PDA

View Full Version : mp3 downloads



Downtown_Brown
07-08-2002, 07:50 PM
My brother is a reasonably well-known recording artist based in Orkland (poor bugger)

Why do people continue to download music off the internet. It is stealing from those musicians, and hard enough for them to make a decent living as it is. Some people I have heard even record whole albums that they buy from a record retailer and then on-sell them.

I wish that the manufacturers would put something in the software to stop people from doing this.

How would people like the neighbourhood to raid your vegetable garden instead of buying / growing their own vegetables.

I am not trying to upset anyone here, just having my say as a new member of Press F1

godfather
07-08-2002, 08:09 PM
I agree

Unless the artist releases tracks for public use (and sometimes thats a good idea) it is simply stealing. Its little different to going into a record shop and shoplifting the CD, you are just stealing off a different person then.

Sam H
07-08-2002, 08:11 PM
That is cool that you have your own say but unfortunately this topic has come up many times before and probably will continue to come up in the future. There are many different opinions on this subject some being good opinions and some being bad.

I for one think that Music CD's are too expensive, especially albums from big artists. When CD's are pressed on a large scale It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD, now you take that figure and try to justify the cost that they charge you at a record store, frequently it is about 10x as much. It is also not really stealing from the musicians, but stealing from the record producers who normally make more money than the actual artists them selves, think about how much these people are earning. If you were earning that much would you be worried about loosing out on perhaps one or two million. It would be like me having 300 tomato plants and some one comes along ands steals 2 of them.

I frequently download songs off the net, however the songs I download are often only one or two from a particular album. I would not normally buy the album so technically I am not ripping anyone off, It is more likely to get me interested in future album releases from the same artist.

Any way thank god for the Warehouse who sell the recent release CD's for much cheaper than the Record stores.

I have been rambling on enough now so I will go.

Regards
Sam

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 08:23 PM
I see where you are coming from D_B, and I agree with what you are saying. There is one main reason why so many people do this, and one reason why some people are able to rationalise it.

The recording companies rip off the artists. Usually the recording companies eg virgin, sony, emi etc. earn more from the record sales than the artists do. The recording companies do this by charginghigh prices for music, and then only passing minimal royalties to the artists. When people "pirate" music, the recording companies would like us to think it is hurting the artists. It would be, if the recording companies lower the artists commission to deal with the revenue lost through piracy (the recording companies don't give a toss about the artist, just the bottom line). They don't however. Artists commissions have not been lowered dramatically, the recording companies have taken the hit, and where possible, hiked prices.

Why is it you think that the recording industry is kicking up all the fuss and not the artists. Those artists that are making a big deal (eg Eminem) have had their "contributions" to the campaign reimbursed by the record companies. The record companies know that people do care about their artists, and are thus play on their emotions by getting artists to stand up. The truth is, is that the recording companies have caused more harm to artists than piracy has, and it is the recording companies that are feeling the pinch. "So what - pirates are still stealing from the recording companies" you say? These are lerge companies that have been ripping off great musicians for years - it is about time something happened that brought attention to this and made the recording companies start to pay their dues.

It is this reason why people steal music, and why they don't feel guilty about it. They do it because of the hugely restrictive prices that music companies demand for the cd's, and they don't care because they feel they are stealing off a large company that can afford it, not the artist. The same reasoning follows with software piracy - the consensus is that people would pay if the prices were realistic. The music and software is simply not worth the price charged. Value is defined as the amount agreed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The fact that people are not willing to pay the sellers price indicates that the price is too high.

Piracy over the internet also plays an important role in a kind of backwards way. Artists that cannot afford to go to a record company can release their work on the internet, and get them selves heard and known which eventually translates to sales. I have often downloaded a tack from an artist I have never heard of, and wouldn't have given a second thought, and when I heard the track, I have gone and bought the record. This sale would not have ocurred if I hadn't heard the song first. My music taste is very off mainstream, and what I like DOES NOT get played on the radio, so the internet has performed for these artists a honourable service.

When the greedy corporations realise that ripping off the little guy, and acting anti-competitively (read Micro$oft anti-trust) then piracy can be dealt with in an effective manner, and the restrictions may be effective as casual pirates will feel their conscience. Whilst the conscience of casual pirates is clear, piracy will continue.

I know I am going to be flamed, but may I just qualify what I have said:

I do not promote illegal activity, and do not want to encourage anyone (esp. on this forum).

Anyone replying would be advised to state their case seriously and inteligently. I will not get involved in a flaming war.

G P

Sam H
07-08-2002, 08:28 PM
Nicely put Graham. :D :D

Cheers
Sam

godfather
07-08-2002, 08:31 PM
Hmmm...on that logic its OK to steal electricity as well, its also invisible and hey, they make way to much money on it...

