Filesharing: Inalienable right or punishable by death?

[Elenion]

Well, if you look at the music industry, we're looking at dinosaurs wanting to earn as much as possible with as little effort as possible.

Bands doesn't really earn money through record sales, but in large by concerts and merchandise. Those only have a limited amount and you can't copy those.

Here's an example:
For one night playing at the Quart festival in Norway, the festival offered Metallice 10 million NOK (rough estimate 1,8 million US $). The festival already have it's own advertising, light show, sound system and appropiate people to work them. Only thing Metallica has to do is to drag themselves, their equipment and their technicians to Norway to play for 2 hours. That is for a concert where absolute max capacity is 50000 people. That means that each person is paying 38 dollars to see Metallica live.
Roughly estimated, that's 2 full albums. Or, if you say that the artist earns 20% of the sales (which is quite alot), we're talking about 10 albums worth of sales.
They get that from 2 hours of playing. And not to mention merchandise they sell there.
For the record, Metallica turned down the offer.

Now, this is an extreme example of how much money is involved in concerts. Lesser artists earn less because they have smaller concerts, but for the really small bands, we're talking about 5-20$ in tickets, where almost all go to them. They would benefit greatly from getting their music distrubuted alot more, so more would come to their concerts. As you can see, they earn more per person visiting ONE concert or buying ONE piece of clothing than selling one CD.

Studios doesn't cost that much. Yes, they are expensive, but the equipment-frenzy has gone wild. A good band doesn't need to pay their asses off to get a good record. We are talking about really good equipment that records music for 44,1kHz/16bit? That's what I call a waste of money.

So, I have no sympathy for the MUSIC i download, but movies and TV-series, I see bigger problems in.


Edit: My bf wrote this while I was at school. I mostly agree with him though.. Except for TVshows - I don't pay to watch them on TV so I don't feel bad dl them for free either.. + we live in Norway so it's a must to dl if I want new episodes. And I also buy CD's if there's a band I like (I have ~130 cds while my bf has like.. 4.. hehe)

[Malice]

There is some music that I will either one of two things:
1.)Never be able to find.
2.)Never be able to afford.

Those are what I will "pirate".

Never be able to find is one thing, and I consider that a gray area.
Never be able to afford? Excluding the question of "What the hell music out there is selling for inordinate amounts of money?", my response is, tough. That's the world we live in. You shouldn't steal what you can't afford, no matter what it is.

[graue]

I'll never understand these moral debates on filesharing. It's like having a discussion as to whether it's okay to ride your bike, or if not buying a car counts as stealing from the auto industry. I don't buy CDs because I don't want my music on plastic, let alone horrendously overpriced plastic.

Any rational person who likes an album, film, etc. has every reason to support the artists in some way to ensure there will be more art they like. Common reasons not to are because doing so is inconvenient, or even impossible without large overhead. For example, donating to a band by buying their CD easily involves more than 1500% overhead. Unsurprisingly, people who don't desire a CD often don't do this, even if they like the album. For music, other options include seeing shows and buying merchandise. I emailed John Vanderslice to ask how I could support him without buying CDs, and he suggested buying merch at a show... "Believe it or not we live on that stuff." So I bought a t-shirt, which I can use anyway. Works for me.

Scrooges who don't support the art they like at all will find it self-punishing: The only art they will be left with is what other people like enough to pay for. If anything remains that they like, it'll just be a coincidence. My approach is to download whatever I can get that looks interesting. If I feel it's speaking to me personally, I'll try to support it. If I'm listening/watching/reading it just because it's there, I probably won't.

This is all economics, and morals need not be invoked.

On the other hand, when someone tells me that my private filesharing actions (with consenting adults) make me a criminal, I have a problem with that.

[Rysto]

Well, let me try and help you understand. If filesharing is legal, then I, as a programmer, don't have a job because my work becomes worthless. This forum, which probably runs on 100% open-source software may well not exist(without strong copyright protections GPL'ed software probably wouldn't exist -- so much for PHPBB and the Linux operating system).

