Canadians Figure Out How To Properly Release A CD
from the maybe-they-read-techdirt dept
There's a really simple strategy for bands who are worried about the "threat" of file sharing: embrace and add value. That means not freaking out about file sharing, recognizing it's going to happen anyway... and then coming up with ways to add value so that fans will want to pay you anyway. Back in July, Canadian band Stars battled the digital leak of its latest album, In Our Bedroom after the War, by releasing the digital version of their album 3 months early, thereby giving their fans a legitimate path to obtain the already leaked album. Rather than fret about how this would "hurt" them, as the actual release date approaches on September 25th, the band decided to give their fans a reason to buy the physical CD -- they're including a limited edition DVD that chronicles the the band's tour. It's fantastic to see glimmers of hope in the music industry -- from Hip Hop Artists to Trent Reznor. Perhaps soon the music industry will wake up and embrace the changes that are happening to them. At least they're trying now.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cd, music, music downloads, recording industry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nice, but...
It seems like a good way to handle the leak, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ditto
Two problems with your conclusion. First, the DVD will probably be over 1GB to download... even seasoned file sharing people tend to be quite picky about what they download, when it will take them days to do so. Second, the whole idea behind the DVD is to be a promotional media, so even if copied, it's promoting their work.
People are giving the impact of file sharing far too much credit. No one runs out and buys a CD or DVD because they just want the content... no CD is worth as much as they charge. People buy the media because of the affiliation with an artist they like (although considering the new music, artist is a very loose term).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ditto - ROFL
Also if I don't know the artist but wanted to see the dvd, I'd download it. No lost sale (I wouldn't have bought in the first place), but they definitely get my interest and possible future business if I like em.
The promotional value is high. The cost for distributing it over the internet to them = 0. Perhaps someday people will realize the benfit of free distribution, not just free promotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ditto - ROFL
Its far quicker to actually go out and steal a car when I need one (all car security can be disabled in 10 to 20 seconds) and I wouldn't have bought the car anyway so no lost sale. It's not like I know the people that built the car.
If I like the car I might actually go buy one, so there is always potential sale for them down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ditto - ROFL
bundled stuff with disks sounds like a microsoft software incentive.. if the consumer gets familiar with our product sooner or later they will have to commit to buy some sort of application or another... YOU will pay with time for the content u found in support hours spent fixing.. altering, burning, ripping and so on and so on... or do u enjoy quality audio ( listening )
Priorities that is all we know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ditto - ROFL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ditto - ROFL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: what software and settings? (#29)
>
> Matt, it sounds like you have never used p2p networks.
> If you can download 1gb in under an hour on a p2p network,
> please share with us the software and settings you are using
> - I'm sure many people would be interested.
It won't be what software and settings, it'll be where he is and what he's downloading. 1GB in an hour requires a 2.5Mbps connection or better. Where I am (England) that's available to anyone living reasonably close to an urban telephone exchange. But the most common maximum upload speed here is 448kbps (about 200MB/hour), so it takes 5 seeders (or 5 leechers with more of the download) for every new leecher to achieve that 1GB/hour.
I've never seen such a good seed/leech ratio on pirated material, but I have seen it on Linux distro torrents and other legal downloads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ditto
If you think the product is overpriced, don't buy it. The music industry is not a monopoly that they are unfairly charging you for nothing.
Before you jump to conclusions, let me say that I also download movies and software. But it doesn't stop being illegal and the argument "that since its going to happen, emberace it", doesn't become logical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ditto
Well, you're doing it, even though it's illegal, so embracing it seems to be a logical step, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
I don't envy the music industry, it's clear that there's no easy solution to the illegal downloading problem- but seeing some artists try in a way that doesn't involve a team of lawyers gives me hope.