Or to steal phonecards from a shop, on the same basis?

Just because the albums are expensive is no justification, as expense is a relative term. If they were $10 that is still expensive to some, cheap to others.

That new BMW Roadster is expensive, does that mean you would steal one?

On the other side, I agree that exposure of a track now and then can give positive publicity and encourage sales. More should be released by the artists.

"It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD"

Hardware cost, yes. Factor in GST, Retail overheads, distributor overheads, cost of capital to fund the project (with no guarantee of profit), Artist royalty, taxes at every step....

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 08:45 PM
GF,

I was not saying that it was OK as I knew that if I did, the first reply would be one like yours.

What I was saying is that is why people feel that it is OK. There reasoning is flawed, but that IS the reasoning. I think that although, not the best solution, it does perform the function of creating awareness about the heavy ahndedness of recording companies. If that means that laws are changed, and the consumer gets a better deal, thenpiracy has served some purpose.

The consumer and the artist are being riipped off, it is time things changed. I am not advocating anti-business and trade, as this is required for the economy, but encouraging consumer expenditure also improves the economy.

>its OK to steal electricity as well,
>its also invisible

That it is invisible was never an issue I brought up.

>If they were $10 that is still expensive to some,

Yes, but they would be fair value.

>That new BMW Roadster is expensive

Yes, but value is added to it due to a reputation of high quality, and perceived value due to status. Demand has pushed up the price.

As I expect to pay more for a BMW than a toyota, I would expect to pay more for popular CD's and gold-plated ones. There is no guarantee on quality of music.

>It costs something ridiculously low as $3 per CD"

>Hardware cost, yes. Factor in GST, Retail overheads,
>distributor overheads, cost of capital to fund the
>project (with no guarantee of profit), Artist royalty,
>taxes at every step....

I agree. Sam is a little mistaken on the actual cost to make a CD. You are paying for the music, not the medium. This still does not negate my point however.

G P

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 08:47 PM
Jeepers - *personal reminder to spellcheck all posts*

I am sure you can work it out though. eg heavy handedness, not "ahnedness". Their not there etc.

Sam H
07-08-2002, 08:54 PM
> I agree. Sam is a little mistaken on the actual cost
> to make a CD. You are paying for the music, not the
> medium. This still does not negate my point
> however.


Mistaken I am not, I read it an article (will try do dig out the link for you to have a read), The price is based on the really big producing artists that push out millions of CD's, just thinking about it now it may of been in US Dollars so I may have been a little bit off. Note this price is just the pressing of the CD.

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 08:59 PM
Sam, yeah I know - what I meant was the TRUE price of the cd. That figure actually is higher than I expected for straight pressing of the cd. Doesn't matter, not an issue. You're probably right.

G P

Mike
07-08-2002, 09:17 PM
> When people "pirate"
> music, the recording companies would like us to
> think it is hurting the artists. It would be, if
> the recording companies lower the artists commission
> to deal with the revenue lost through piracy (the
> recording companies don't give a toss about the
> artist, just the bottom line). They don't however.
> Artists commissions have not been lowered
> d dramatically, the recording companies have taken
> the hit, and where possible, hiked prices.

you're missing the point here though GP :) it is still a commission. Therefore the more albums that are sold, the more money the artists are paid. The more albums that are downloaded instead of sold, the less money the artists make. There are many people out there that would buy the album if they couldn't get it for free over the internet. That is lost revenues for the recording companies, and in turn, lost income for the artists. That does hurt the artists.

> Why is it you think that the recording industry is
> kicking up all the fuss and not the artists. Those

Ever heard of Metalica? :D Basically the recording companies make the fuss because they are a lot bigger, have more money to throw around in making the fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're acting as agents for the artists they represent.

> It is this reason why people steal music, and why
> they don't feel guilty about it. They do it because
> of the hugely restrictive prices that music companies
> demand for the cd's, and they don't care because they

Who says that they are hugely restrictive prices? In the States CDs are much cheaper than here, due to lower manufacture costs, yet it's still a big problem over there.

> feel they are stealing off a large company that can
> afford it, not the artist. The same reasoning
> follows with software piracy - the consensus is that
> people would pay if the prices were realistic. The
> music and software is simply not worth the price
> charged. Value is defined as the amount agreed
> between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The
> fact that people are not willing to pay the sellers
> price indicates that the price is too high.

Who is to say the prices aren't realistic? How can we go and say that MS (or any other software company) is over charging for their software - we didn't make it, we don't know how much they spent in R&D, salaries etc. etc. to make it.

> Piracy over the internet also plays an important role
> in a kind of backwards way. Artists that cannot
> afford to go to a record company can release their
> work on the internet, and get them selves heard and
> known which eventually translates to sales. I have

So let them do that - its not up to us to decide to put their works on the net though, its up to them. Most music on the net though isn't put up by the artist in this way.