To deny copyright protections is to deny that creative works have value. That's insane.

[trickster721]

This forum, which probably runs on 100% open-source software may well not exist(without strong copyright protections GPL'ed software probably wouldn't exist -- so much for PHPBB and the Linux operating system).

This is a classic argument for the existence of evil. So you win, but in a very Paradise Lost kind of way.

Without strong copyright protections, your mom wouldn't exist. It's true!

[zenten]

Well, let me try and help you understand. If filesharing is legal, then I, as a programmer, don't have a job because my work becomes worthless. This forum, which probably runs on 100% open-source software may well not exist(without strong copyright protections GPL'ed software probably wouldn't exist -- so much for PHPBB and the Linux operating system).

To deny copyright protections is to deny that creative works have value. That's insane.

Sure they have value. And that value would then exist without an artificial monopoly enforced by the government.

If someone wants a game for their computer that fits specific requirements, they'll pay you for it. If they don't pay you for it, they clearly don't care that much, right?

I do admit however that just scrapping copyright tomorrow would have some really nasty growing pains, but a slower and easier transition could mitigate a lot of that.

[Rysto]

The price of a good is equal to the marginal cost of producing it. It's basically free to make an electronic copy, which means that the price of such a good in a completely open market will be 0.

Needless to say, that's not going to work out so well for anybody trying to make a living off of it.

[CareFactor]

I do it. Any possible moral repercussions for what I (personally) do with file sharing are no worse from what I can see morally than from sometimes not giving money to a charity when I have it handy, and I deal with the guilt in much the same way.

That's an interesting perspective. But I don't really think I agree; if we give to charity we gain nothing in a materialistic or economical sense but if we download music without paying the artist then only we gain. That's fine if you want to be selfish about the situation, but I personally don't.

A better analogy would be if I copied your shirt fiber for fiber a thousand miles away without your knowledge. I'm not going into artist's homes and taking their master CDs. I'm not /taking/ anything. What I'm doing is not paying for something I wouldn't have bought anyway with nothing being taken away from the artist. Am I being clear?

I'm probably being too controversial for a noob but I'll say it anyway; I disagree. Because of the law, that analogy is, if anything, more inaccurate because musicians for example have the right to sell the music and to some extent control the copyright over it regardless of whether or not you agree with the current system.

This is all economics, and morals need not be invoked.

So if I told you that you could go into whatever store you wanted and steal whatever you wanted, would you have no objection if there was no punishment for stealing? I think we kind of exploit the fact that it is so easy to download TV programs, films and music by means of filesharing. Going all theological on y'all now, I guess that's what could be called 'impulse sin'. (I want it, I can have it, I'll take it)

And finally:
Saying that real artists would continue producing anyway if copyright laws were scrapped is a pointless argument. People that work in the the television, film and music industries have a very valid contribution to society therefore denying them money is in effect implying that their creative input is fundamentally unworthy of being paid.

I realise though that this is a rather controversial first post so I should probably brace myself for abuse!

[zenten]

The price of a good is equal to the marginal cost of producing it. It's basically free to make an electronic copy, which means that the price of such a good in a completely open market will be 0.

Needless to say, that's not going to work out so well for anybody trying to make a living off of it.

You're misreading what a "good" is though, or at least what it could be. Companies right now will hire people to make open source software, and they get a good return on their investment, because they get to have the software do what they want.

[Rysto]

Only for software products for which they can make money on in other ways, like selling services or hardware. That cuts out a lot of types of software.

[a386]

The price of a good is equal to the marginal cost of producing it. It's basically free to make an electronic copy, which means that the price of such a good in a completely open market will be 0.

Needless to say, that's not going to work out so well for anybody trying to make a living off of it.

the point i think though is that, without record companies, the artist isn't trying to make a living off that "good." the "good" is really advertisement to draw more people to live shows and to attract more people to buy their merchandise, which is what they make a living off of.

[Rysto]

Fine, but what about movies? Video games? Books? There aren't significant secondary sources of income for those goods.