The best solution is obviously to link the music with something that is time sensitive (a unique code that allows purchase of band memorabilia or concert tickets at a discount and/or before the general public) or to link it to something that is really useless in digital forms (not sure what that could be) or to have a gimmick (color changing CDs, limited edition flash drives, etc)
Like I said, at least they're trying. Kudos to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ya, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ya, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re:Ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re:Ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the idea of drm free music is to allow you to do what you want with the music, on your given devices.. giving it to 50K of your closest friends is not in the conversation..
the fact is... you guys who want to have access to the music via p2p networks aren't trsutworthy.. you do pretty much want something for nothing...
so as long as this battle continues, it's going to be a mess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Play it again, sam
The fact is, after music is produced, it requires effort (in the way of laws and such) to keep it's value above zero. So, yes, I think the "guys who want to have access to the music via p2p networks" don't want to spend money for something that is infinitely abundant. Turn that around, and yes, they want it for nothing. What the people "on the music side" need to realize is that if they can't beat them, join them. As more and more people realize that music costs dollar a song (or more) due solely to artificial inflation, the even more popular downloading songs for free will be. Those that choose to embrace it will survive and prosper, those that choose to fight it tooth and nail will end up alienating the fans they are dependent on to survive and fade away.
so as long as this battle continues, it's going to be a mess...
As far as I can tell from what I read, it's only a mess for the people "on the music side" and their *paying* customers. The so-called "pirates" are never affected by anything people "on the music side" do for long, if at all.
Hence why the best strategy to embrace is to adapt to the times, aka if you can't beat them, join them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close...
It's fantastic to see glimmers of hope in the music industry -- from Hip Hop Artists to Trent Reznor.
Yes this is a glimmer of hope but the real epiphany that would secure a future for the music is for them to realize that the current recording industry refuses to change and will therefore die. Either the recording industry needs to change or the music industry needs to move on without them or the music industry will be dragged into the depths of oblivion with the recording industry as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make everything free but don't be surprised when you learn that you get what you pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I love this argument. If it becomes less likely that you'll become super-wealthy psudo-royalty from being a musician, it will mean that only people who love music for the sake of music will be making music.
In my mind, that means music will increase in quality, not decrease. :)
Just my thoughts.
PS- The above aside, typically musicians don't make their money from music sales as it is, why would removing this relatively small source of income have any real effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Car companies know they had to adapt to the times by giving customer what they want/need in order to stay in business. Some people prefer high gas mileage. Some prefer lots of carrying space. How well off would Honda be if it only made the Accord and decided that change wasn't necessary so the Civic, CR-V, and other models were never made?
How would Magnavox be doing today if they decided chage was not necessary and only made 15in. Black and White tvs even though High Def resolution is almost commonplace now?
Nintendo has lost a lot of appeal because the kids that grew up playing it have decided to go with the more powerful systems and even though I still enjoy Nintendo even I have to admit that they would be in much better position if they could have afforded (remember Nintendo only have its games whereas Sony and Microsft have other divisions to pull money from) to play the "more power" game along with Sony and MS.
Point is, when a new good idea comes along people are going to want it. Digital music has blown away the gate that the recording industry used to keep under close guard (that gate being scarcity) by proving that the music was not scarce but the medium it was being sold on was.
The desire for digital media is like a force of nature and I really don't think that even the members of the RIAA/MPAA have the money do stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like the changing of tides from the typewriter to the PC, the Horse and Buggy to the Car, or the quill and feather to the printing press - it's something that's going to happen - MPAA/RIAA or not. Do you think suing car companies would have worked to keep the horse and buggy viable transportation? Get real. No different in this sense.
Yes - for the world of Music, it's as big of a leap as the car was for transportation. Just for two simple reasons.
CD:
1. Need to have the physical Media (order and wait on shipping, or run to the store, hoping they have it - if it's real popular, I'm betting they won't)
2. Can hold what - 20 songs @ 44K Sampling - maybe, if they are short.
Digital Music:
1. Can get the music instantly, regardless of demand. Perhaps a 30 minute wait for server bandwidth - but only in extreme circumstances.
2. Can easily fit 75+ CD Quality files on a standard CD-Rom, many times, even double that.
The band could give away music...... all FREE.
Then sell concert tickets, T-shirts, Special Edition CD's (like above), Perfume/Cologne (like Prince) and make a KILLING if the 'Industry Associations' weren't robbing them BLIND.