> When the greedy corporations realise that ripping off
> the little guy, and acting anti-competitively (read
> Micro$oft anti-trust) then piracy can be dealt with
> in an effective manner, and the restrictions may be
> effective as casual pirates will feel their
> conscience. Whilst the conscience of casual pirates
> is clear, piracy will continue.

MSs antitrust etc. lawsuits have never had anything to do with how much they charge for their products.

> I know I am going to be flamed, but may I just
> qualify what I have said:

LOL I'm not flaming :) I'm just picking holes in what you have to say :D

> I do not promote illegal activity, and do not want to
> encourage anyone (esp. on this forum).

I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like promoting illegal activity :)

Mike.

Susan B
07-08-2002, 10:35 PM
Funny how this thread should start the very day that I have been thinking about the way we get our music these days as opposed to how I expected to get it.

A few years ago (ten or more, maybe?) I read an article in the newspaper about the future of music. They predicted that one day we would go to the music store, pick out a handful of songs from whichever artist/s we liked and have the shop compile a CD for us (or was it tape? whatever).

At the time I thought this was going to be really neat because I was so sick of buying records and tapes after hearing the singles on the radio and then finding that I didn't like the remaining third to a half of the album's songs.

My opinion on this hasn't changed a bit since then. I am still fed up with getting half of my money's worth when buying expensive CDs, to the extent that I now usually go without.

Recently I joined the multitudes downloading music. Because I feel it is stealing I usually download music that I have previously paid for. I download old songs that I have already got on records and tapes and put them on CDs so that I can play them in my PC and the portable CD player. Most of the songs wouldn't be available in the shops now anyhow, and if they are, they are on CDs full of songs that I don't like, so why should I buy them?

My daughter likes to get her favourite artist's songs and if she likes enough of the album she will buy the CD. If not, the songs usually "disappear" after a few weeks ;-)

What I'd like to know is why that old prediction never came true? Probably because the record companies are too greedy.

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 10:47 PM
> you're missing the point here though GP :) it is
> still a commission. Therefore the more albums
> that are sold, the more money the artists are paid.
> The more albums that are downloaded instead of sold,
> the less money the artists make. There are many
> people out there that would buy the album if they
> couldn't get it for free over the internet.
> That is lost revenues for the recording
> g companies, and in turn, lost income for the
> artists. That does hurt the artists.


I made the assumption that most people do not download the entire album, but rather individual songs. Those that download (and make available for download) entire albums are not "casual" pirates, and are the ones causing the problem.

> Basically the recording
> companies make the fuss because they are a lot
> bigger, have more money to throw around in making the
> fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're
> acting as agents for the artists they represent.

That is how they try to make it out. Ever wondered why they are so big? Why is it so hard to start up a record label? It is due to the size of the others - you are not competitive as a small label as larger labels will keep offering the artists more money in order to stamp you out. This is anti-competitive behaviour, and although the artists see the short term benefit, the long term benefits of more competition are lost. Consumers are also losers in this situation.


> Who is to say the prices aren't realistic? How can
> we go and say that MS (or any other software company)
> is over charging for their software - we didn't make
> it, we don't know how much they spent in R&D,
> salaries etc. etc. to make it.
>

Take the cost of windows XP - $700approx. C'mon, be honest with yourself! There is no way M$ is making the kind of profits they are and only just paying for the cost of the product. They charge because they can as there is no real competition. No-one is brave enough to provide an alternative. Those that are (all the others excluding Mac OS which can't be counted as it doesn't run on a PC platform) struggle to gain market share. Not because they don't make quality products (eg Netscape and Linux) but because of M$ ability to overpower them. This is why M$ is in trouble. Not because of price, but because of their behaviour towards competitors.

> So let them do that - its not up to us to
> decide to put their works on the net though, its up
> to them. Most music on the net though isn't put up
> by the artist in this way.

True

> MSs antitrust etc. lawsuits have never had anything
> to do with how much they charge for their products.

See above.



> LOL I'm not flaming :) I'm just picking holes in
> what you have to say :D

Thankyou - I love healthy debate, and do not consider posts of this type of post to be a flame.


> I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like promoting
> illegal activity :)


I have not suggested anyone conducts piracy. I have conceded that those that do have flawed reasoning are wrong and are stealing, and I beleive that other methods of dealing with huge global corporations (eg legislation) are better solutions as no company is going to stop trying to suceed because of piracy - piracy really only hurts smaller businesses that cannot sustain such an attack. This is against my principles.

What I am doing is trying to give DB an answer to why people do it.

My personal opinion on piracy is irrelevant, but it is almost impossible to comment without my opinion shining through. Even so - stealing is stealing. If you do it, be prepared to pay the consequences. I am not promoting piracy, but neither am I discouraging it (even if I was, my sentiments would fall on deaf ears).