[zenten]

Fine, but what about movies? Video games? Books? There aren't significant secondary sources of income for those goods.

Movies still have the theater. Video games have various copy protection schemes that actually work to some degree, especially on consoles. Books aren't even an issue, as most people don't want to read a book on a screen, and getting something printed, even if doing so is perfectly legal is a pain.

[Tei]

What If we invent "machine compilators". Machines that with a spec of a ferrari ( +water, and a piece of trash with enough metal), will build in 1 hour a ferrary?

We will be able to clone anything (but lifeforms, maybe). Then, only intelectual thief is the barrier to a nirvana/hell where everybody has a ferrari. Nowdays computer programmers can't compile his food. So you guys sould pay your games and office apps. But we sould look to this in a different, more accurate way than IP thief. Maybe IP Thieft don't exist. But maybe we may still pay for our things, for a totally different reason.

[zenten]

What If we invent "machine compilators". Machines that with a spec of a ferrari ( +water, and a piece of trash with enough metal), will build in 1 hour a ferrary?

We will be able to clone anything (but lifeforms, maybe). Then, only intelectual thief is the barrier to a nirvana/hell where everybody has a ferrari. Nowdays computer programmers can't compile his food. So you guys sould pay your games and office apps. But we sould look to this in a different, more accurate way than IP thief. Maybe IP Thieft don't exist. But maybe we may still pay for our things, for a totally different reason.

So we all get lots of neat stuff for free. Why's that bad?

[Rysto]

Because then the incentive to create isn't there. Same economic concept that's behind patents(which isn't to say that patents in their current form are perfect).

[zenten]

Because then the incentive to create isn't there. Same economic concept that's behind patents(which isn't to say that patents in their current form are perfect).

Ok, lets compare.

Current system with replicators: Hunger and poverty abound, but new inventions are made very very frequently. There is also a lot of money spent on fueling that invention that is directed towards legal ends.

IP less system with replicators: No annoying legal fees, no hunger, no poverty. Inventions are not as quickly developed.

The later seems like a no brainer to me.

[a386]

Fine, but what about movies? Video games? Books? There aren't significant secondary sources of income for those goods.

yeah. i usually just download music. if i do take anything else, i do it with a guilty conscience. and i try not to stiff smaller-name artists because it's a bigger chunk of their income ratio-wise. at least we can justify free music.

[Tei]

Current system with replicators: Hunger and poverty abound, but new inventions are made very very frequently. There is also a lot of money spent on fueling that invention that is directed towards legal ends.

You can isolate that variable? because I can't.

IP less system with replicators: No annoying legal fees, no hunger, no poverty. Inventions are not as quickly developed.

Can you see the future of alternate dimensions?. because I can't.

[zenten]

Current system with replicators: Hunger and poverty abound, but new inventions are made very very frequently. There is also a lot of money spent on fueling that invention that is directed towards legal ends.

You can isolate that variable? because I can't.

IP less system with replicators: No annoying legal fees, no hunger, no poverty. Inventions are not as quickly developed.

Can you see the future of alternate dimensions?. because I can't.

Well, you're sort of right. That's just a prediction. Just like the prediction that driving around at high speeds in the winter without my seatbelt will get me rather hurt. I have no way of actually knowing this is true.

[Rysto]

Why does hunger abound under the current system with replicators? There's no IP laws on food.

[zenten]

Why does hunger abound under the current system with replicators? There's no IP laws on food.

There's IP laws on food making replicators. Which allows the owner of the patents on the food replicators to significantly jack up prices.

Admittedly that stops being a problem with the patent expires.

[Tei]

Why does hunger abound under the current system with replicators? There's no IP laws on food.

Errrr... ask Monsanto about the topic.

[Rysto]

Fine. If you want to be pedantic about it, there are plenty of foods for which there are no IP restrictions.

[Delbin]

Thought this was interesting. Raidohead released their latest album In Rainbows online for either free or an amount decided by the consumer, and it seems to be pretty successful.