Right? :)
I bet - many if not ALL artists would realize MUCH more cash in the end from the above example, than the 'current' dead horse model of the RIAA and cohorts. Yeeeeehawwww... let's hear it for the pony express!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALL forms of a group's music, whether legally shared or not, are promoting the band to get people to the show.
I really feel the music industry royally screwed up about 10 years ago by not lowering the prices of cds. I worked in large chain record stores and indie stores, and no one should have to pay more than $5.00 for a cd. They pushed people away and caused them to start downloading, which in turn caused the eventual closings of every "mom & pop" store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #15
You car is in your driveway. I come in the middle of the night and make an exact duplicate. And you put out a sign saying you will allow people to copy your car. So I did. You wake up, and your car is still there. It was not stolen. You still have it.
Please use a proper analogy next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pirate
If I bought a chair, brought it home, and hammered out fifty exactly like it and gave it to my friends, that wouldn't be a violation of any law. I'd be liable if I tried to SELL the chairs, but not if I gave them away. Same thing with MP3s. Just because it's easy to make a copy doesn't mean that it's any different morally or legally from making a copy of a chair or an article of clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pirate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p isn't that popular
Sure downloading videos and dvd rips seem easy, but most people (at least around me) don't know what DIVX or XVID is, or even what the point of a codec is. Don't even try to ask them to burn a dvd image or mount an image of some sort.. I feel like the DVD was a good idea, and even if I download movies.. I buy the ones I like because I support what I like and extra DVD features usually are missing in the download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more but
As far as not understanding what your own argument is, the buggy manufacturers didn't sue the car manufacturers because the car manufacturers weren't stealing buggy designs and materials to build the cars for free. There were many years where the materials were very similar if not the same (Dodge brothers, Hearse, Studebaker made buggies AND cars for many years) however the car manufacturers were buying the materials and making their own designs, not taking someone else's work and giving it to other people for free.
Some of you have argured that only people with a passion for music would make it. Doesn't it follow that they wouldn't spend any money to record/produce it, because they would know that they would just lose their money. They may play it live and never record it. That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. Unless they record it to promote the live performance. That seems unlikely, or they would only record the live performance and not spend any time/money to produce it or clean it up.
Copyright infringement is illegal because it is considered theft. Unauthorized use falls under theft laws in most states.
Just because the offending party doesn't make a profit doesn't mean the original party wasn't damaged.
Also, 'CD quality' was referenced in there somewhere, versus 44k sample rate. I'm pretty sure most CD's are 128k or less. Honestly, there's not that much of a loss between 128k and 44k. Most audiophiles will tell you that 128k is crappy sound quailty. They would rather put up with the hiss of a vinyl record than 128k sample rate. I've seen market studies that show that 80% of people 25 years and younger have never heard music above 128k sample rate. They are completely blown away when they hear DVD Audio or other high def audio formats. Of course most of them only listen to music through ear buds, so it doesn't really matter what the sample rate is because the reproduction transducer sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more but
Except... no. This is wrong. The folks making good designs would still be very much in demand. The fashion industry is a perfect example. There are no copyrights to cover fashion designs, and those designs get copied all the time, but the top designers still make a ton of money, and are in high demand, even though everyone knows their designs get copied almost as soon as they come out.
So, you're making an assumption that's simply wrong.
Some of you have argured that only people with a passion for music would make it. Doesn't it follow that they wouldn't spend any money to record/produce it, because they would know that they would just lose their money. They may play it live and never record it. That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. Unless they record it to promote the live performance. That seems unlikely, or they would only record the live performance and not spend any time/money to produce it or clean it up.
That assumes (incorrectly) that there aren't other ways to make money. If you look at the music industry you'd find this isn't true at all. Bands who are popular have many ways to make money and they know that they get more popular the more their music is available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more but
The early 'horseless buggies' were often an exact replica of the regular horse-drawn version, but without the horse. And if you read up a little history, you will discover that the horse-drawn-buggy industry did everything they could to stop this trend, having laws passed that restricted the use of horseless buggies to walking speed and requiring that a man walk in front of them waving a red flag, for example.
If the "recording industry" want to see where they're heading, they only have to go to the nearest window and observe the complete lack of horse-drawn carrages on the roadway outside (This statement may be void in some parts of Pennsylvania) and the evident non-death of the 'transportation industry' that resulted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more but
No, they just took someone else's idea and SOLD it. That's OK, huh?