Summary

People pirate music and software.

These people realise it is illegal, but do not feel that they are committing a great qrong. In fact they would likely to rate shoplifting a $1 chocolate bar to be more serious than the $100's of music they have stolen. These people are likely to be good, honest people.

The reason they do this is because of the unlikelyhood of being caught, and the fact that they do not feel like they are hurting anyone (it doesn't matter if this premise is true, as long as they beleive it).

The free-flow of information spawned by p2p sharing has created some benefits that would not of occurred if p2p's popularity hadn't been boosted by illegal music sharing.

It will happen and continue to happen until prices drop dramatically, or copyright enforcement is toughened.

Large corporations such as Microsoft have been given a free reign for far to long - the consumer has suffered, and so has MS's competitors.

Look forward to your reply

G P

PS To use a good example, Susan B (most definitely not the only one, just a good example) would be considered by most as honest and trustworthy even though none (few?) of us have actually met her. She is a mother and would consider herself to be a good person. She would be horrified if one of her children was caught shoplifting, yet she has been known to "steal" music on the internet by her own admission. No offence to Susan - I admit downloading copyrighted mp3's also - but this is an indication of the acceptance of society of these actions. Perhaps one day society will not find this activity to be unacceptable. Since our law is derived from the rules of society, perhaps one day copyright law will change t allow free distribution of such material.

G P

Baldy
07-08-2002, 10:47 PM
I remember those compilations Susan... they were called Solid Gold Hits.

Actually, I think there is a retail outlet in Auckland where you can record a CD compilation from a library / selection they have.

I use the internet for music exactly as you do Susan.... My favourite Joe Walsh albumn never came out on CD, but most the tracks are available on Kazaa

Graham Petrie
07-08-2002, 10:51 PM
Susan, sorry, your post was not there when I started typing. I will assume that you post holds true (ie you do not download music you have not owned at some stage) - although I do question it. Even so, my analogy holds true for many contributors on this forum. Most "Pirates" are not people who consider themselves criminals. Anti-piracy advocates need to change this mood before they can hope to halt piracy.

G P

Kiwitas
07-08-2002, 10:56 PM
Hi D_B,
The "Artists' are bleeding because of volume of music dowloaded free from the Internet?Wakey-Wakey!

Sales in the Music Industry was down 6.6% from the previous years turn-over of [b]$48 BILLION[b]World-wide.

This drop is only partly due to piracy(the percentage I would not know)as well as the prices charged for CD's that the consumer thinks are too high

OK! The turnover is not all in CD sales, but by the same token an artist
only gets a percentage of production costs,not a percentage of the Recording Companies profits!

Long live P2P!

Cheers,Kiwitas,;-)

PS;Now watch the flaming!

Kiwitas
07-08-2002, 11:04 PM
OOOOps,Sorry I forgot to shut of theBOLD

Cheers again,Kiwitas,;-)

Elwin Way
07-08-2002, 11:27 PM
I read somewhere that the year before had a 6.6% sales drop in music. Last year was only 5%. So much for the 'poor' record companies.

The fact is, people do it cos they can. And as long as they can, they will. And if they can't, they will try. And they will succeed.

Piracy has been happening for years. I bet everyone over of a decent age will remember copying a mate's tape, or even taping songs off the radio. What's the difference between then and now?

And what's the difference between downloading copyrighted MP3s, wares, cracks, movies and books?

Anybody remember the sneaker net and SEX partys? :^O Only speed and quantity has changed I guess...

-=JM=-
08-08-2002, 01:42 AM
This would still be illegal. But you could always pirate the music anway and give the difference (or part of) to the artist directly :D

Also a lot of music is sold from the ability to pirate it.

Not everyone gets pirated stuff because it is cheaper. But because they can "try before they buy". Who want's to spend ~$40 on a CD when they have never heard the artist.

But when you randomly come across an artist that you haven't heard of. So you download it and find out that they are really good so then purchase the CD.

Mike
08-08-2002, 10:45 AM
> I made the assumption that most people do not
> download the entire album, but rather individual
> songs. Those that download (and make available for
> download) entire albums are not "casual" pirates,
> and are the ones causing the problem.

ummm... what's the difference here? If I download 12 songs off 12 albums, or 12 songs off 1 album, I've still downloaded 12 songs... because I got them all off 1 album that makes me worse? :)

> > Basically the recording
> > companies make the fuss because they are a lot
> > bigger, have more money to throw around in making
> the
> > fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're
> > acting as agents for the artists they represent.
>
> That is how they try to make it out. Ever wondered
> why they are so big? Why is it so hard to start up a
> record label? It is due to the size of the others -
> you are not competitive as a small label as larger
> labels will keep offering the artists more money in
> order to stamp you out. This is anti-competitive
> behaviour, and although the artists see the short
> term benefit, the long term benefits of more
> competition are lost. Consumers are also losers in
> this situation.

