How Do YOU Feel About File-Sharing Music/Video

[Eric]

I am shaking my head at this. What if you ran a jewelry store, and because of a huge increase in shop lifting, you would just say to yourself "since I don't like the way this industry is going, I'll just find another job"?

Well, I'll let the other responses speak to the analogy you put forth, but I will clarify a bit. I am not saying that I want people who make good music to stop doing so. It was a minor point that when people b!tch and moan about pirating, why don't they do something about it instead? Most people, faced with an unfavorable circumstance, will usually either get out of the situation or work to make the situation more positive. IOW, quit whining and do something about it or get out.

There needs to come a point where people in music understand that irrevocable changes have taken place. Perhaps we can make the best of it and find a new way to do business with a marketplace that is willing to pay for music (I know I am). Just don't use yesterday's model. Pick yourself up off the floor and quit kicking and screaming about how it used to be. If you truly do hate it so much, then maybe it is time to find a new job!

 

[Eric]

My vote goes to all that kind of stuff being free, and instead the price should be included in the SYSTEMS you use them with.

I pay hundreds a month for Internet access and various Internet services already. Why not divide a part of it to give to ASCAP etc. who in turn give money to musicians and film makers? I would be happy to pay, say 10 bucks or 20 bucks a month for right to watch/D/L anything I wish.

That's a good point; I would do that.

I'm sure people will say why it won't work, but hasn't that part of it (what won't work) been discussed at length already?

 

[deeaa]

Yeah - it already works in so many forms anyway.

You can get pay-TV and record the shows/films as much as you like, for a fixed fee. You can listen to the radio and record the songs, you pay for it in taxes; at least we also pay for TV licences that are used to support the public TV channels; we also pay for the cable runs and the electricity used...

There is little difference in music as opposed to films on TV and such, isn't there? Why not use it in the same way?

There will always be people who want to buy a fine CD or whatever box with graphics, posters, info, whatnot, from their favorite band...for the rest, I really think the radio/TV example would work the best. Spotify in the front line.

So musicians will suffer...big deal, there's musicians around more than there ever was...starve, then, or get a real job. Some will anyway be eligible for government grants, get patrons...like it was hundreds of years ago.

Then, and only then, we can perhaps get rid of this record-lable-forced stuff and only the best musicians will survive and rise to fame, not because they're marketed, but because they're GOOD.

 

[marnold]

After all, our company pays thousands and thousands per year for 'rights to copy copyrighted material' and then we have guidelines how much we can copy and how to use the copied material.

It's just plain impossibly complex and getting more and more so.

This is where I run into problems as a pastor. It is almost impossible to know whether or not you are violating copyright law. My church body came out with a hymnal supplement including an electronic version. The problem is that to use the electronic version you not only have to a) buy the electronic version and then b) pay an annual fee to a company that takes care of the rights. The extra problem then is that the content of the supplement is under two different companies which means two different sets of fees. God himself only knows how much of those fees actually makes it back to the people who deserve it.

Technically speaking (and I can't even be 100% sure of this since the law is so convoluted), we are violating copyright laws by taping our services for our shut-ins. It probably falls under the category of "performance." But how do you deal with that? No lawyer will give you a definite answer without being on retainer and even then there's no guarantees.

I want to obey the law--I really do! I want to make sure that the people that produced this stuff are properly compensated. But the law is such that it is almost impossible to know. Yet if someone wanted to get uppity about it, the fines (to say nothing of lawyers' fees) would bankrupt the congregation several times over.

 

[Jx2]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?

 

[Eric]

I see you points about trying to draw comparison and have to wonder did you guys skip my response on the 1st page about if you worked in a enviroment that paid by peice rate?

Um...yeah I skipped it. Sorry. I find giant paragraphs to be a little much to read, particularly if they're not real succinct. Sorry, it's just how I've conditioned myself for online forums.

All I will say to your argument is that you can say it's unfair all you want, but it's what we've got. Right or wrong, that is the new starting point for the music industry. I'm sure it will work itself out eventually -- music has lasted an awfully long time so far.

 

[Spudman]

Your job to care about his? Nobody said that. He was talking about those people who say musicians should do everything themselves - marketing, advertising, etc. That's not so easy though.

Scott does make a good point about this, but currently the folks that provide those services have been the robber barons of the music industry. They have taken a too large share of the artist's money. Now who can trust or afford those companies to distribute and promote?