Factoring in free downloads, ComScore said the average price per download was $2.26. But it did not specify a total number of downloads, saying only that a "significant percentage" of the 1.2 million people who visited the Radiohead Web site, inrainbows.com, in October downloaded the album. Under a typical recording contract, a band receives royalties of about 15 percent of an album's wholesale price after expenses are recovered. Without middlemen, and with zero material costs for a download, $2.26 per album would work out to Radiohead's advantage — not to mention the worldwide publicity.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/12/ ... php?page=3

So, roughly 2 million made from album sales alone, on an album given away for free with a tip jar sitting nearby. I believe this shows that, with a little adaptation, entertainers can make money even with rapant, easy pirating.

[Malice]

So, roughly 2 million made from album sales alone, on an album given away for free with a tip jar sitting nearby. I believe this shows that, with a little adaptation, entertainers can make money even with rapant, easy pirating.

Actually, all it shows is that that Radiohead can make money even with rampant, easy pirating. It is by no means clear that somebody in a different range of popularity can make the same kind of money.

[zenten]

Fine. If you want to be pedantic about it, there are plenty of foods for which there are no IP restrictions.

Yes, which must be grown. If the replicator costs $1000 per unit, it won't be available to most people, regardless if the food it produces is covered under IP law.

So, roughly 2 million made from album sales alone, on an album given away for free with a tip jar sitting nearby. I believe this shows that, with a little adaptation, entertainers can make money even with rapant, easy pirating.

Actually, all it shows is that that Radiohead can make money even with rampant, easy pirating. It is by no means clear that somebody in a different range of popularity can make the same kind of money.

True.

I'm at a bit of a loss to find lesser known artists who tried this model at all, to see how their sales did.

[RaptorAttack]

I don't think file sharing is a "right", and I can see how it definitely has some ill effects for major studio labels and artists who make money primarily on album sales instead of concerts, but overall I have a hard time seeing how the negative effects might outweigh the benefits of it (and in particular, how any individual person could be punished for it).

As others have said, file sharing is actually a benefit for smaller artists who need exposure and a buildup of their fan base, and it also helps artists who make their money primarily on concerts and merchandise sales (i.e. working musicians). I think it hurts big-name artists who are in what you could say is an artificial position due to saturation by major labels, domination of radio airwaves, etc, but I'm actually not sure if hurting these people is a bad thing. I could see it as being a welcome breakdown of the existing system to make way for something more egalitarian and merit-based.

The problem with estimating the "harm" of file sharing is that while some people will download a song in lieu of buying it, others will download that song when they wouldn't have otherwise bought it, and still others will download that song and then donate money or buy something (the song, merchandise, whatever) from the artist as a result of hearing it for free. I don't know which of these approaches is most common, but obviously you can't make a rational argument that downloading a song = taking money from an artist. I can say that personally, I don't think I would be the music-oriented person that I am if it wasn't for the availability of free music, and as a direct result of it I have spent more money than I would have otherwise on artists.

I noticed several posts earlier arguing that "rational" people would give no money to artists and just take music if it was freely available, thus leading to artists unable to support themselves. This seems similar to the "If you don't believe in God and his moral laws, how come you're not murdering people?" argument I sometimes hear from certain religious people. Who says "rational" people are completely self-interested? I like to think I'm fairly rational, and I get enjoyment out of being nice to others and supporting things I love.

Another strange argument I've seen several times is that art somehow "needs" copyright to be created. Creativity and artistic expression existed before copyright. It existed before money or organized society - hello, cave paintings! It will go on no matter how copyright is altered or broken down. I'm not saying this is an argument in favor of destroying copyright, although I actually think copyright laws (at least in the U.S.) have become excessive and restrictive to the point that they are hurting creativity and artistic expression.

Honestly, the only kind of "copyright" that doesn't give me creepy feelings is the idea of respecting creators - don't take someone else's work and call it your own, and don't use someone else's work to make money for yourself without their permission (similar to open-source copyright ideas I guess). Any copyright laws related to restricting information or turning creativity into a product, even if some might be necessary in a capitalist society, tend to gross me out.