Rubbish! The recording companies are not anti-competitive just because they are big! They're big because they have many many many artists signed with them, and this is the reason it is hard to start your own label, but it can still be, and is, done. The bigger recording companies don't offer more money to artists to sign with them - they don't need to. Artists go to the bigger companies because they are more likely to get heard and make it into stores.

> Take the cost of windows XP - $700approx. C'mon, be
> honest with yourself! There is no way M$ is making
> the kind of profits they are and only just paying for
> the cost of the product. They charge because they

What kind of profits are MS making? As far as I'm aware, they're not making huge profits - and definitely aren't paying huge dividends to shareholders. Much of what they make on software sales goes back into the company, into research, into development, into design, into upgrading their own equipment so they can go the next step. If they weren't making a little on what they sell, they'd have gone downhill a long time ago because they wouldn't have been able to afford to keep up. Don't compare Microsofts money with Bill Gates' money - they're completely seperate. He didn't make all his money from Microsoft paying him - he is a major (think major!) shareholder, and most of his wealth is held in the value of the company.

> can as there is no real competition. No-one is brave
> enough to provide an alternative. Those that are
> (all the others excluding Mac OS which can't be
> counted as it doesn't run on a PC platform) struggle
> to gain market share. Not because they don't make
> quality products (eg Netscape and Linux) but because
> of M$ ability to overpower them. This is why M$ is
> in trouble. Not because of price, but because of
> their behaviour towards competitors.

The reason MS is in trouble is not because they are a huge company. They worked bloody hard to get there. They are in trouble because a while ago they included something in one of their operating systems that disabled features in other companies software (eg netscape). That is initially what got them in trouble. This "feature" has since been removed, hence our ability to run netscape in Windows. This is anti-competitive behaviour, but has nothing to do with the price we have to pay for their products, but more to do with the fact that generally when anybody buys a PC it comes with Windows pre-installed - not because they've been anti-competitive to make sure that their OS is pre-installed, but because they've done really well to make theis OS the standard that everyone works off. They're not pushing Linux from the market - that would be anti-competitive - but the fact that MS has the dominant market share just makes it harder for any competitor to break into the market. There's nothing wrong with that.

> > MSs antitrust etc. lawsuits have never had
> anything
> > to do with how much they charge for their
> products.
>
> See above.

See above :)

> > I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like
> promoting
> > illegal activity :)
>
> I have not suggested anyone conducts piracy. I have
> conceded that those that do have flawed reasoning are
> wrong and are stealing, and I beleive that other
> methods of dealing with huge global corporations (eg
> legislation) are better solutions as no company is
> going to stop trying to suceed because of piracy -
> piracy really only hurts smaller businesses that
> cannot sustain such an attack. This is against my
> principles.
>
> What I am doing is trying to give DB an answer to why
> people do it.

Nobody does it to fight huge "anti-competitive" corporates. They do it to get free music.

> My personal opinion on piracy is irrelevant, but it
> is almost impossible to comment without my opinion
> shining through. Even so - stealing is stealing. If
> you do it, be prepared to pay the consequences. I am
> not promoting piracy, but neither am I discouraging
> it (even if I was, my sentiments would fall on deaf
> ears).

So if you downloaded music, you'd be doing it to fight the global corporates? Or just to get free music easily?

> The reason they do this is because of the
> unlikelyhood of being caught, and the fact that they
> do not feel like they are hurting anyone (it doesn't
> matter if this premise is true, as long as they
> beleive it).

exactly. It's there, so why not? :)

> The free-flow of information spawned by p2p sharing
> has created some benefits that would not of occurred
> if p2p's popularity hadn't been boosted by illegal
> music sharing.
>
> It will happen and continue to happen until prices
> drop dramatically, or copyright enforcement is
> toughened.

No, it'll continue to happen even if CDs dropped to $5 each. It's the convenience of downloading what you want when you want - you can delete the ones you don't like. You can't do that off a CD.

> Large corporations such as Microsoft have been given
> a free reign for far to long - the consumer has
> suffered, and so has MS's competitors.

I disagree. They are large because they've worked to get there. They don't have a free reign - in fact they're more likely to be targetted than smaller companies. But the fact that they're big make it more likely that people will buy their products. That's GOOD for competition. I cannot see how the consumer has suffered. The only way that MS's competitors have suffered is that they can't sell enough to compete.

Think about this example. Telecom. They were up and running long before any competitor could enter the scene. It took a long time, and a LOT of government help to get competition up and running, and they still struggle to compete with Telecom. Telecom isn't doing anything wrong just because they're big; they're a very successful company that makes it difficult to compete with them just because they were here first and a lot bigger than the others. They have the major market share (like Microsoft) and in most places people sign up with Telecom because that's generally what people do. Nothing anti-competitive about that.