What a freaking shilling hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
integrity
I look at it like this, I don't rob banks just because I cannot stretch my funds from one paycheque to the next. what makes illegal file sharing any different. I know right from wrong and I have to make choices as to how I live. I am far from perfect and can find many ways to improve, but I do not believe that being selective about which laws I will obey will make the world a better place - for me or anyone else. And when I think about it ... I'd rather justify and rationalize why it should be ok to rob a bank ... that to jaywalk or pirate music & software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: integrity
Those kind of arguments are, like I said, slimy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some artists get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I write the songs that make the whole world sing.
I think it's funny that you hit it square on the head, then dismissed it as unlikely. Tell me, do you pay for commercials? No? You mean Sony *pays* to have something made to promote something else.. and *doesn't* charge for people to experience it? WTF? How the hell will they make money, with all the free commercials they're giving out!?! *sigh*
Copyright infringement is illegal because it is considered theft. Unauthorized use falls under theft laws in most states.
That is a flat out lie. That's like saying Running a red light is illegal because it's considered speeding. Copyright infringement is illegal because it's copyright infringement. Your doublespeak and black propaganda aren't wanted here.
The best way to look at it is: You're holding a nifty blue flame on a candle-- You light my candle after I pay you $20, and now there are two flames. I, being a damn dirty pirate, put my candle on my front porch saying "free blue flame!" now, anyone with a candle can walk by and light their candle with my flame. In the morning, when I go out on my porch, my blue flame is still there burning bright as ever. However, there's a lot more light in the world, and no one wants to spend $20 to get their candle lit by your flame, when they can just go to my house and light their candle for free. Even if you only charge $0.05 to light someone's candle, they're still better off going to my porch and lighting it for free.
I hope this helps you understand. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I write the songs that make the whole world si
In the state I live in, copyright infringement is 'unauthorized use' and unauthorized use is prosicuted as theft, just like if you stole my bike to ride around the block. Just because you bring my bike back it is still unauthorized use and I can have you arrested for stealing my bike. If I write a book and you make copies and give to all your friends I can sue you for copyright infringement, but the local police will arrest you for unauthorized use (aka theft).
Sony doesn't make a commercial that you can keep in your living room and play all day on your playstation. Making a commercial to advertize a product is NOT the same as giving away a product. I can't drive a BMW just because I saw a commercial for one on TV. I can't eat a hamburger just because McDonald's ran a commercial. WTF yourself? You hit the nail on the head when you said 'Sony *pays* to have something made to promote something else'. The key is they are promoting something that they are not giving away. To say that a recorded performance and a live performance are unrelated products is naiive at best. For many people the recorded performance is as close as they will ever come to the live performance. I own a lot of Beatles albums, but they broke up way before I was old enough to go to a show. That doesn't mean that somebody doesn't still own the rights to the music and they still make a buck when I buy an album. Your argument breaks down when the band no longer exists. You're telling me that Yoko Ono would be happy that I'm listening to John Lennon's music and she wouldn't sue me if I gave away thousands of copies of it? I'm pretty sure she'd sue me if I gave away 1 copy of it.
Having an advertizing budget that includes the production of a commercial is not the same as having a production budget for a product then giving it away. The production company that makes the commericals (or the music) spends a lot of time and money to make them. If, after they were made the company that owns the actual product just took the commercial and gave it away (aired it on TV/radio/internet) without paying the production company, don't you think there would be some really pissed off people at the production company and a lot of law suits as well? Your reasoning is WRONG if you think that a product and an ad for a product are the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I write the songs that make the whole worl
And then I might rip your lungs out to make sure you didn't do that again. As a nice side effect, you'd stop lying too.
I notice how you conveniently don't specify what state that is or provide any other reference. So, you'd have us believe that there are special federal copyright laws (copyright laws are federal) written and prosecuted just for your state? That you'd even expect us to believe such a load of crap is insulting but typical or your industry type.