[Rysto]

As others have said, file sharing is actually a benefit for smaller artists who need exposure and a buildup of their fan base, and it also helps artists who make their money primarily on concerts and merchandise sales (i.e. working musicians).

What you're missing here is that under current copyright law, nothing stops these artists from releasing their music for free on a file sharing network. The artists own the copyright on their work; if they feel that it's in their best interest to release the music for free then they can certainly do so. What I'm opposed to is forcing all artists to do this.

I noticed several posts earlier arguing that "rational" people would give no money to artists and just take music if it was freely available, thus leading to artists unable to support themselves.

We're talking about the strict economic definition of "rational".

[zenten]

As others have said, file sharing is actually a benefit for smaller artists who need exposure and a buildup of their fan base, and it also helps artists who make their money primarily on concerts and merchandise sales (i.e. working musicians).

What you're missing here is that under current copyright law, nothing stops these artists from releasing their music for free on a file sharing network. The artists own the copyright on their work; if they feel that it's in their best interest to release the music for free then they can certainly do so. What I'm opposed to is forcing all artists to do this.

Except their record label won't allow them to. That's the problem, most bands are locked into 7 album deals, where they can't go elsewhere but the label can drop them at any time. Since the labels also control who gets to be on the radio and music videos and whatnot the band has a real reason to sign with these labels, even if they're ok with file sharing. It used to be at least that the radio and whatnot gave you better advertising than filesharing, I'm not sure if it's true now, and even if it's not most bands probably haven't clued in to the change.

[Rysto]

That's the band's fault for signing a bad contract with the label.

[zenten]

That's the band's fault for signing a bad contract with the label.

Why does it matter whose "fault" this is.

What you have is a band (which is like most bands out there in this regards, or at least most bands that have "made it") that benefits from file sharing, but cannot condone it for legal reasons. Downloading (and more importantly uploading) their songs helps the band, not hurts it. So why is filesharing wrong, at least in cases like these bands?

[Rysto]

Because the bands no longer own the copyright on their works -- the label does. And that means that the label gets to decide what the best method of distributing the work is.

[zenten]

Because the bands no longer own the copyright on their works -- the label does. And that means that the label gets to decide what the best method of distributing the work is.

Why should I care though, besides the legal implications? I mean, this thread isn't arguing about what's legal, it's arguing about what's right.

[Rysto]

Because if we do things your way, holders of copyright are forced to release their works for free, even if that's not best for the holder of the copyright. Under the current system, creators have the option to do so if they please.

[zenten]

Because if we do things your way, holders of copyright are forced to release their works for free, even if that's not best for the holder of the copyright. Under the current system, creators have the option to do so if they please.

Actually, if we did things my way there wouldn't be such thing as a copyright holder.

[Rysto]

Good God, this forum is filled with the worst collection of pedants I've ever come across. Jesus Christ, you know what I meant there.

[zenten]

Good God, this forum is filled with the worst collection of pedants I've ever come across. Jesus Christ, you know what I meant there.

If you mean if filesharing was just legalized (like it is in many countries anyway), then you're wrong, it wouldn't make copyright law fall apart.

[monkeykoder]

At least with software I pretty much refuse to use anything that isn't GPL or otherwise free to use. With music I don't have the money to buy it so I listen to it on the radio (pandora.com is great) No need to download when I can already get it for free. I'm still waiting for a time when the internet is the preferred method of distributing television I'm not interested in paying $50 a month for something I watch like 2 shows on I'd rather spend $2 a month and subscribe to an internet version of the show I want to watch. As for file sharing it is wrong if the artist gets no compensation for something they produced and need the compensation to keep producing it. The ideal world would be one where money was a true indicator of what you produced for society but it isn't which is why I refuse to purchase an album. I refuse to give my money to record companies I either want to give my money directly to the artist for something they produced or in some way compensate them for what they have given me. Until they day I can go to an artists website and pay for the exact song/show I want I probably won't download any music or TV shows but I will still be annoyed with the lack of this capacity.