Mike.

PS In no way am I supporting MS or Telecom - I'm completely unbiases with regards to MS, although personally I don't like Telecom, for various reasons :)

Mike
08-08-2002, 10:49 AM
> Hi D_B,
> The "Artists' are bleeding because of volume of music
> dowloaded free from the Internet?Wakey-Wakey!
>
> Sales in the Music Industry was down 6.6% from the
> previous years turn-over of [b]$48
> BILLION[b]World-wide.

but what of the huge gains in sales that were taking place every year until p2p took off? a drop in sales is a huge drop when you look at the fact that the number of sales had climbed year after year.

> Long live P2P!

so you condone illegal activity then? :)

Mike.

Kiwitas
08-08-2002, 11:37 AM
Hi Mike,
you condone illegal activity then?

What's illegal about downloading MP3's?or any other files that are not
'warez'?

Was just rattling the cage!LOL,:-0

Cheers,Kiwitas,;-)

tweak\'e
08-08-2002, 11:42 AM
ok my quick $0.02

one thing i hate is people makeing money out of others work. in this case it people selling pirate cd's. if you are going to pay for it buy the real thing. this also goes for the likes of kazaa who are makeing money out of people file sharing mp3's.

i don't have anything against people SHARING music, all of us have shared music or other items at one time or another. gee i wonder if stanly will start sueing people for shareing a screwdriver. "you only bought the right for you to use that screwdriver personally" yea right!

if you what good quality music, the cd sleeves and any extras that come with the cds then you need to buy it. (remember pink floyd pulse album?)

the music industrys biggest probblem is illegal SELLING of cds not shareing.

btw before the days of cd's does anyone still remember shareing tapes? i don't remember music industry kicking up a fuss about that.

Graham Petrie
08-08-2002, 11:45 AM
OK, last reply before we start giong round in circles.

The difference between 12 individual songs and 12 songs off an album is that you cannot buy the album with the 12 individual songs onthem without a bunch of other [crap?] songs as well. Those that download and make available entire albums do it to either a) make money (not the case with p2p granted), or b) to rip of the labels in the same way that software crackers/pirates do. Just because they can.

>Nobody does it to fight huge "anti-competitive" corporates.
>They do it to get free music.

Of course. They rationalise this action with the age-old "They can afford it because they're big". They don't do to fight the company, but rationalise their actions with that idea.

As far as the big corporation argument. I agree with you that MS got big through hard work and determination. My argument above does not show this, but I have fairly capitalist views, and just decided to take the other side in this debate (hence why some of my arguments are a little weak - I still think they are valid though). I agree that MS etc deserve what they earn, and I was NEVER comparing Bill Gates money with MS's. But, don't you think that ny nature large companies are anti-competitive. This is a hard argument to reason as the general reply is usully - "That's not their fault, they didn't do it on purpose." But my beleif is that averyone should have a fair chance, which does not happen when one company dominates the market. This conflicts with my capitalist view, and to legislate around this problem would be a nightmare, but it is just my beleif that large corporations are relatively immune to most competition by virtue of their size.

I know the details of the anti-trust cases. My argument was based on inference of the facts, and by examining the courts possible solutions (eg when they discussed breaking MS up into several separate companies in order to halt what it was doing). I was just explaining that MS had used bulkly tactics to stamp out competition on the sidelines (separate from the anti-trust issue) through buy-outs, propaganda (linux is a virus), and a little bit of its own piracy.

You may be right about piracy continuing even if prices do come down, but I disagree. I still buy the same amount of music as I did before I discovered p2p. This is as much s I can afford (usually 2-3 cd's a year),. But I also have enjoyment from a much bigger collection due to p2p. If the price of music was halved, I would double my consumption. Piracy will never be stamped out entirely - neither will any criome, but it will at least be reduced. What needs to happen is society needs to really change its attitude to discopurage piracy. No matter what anyone says, society is relaxed about this theft. People get all high and mighty about how illegal it is when asked, but then go home and do it themselves. For most pirates, it is the only illegal activity they have or will ever do. They just do not feel that it is criminal. Societies attitude needs to change before the people will.

Finally:

>They have the major market share (like Microsoft) and
>in most places people sign up with Telecom because
>that's generally what people do. Nothing anti-competitive
>about that.