It's either going to come down to the artist doing more, or a new industry will arise that will do this for substantially less money than the record companies have charged the artists in past years. The big question, other than the obvious pirating issue, is, will this be an effective promotion and distribution method?

 

[Jx2]

It does seem alot of artists are building their own studios. Zakk Wylde said he built the Bunker and can do everything but promotion related stuff there. Ozzy also built a studio in recent years as several other artist. It seems the issue is more for the smaller upstart bands.

Maybe what needs to happen is bands supporting bands. Im not sure how it all worked but Led Zeppelin signed Bad Company to the Zoso label correct? So they had to promote the band. Maybe Zakk, Ozzy and Sharon and other well off bands with studios. Should form labels like Zoso. No knows what the labels have done better than the artists they did it to. So by doing this, in theory they would be more adapt to being fair. That could potentialy resolve that problem yet it does lil to nothing for the other topic at hand.

O yea Vinnie Paul Abbot has Big Vin Records as well.

 

[t_ross33]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx

 

[Eric]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx

I only got through "The Updated Proposal" right now, but yeah that looks like a really good start. I'm sure it will have its kinks, but it's very encouraging to see something like that, that looks to make the best of what has developed with technology.

Thanks for posting that. Much appreciated.

 

[t_ross33]

The impressive thing is that this is a major industry association proposing a solution to a very real issue on behalf of their members.

The trouble is politicians that continue to push for litigation-based solutions and changes to existing copyright law, all of which will have little to no impact on society's adoption of and attitude towards technology.

As paraphrase an earlier post, the horse has already left the barn :running

 

[vroomery]

That proposal sounds pretty cool. That basically is a netflix version of music. The only thing I don't like about it is that the subscription fee would essentially be hidden as a tax in your internet bill. The nicer version is an opt-in rather than an opt-out kind of service. I guess I just really don't like people assuming that I want to give them more money. Granted, I doubt many people who participate in file sharing online would opt-in and this policy would surely create more revenue because many people would accept the price without question. All-in-all thought, this is a much much muchhhhhhhh better option than the current system. Kudos to them for trying to find a way to adapt.

 

[deeaa]

http://www.songwriters.ca/proposaldetailed.aspx

Yes this seems pretty much exactly how I think things should work too. The only thing in the way are the big record etc. companies and it's probably very hard for a meagre artist organization to go head to head with the likes of Disney, Sony, Apple etc...who all have their interests in selling DRM and hardcopy stuff only, and a huge lobbying force in politics with plenty of funding.

Nevermind what the musicians feel, they have their few percent say as they have their few percent share in income from their 'own' music.

 

[omegadot]

I've found and purchased a lot more music I'd have never come across otherwise because of the ease of downloading music. My friends and I regularly just drop band names to each other to check out. We do, and then if we like it, we buy it. I don't buy any products that I can't try out first, music is no different. I can't see every band live or track down every artist in a store that allows sampling so I take advantage of the new tools we have. The precise moral balance doesn't bother me because I know that I've supported far more artists because of this than I would have otherwise.


Actually as an example, the band Authority Zero I found on a message board, so I checked out a few songs and now own all their albums and have seen them the two times they played near me. Avenged Sevenfold was the same way back when I enjoyed that sort of music in high school. There are dozens of others.

 

[Eric]

I've found and purchased a lot more music I'd have never come across otherwise because of the ease of downloading music.

That's something I've been thinking about during this discussion, and I think it's a noteworthy point.

 

[deeaa]

Yes definitely - like I said, if I like something I'll most likely buy it at some point. Go see a show, buy a T-shirt, or such.

I also believe there's a whole lot of music out there I would never have been exposed to if my buddies or someone hadn't d/l:d some obscure stuff.

 

[Heywood Jablomie]

I think there may be a lot of unauthorized copying done by people like me who wouldn't otherwise have purchased it anyway. I don't have a lot, but what I do have is there only because it was easy and free. If I had to pay for it on my fixed income, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. How might this factor into estimates of lost revenue?

 

[R_of_G]

If I had to pay for it on my fixed income, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. How might this factor into estimates of lost revenue?

An excellent point. There's much I have that I wouldn't have if I had to pay for it because of my current financial situation. Hard to call it "lost revenue" when they'd not have had my revenue anyway.

