supposed to be the overwhelming sense of Karma derived from writing songs for free? It certainly isn't the 18 hour days, and most bands never get famous enough for the bikini babes and cocaine parties (usually some lil' jailbait schoolgirl and a 40oz!) So (finally) getting to the point - Whatever your stance on the subject, in the long run piracy is going to have an irreversible effect on the music industry - for better or worse! It will most likely just convince the record bosses to re-release yet another cover version of some old song they already own the publishing on, and subject us all to the next sugar-soaked boy/girl band. But for arguments sake, let us just assume that the worse-case scenario doesn't happen, then all we really have to look forward to is recorded music being freely available to everyone and used purely as a promotional tool by which bands can convince YOU to go to their live events. But you all do that already with all these new bands you're discovering about FREE everyday... or was that general agreement about bands making all their money off live dates just an assumption that EVERYONE ELSE is going to the gigs? [/rant]

Jun 15, 2004, 12:50 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Its funny how theft can be justified if you are anti-capitalist. If I become a Communist, can I kill soemone and claim it was class war? Maybe the Triads should start claiming they are oppressed by the evil Chinese police, and that their "protection scams" are simply an underclass fighting for its independence. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jun 15, 2004, 02:01 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Sonart It's simply logical Location: San Diego Posts: 4,333	For 15 years I was a free-lance illustrator. That means I was usually commisioned by advertising agencies or publications to create artwork for ads or to illustrate stories or editorial opinion. In negotiating the value of my work, it usually depended on how many people were likely to view it. An illustration on the cover of a national magazine was far more valuable than a small piece of art on the inside of a local newsletter. Therefore the starting point of the negotiation was that it was MY artwork. I created it and I owned it. I was simply selling rights to use it. Now in most cases, the art was so specific to a client that there would never possibly be any purpose for me to use it again. But by owning that artwork, it gave me the leverage to negotiate a fair price based on its use and to control exactly how it was used. If a client wanted to own the artwork outright, then we'd negotiate a considerably larger fee. I learned this lesson the hard way as a young, starving commercial artist, just starting out. An agency asked me to create a black and white drawing for a local Savings & Loan, to go on a small brochure. Because of the limited usage, and my infant career, I charged a mere $50. And I DIDN'T negotiate terms. Imagine my surprise, and anger, when that art began appearing on billboards, posters and newspaper ads all over town. ------------ My point being this. When someone creates a product, they created it, they own it, and it's theirs until they sell the rights to it. If you turn around and mass market that product, even for free, without the consent of its creator, you are a thief. Period. I don't suffer from insanity... I thoroughly enjoy it

Jun 15, 2004, 03:34 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	the crap that these record companies are doing as far as licensing is concerned.. they even go so far as to require deejays to pay certain fees in order to spin their records in a club. that is way over the line imo. (and congress's gift of subpoena power to the riaa is another beauty). and then you have the grossly inflated prices that they charge for the music. they mark this stuff up worse than nike. i've pirated music and software for years. well before napster and all this user friendly stuff. call me a thief, i have no honor. btw - i've definitely bought my fair share of cd's and dvd's and software... hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 15, 2004, 03:39 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	The Music Industry IS changing with the times. iTunes anyone?

Jun 15, 2004, 03:55 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	i'm kind of lucky i guess.. i'm all about electronic music - and you can legally find all sorts of it all over the net. :) hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 16, 2004, 09:15 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	If you consider any music on your computer as yours, can you also say any book you own is your property, and you have the right to duplicate and sell it? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.