If you are big because at one stage you were the only option (both MS and Telecom fall under this category), then you gain market share by default. You need to work to keep it, but once you are big, you have the resources to. You can afford to out advertise everyone else. No-one has a chance unless they are big enough to compete. Again, they are anti-competitive by virtue of their size. People sign up to telecom because they don't know any better. They are ill-informed. There is still the attitude that Windows is the only OS, and telecom is the only teleco company in NZ - if you need a phone, ring telecom. They do not have the best product, and usually have the highest price, but because they can out advertise eberyone else, they gain customers. This is what I mean bu consumers being hurt. They end up with a less quality product (usually - I have no problem with MS office - it is a great sutie, but windows is a bloated cow of an OS - yes I still use it, but that is an informed decision based on my needs) for a higher price due to their ignorance of the market.

Piracy is a sensitive issue. Everyone knows it is illegal. Everyone concedes that it is stealing and that it is hurting poeple. Yet everyone who does it rationalises these points and does it anyway. The media makes these people out to be dark and dirty criminals. They aren't. I can't see a solution. Consumers deserve a better deal, yet the record companies and artists do not deserve to by overly legislated against, and most certainly don't deserve to be stolen from. What needs to be done is that the govt needs to commission a study to determine the best solution for everyone. Passing a bill to allow record labels to breach your privacy by way of access to your PC is not the answer (damn US!).

G P

Graham Petrie
08-08-2002, 11:55 AM
tweak'e - agree whole heartedly about the selling etc.

But I would postulate that most people would be of the view that when you share a screwdriver, only one person is using it. You don't make copies of the screwdriver and give them away at no or little cost to yourself. It is not really sharing, but open distribution of copies.

As far as the tapes go - of course no-one minded (although now the record companies say that it hurt them back then - rubbish!) It was not as easy or widespread then however. Still - it is the same principle.

G P

Mike
08-08-2002, 12:09 PM
<snip snip snip> :)

> The difference between 12 individual songs and 12
> songs off an album is that you cannot buy the album
> with the 12 individual songs onthem without a bunch
> of other [crap?] songs as well. Those that download

Buy the single :)

> they are big enough to compete. Again, they are
> anti-competitive by virtue of their size. People

LOL that comes down to definition I think :) I wouldn't call it anti-competitive, because legally "anti-competitive" is (put simply) acting to stamp out competition. I don't believe Microsoft or Telecom are in the practice of doing this - they're big, and therefore hard to compete with, but this doesn't make them anti-competitive :)

> sign up to telecom because they don't know any
> better. They are ill-informed. There is still the
> attitude that Windows is the only OS, and telecom is
> the only teleco company in NZ - if you need a phone,
> ring telecom. They do not have the best product,

Personally I think Microsoft do have the best product... for EVERYBODY. Doesn't mean its the best product for each person, but overall - it is designed to suit people in general, whereas alternatives such as Linux are designed to suit the individual... a lot of Win features are not there, you need to know what you're doing with Linux. Windows works whether you're a genius or an absolute idiot (like myself).

> and usually have the highest price, but because they
> can out advertise eberyone else, they gain

I don't think Telecom or Microsoft need to even advertise - they're already well enough known. They could operate quite comfortably for a long time without advertising (wouldn't sell as much as if they did advertise though).

> Consumers deserve a better deal, yet the record
> companies and artists do not deserve to by overly
> legislated against, and most certainly don't deserve
> to be stolen from. What needs to be done is that

so some do deserve to be stolen from? ;)

Mike. <the extreme capitalist> :)

tweak\'e
08-08-2002, 12:36 PM
in essence its what its all about. music is so easy to copy CHEAPLY. if they want to get around sharing of mp3 then they need to add something esle to the product eg special cases, pics, lyics etc. then theres live shows.
add value to the cd's that cannot be copied. they need to change the product, then customers will buy cd's, not just for the cd but for the rest os the stuff that comes with it.

Elwin Way
08-08-2002, 12:54 PM
Nit pickin' time:

>The reason MS is in trouble is not because they are a huge company. They worked bloody hard to get there.

Bullsh!t. Granted, a lot of people work hard a MS, especially the patch developers... You oughta read up on the true history of MS if you haven't already. Bill Gates never wrote an operating system, or invented anything. He was however a crafty business man. That's how he made his money. It's a known fact that the harder you work the less money you make.

>>Not everyone gets pirated stuff because it is cheaper. But because they can "try before they buy". Who want's to spend ~$40 on a CD when they have never heard the artist.

That's what radio stations are for.

>>> but the fact that MS has the dominant market share just makes it harder for any competitor to break into the market. There's nothing wrong with that.

No of course not. It only means that we are starved for choice as consumers. One of the biggest reasons that MS is dominant is because of its OEM scheme - retailers and manufacturers get a large volume discount if they preinstall windows.

Look at the other options - BeOS, which is just as easy to use as windows, but stabler (yes I tried it and couldn't crash it) is dead because the company got pushed out by MS - it's all about marketing tactics. Let's face it - MS make a crap operating system. But they do have good marketing gurus and have the advantage by getting in first. If BeOS came out before windows, I would hazard a guess to say we would (most of us) be running that instead.