When financially feasable, I do purchase official copies of the things I like, particularly those that are on small independent labels that legitimately need my money but I will not lie, there is much in my collection that isn't paid for and quite frankly, I don't feel the least bit bad about it. If that makes me a thief, so be it. I've been called much worse.

 

[deeaa]

One thing I _always_ wonder about is stuff like hyper-expensive CAD software.

Those cost like, say, 5000 bucks per licence or something. Yet every engineering student I know and a lot of people who just like drawing such things for sure use a pirated copy, because there's no friggin' way a student could buy even one let alone like ten of these programs they need anyway for their studies, and there aren't enough machines at the Uni for everyone's use anyway so they have no other choice.

I've also heard some representative of such program manufacturer say that they don't really mind if students use the programs anyway, because they like the idea the students learn how to use them and get familiar - and when they go to work for some company, guess which software package they will want to use?

OK, I get that, so why not make it legal, then? I guess these days many do. I get pretty much any basic software for free via my company, like Windows, Office, scanning/imaging, stuff like that, also for my home machine(s). I know students can get like SPSS and such for free, I think they pay a few bux for windows licences thru the Uni.

But, if some CAD programs sells 10.000 copies worldwide for companies only, that'd make, what, 5 million in sales? Would it not make sense to offer it for legal download with registration and updates for like a fiver, I'd be ready to bet easily a million students etc. would buy the stuff in that case, and they'd save hugely on materials as well?

Perhaps it is however just the exclusivity and price that works as a selling point for companies...if they were practically giving it away it might erode its respect and companies would rather get some expensive package anyway, hard to say.

 

[omegadot]

One thing I _always_ wonder about is stuff like hyper-expensive CAD software.

Those cost like, say, 5000 bucks per licence or something. Yet every engineering student I know and a lot of people who just like drawing such things for sure use a pirated copy, because there's no friggin' way a student could buy even one let alone like ten of these programs they need anyway for their studies, and there aren't enough machines at the Uni for everyone's use anyway so they have no other choice.

I've also heard some representative of such program manufacturer say that they don't really mind if students use the programs anyway, because they like the idea the students learn how to use them and get familiar - and when they go to work for some company, guess which software package they will want to use?

OK, I get that, so why not make it legal, then? I guess these days many do. I get pretty much any basic software for free via my company, like Windows, Office, scanning/imaging, stuff like that, also for my home machine(s). I know students can get like SPSS and such for free, I think they pay a few bux for windows licences thru the Uni.

But, if some CAD programs sells 10.000 copies worldwide for companies only, that'd make, what, 5 million in sales? Would it not make sense to offer it for legal download with registration and updates for like a fiver, I'd be ready to bet easily a million students etc. would buy the stuff in that case, and they'd save hugely on materials as well?

Perhaps it is however just the exclusivity and price that works as a selling point for companies...if they were practically giving it away it might erode its respect and companies would rather get some expensive package anyway, hard to say.

I know where I went, the school would provide some programs entirely free, others were a small fee. I Am guessing the school paid the companies for this heavily discounted licensing and these deals are one reason why they don't move to a system like that. Also, when it's that easy, simple, and condoned, it's going to create more problems with businesses trying to take advantage of it. I'd say your point about the respect:french is also just as important, though.

 

[Justaguyin_nc]

I am in the camp of share what ya want, but buy what you use.
This is just taking us back to tape decks and all the cries back then.
Musicians know if their music is not heard, people will not buy it.
Radios/TV promote music that is "pushed" and these days it seems more and more limited.
I see no difference in taping a radio or a television broadcast.
I think every record company should have a download site with 'fair" prices for all their artists.
It would end alot of the problems, while promoting other artists in their barn.
I think ALL artists should have their OWN site with downloads available.
People who copy will do so if not on the net, then through radio etc.
And yes, the quality is there to with the devices we have available.

Pirates: Mass share, and mass produce and sell!
I really question the Judge that decided for the record industry.
Limewire did not HOLD any songs and was just a media for sharing.
it was up to the "user" of the site to share what they had.
I use the web as I do a radio or a Television.
My cable even comes with recording capabilites.
You can buy recording products everyplace.
I assume the judge should give them a stop order too.
In the end, If I like it, I hit Amazon etc. and buy it.

 

[deeaa]

Very well summed up.