Linux doesn't go down well with OEM manufacturers because of it's 'flexibility' - that is it has too many features and would cause headaches to the monkeys who have to preinstall the OS's onto PCs.

OSX is out for obvious reasons...

>>>>No, it'll continue to happen even if CDs dropped to $5 each. It's the convenience of downloading what you want when you want - you can delete the ones you don't like. You can't do that off a CD.

No it won't, unless the speed and quality of MP3s improve dramatically. I admit to downloading a CD full of MP3s. The idea was to get an MP3 player for the car. You can now get 10 stck MP3 CD players. You can drive your car for 40 hours before you have to change the CD. This is what appeals to a lot of people. I have currently a 6 CD stacker in my car - I change the CDs on average once a week. With MP3, I would be changing them about once a year.

But I digress, and this was going to be a short post. I was going to say that I have downloaded MP3s but have given up because all of them have faults - they sound bad, they get cut off, they have varying RMS values... I've gone back to buying better quality CDs from the Warewhare for 99cents each...

Kiwitas
08-08-2002, 04:12 PM
Good on you Elwin,

At least if the 99c CD from the Warehouse is no good.you still have a jewel-case for the next time you burn one!

Cheers,Kiwitas,;-)

Mike
08-08-2002, 05:44 PM
> >The reason MS is in trouble is not because they are
> a huge company. They worked bloody hard to get
> there.
>
> Bullsh!t. Granted, a lot of people work hard a MS,
> especially the patch developers... You oughta read up
> on the true history of MS if you haven't already.
> Bill Gates never wrote an operating system, or
> invented anything. He was however a crafty business
> man. That's how he made his money. It's a known fact
> that the harder you work the less money you make.

So you're telling me Bill and Paul just decided to start up a company, do nothing, and become the biggest software company in the world with little or no effort at all? I don't think so!

Mike.

Chilling_Silence
08-08-2002, 05:45 PM
What about linux being open-source?

Chilling_Silence

Elwin Way
08-08-2002, 09:00 PM
> Good on you Elwin,
>
> At least if the 99c CD from the Warehouse is no
> good.you still have a jewel-case for the next time
> you burn one!
>
> Cheers,Kiwitas,;-)

Actually they come in cardboard wrappers. :)


>>So you're telling me Bill and Paul just decided to start up a company, do nothing, and become the biggest software company in the world with little or no effort at all? I don't think so!

Close, but not quite. Go do your history. I'll put this simply and quickly. I don't apologise for any errors.

Part One: Bill started off by buying an OS from a dude who hadn't actually finished writing it. It was called QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System - by the writer. Billy boy bought it for a sum, slapped his name on it, and then proceeded to sell licenses (sound familiar?) to companies that wanted to use it.

Part Two: Bill Gates had a "friend" who worked at Palo Alto. They were developing a lovely new operating system with a friendly graphical user interface. At that time I think Bill was still rubbing shoulder with Steve Jobs, who already had a version of the Apple with a GUI. Good ol' Bill once again jumped in and "bought" bits and pieces and turned them into Windows 1.0 which was never released because it was so crappy they couldn't do anything with it.

The saga continues....

Graham Petrie
08-08-2002, 09:39 PM
Unless my memory deceives me, QDOS was written by a New Zealander or an Aussie?? Or have I got my wires crossed?

G P

Babe Ruth
08-08-2002, 09:44 PM
Not sure about your wires GP but heres a link to history of (q)DOS DOS History (http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm)

Graham Petrie
08-08-2002, 10:26 PM
Hmmm, I don't know why I thought Tim Paterson was a kiwi, but I found where I had heard about QDOS before - page 89 of August 2001 PCWorld shows a picture of tim paterson and is part of an article which starts on page86 "20 years of the Personal Comuter".

Oh well he was from Seattle.

G P

Graham Petrie
08-08-2002, 10:28 PM
LOL Computer not commuter - funny.

G P

antmannz
09-08-2002, 05:00 PM
Hmmm .... lots of interesting stuff here. I remember recording music off the radio when I was a kid - but it didn't seem to be a big issue. I guess the RIA, etc. are moaning now because of the speed with which music can be shared, copied, etc.
I read somewhere in these posts "buy the single on CD". Ummm, who wants 250+ CD-singles?

I also agree that music and software is relatively expensive - software especially. Sure, those artists/developers should be rewarded for their work - but should the tons of middle-men who do nothing but leech of these people get any reward?
I know only buy games after they have been on the store shelves for a few months - by then they are no longer $100+ but are being sold for $50 or less, often only $20. To me, this is fair value.

And somebody tell me - how do video rentals work? Videos usually have a rider-type thing saying that it's not to be rented, copied, etc - yet we've rented it !!