The stink from you post was getting so bad that I didn't read the rest of it. I'm sure it was just more crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #26 & #27
"Unless they record it to promote the live performance. That seems unlikely, or they would only record the live performance and not spend any time/money to produce it or clean it up."
What world do you live in?
More and more musicians are doing this.
They are all the indie type bands.
Also look at the main article that spawned the initial and sub replies. Artists ARE doing it, already voiding your "unlikely" argument.
#27
"nd when I think about it ... I'd rather justify and rationalize why it should be ok to rob a bank ... that to jaywalk or pirate music & software."
Gawd that is just twisted man. You are a scary person.
ALSO
.."but I do not believe that being selective about which laws I will obey will make the world a better place - for me or anyone else."
You would probably still be living under the rule of Great Britain and have fought on the side of the red coats if this were during the time of the American Revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Copyright infringement is illegal because it is considered theft. Unauthorized use falls under theft laws in most states."
Your Ignorant post:
"That is a flat out lie. That's like saying Running a red light is illegal because it's considered speeding. Copyright infringement is illegal because it's copyright infringement. Your doublespeak and black propaganda aren't wanted here."
Bullshit, either you are lying because you feel the need to justify that you steal or you are just too stupid to know WTF the law actually is.
Have you ever heard of the NET Act? Guess what the T stands for? It stands for theft. Who is lying? Doublespeak? Yours must be Quad Speak. Talk about propaganda. The law is the law, its theft. You can bullshit all you want, but its against the law, the law considers it theft and if you do so, you are a thief.
So, either stfu about this or actually learn what the law actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tarded.
Profanity aside, I actually checked to make sure I wasn't wrong.
As a pirate never actually *takes* anything (That is to say, you still have your copy, and the pirate made an exact replica) then it's clearly not theft. However, I must admit, when the pirate makes the work available to someone else without the creator's permission, the pirate is then infringing upon the creator's right to choose who can copy the work. We call this copyright infringement. Go figure. :P
Have you ever heard of the NET Act? Guess what the T stands for? It stands for theft.
I see, quoting doublespeak to prove your doublespeak isn't doublespeak. That's sinister, Mr. Coward. :P The point remains, until the legal system changes the definition of theft, all the misnamed acts in the world doesn't change what a pirate will be charged with if he gets caught.
If I worked hard to make a beautiful blue flame and you paid me $20 to have a copy of it, and I said, 'I own the rights to this flame, you are not allowed to give it away or sell it'; then you sold it or gave it away, I'd be pissed and go blow your flame out.
Seriously? That's your response? Fine, I can work with that. The RIAA/MPAA have the same attitude, they keep "blowing out flames" but no matter how many people they catch, it will never stop. Pandora's box has been opened, and the only good option left to them is to adapt. Which, it seems, they refuse to do, instead they keep blowing out flames, at the same time fanning the flames around it.
Sony doesn't make a commercial that you can keep in your living room and play all day on your playstation.
Seriously? If they didn't want me to watch it over and over again, they wouldn't play it on TV over and over again, would they?
Your argument breaks down when the band no longer exists.
Hahaha! Why on earth would a band that no longer exists deserve money for something they did years ago?! I'm not getting paid for work I did years ago-- what makes The Beatles so special? They should get paid for work they are currently doing (e.g. concerts) and not for work they did years ago and just keep copying over and over again.
Your reasoning is WRONG if you think that a product and an ad for a product are the same thing.
This is just an example of different points of view. To me, a musician should get paid for playing music. *Not* for copying 1's and 0's on a CD and selling it. So, the recorded song would be an advertisement to let me know that the band doesn't suck; to entice me to see a live performance. (Ya know, to see a musician playing music.) I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.
Simply put, to you a musician's product is the recording and the advertisement is... I'm not sure. To me, the product is a live performance and the (viral) advertisement is the recorded song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tarded.
Theft of services (such as getting a massage and not paying for it) doesn't involve the actual taking of physical property, but it is still prosecuted as theft. And people still go to jail for it.
You can play all the word games you need to in order to sleep at night, but it doesn't change the fact that pirating songs is stealing intellectual property. Distributing music that a musician wants distributed as advertising (viral or not) is not copyright infringement (nor is it pirating), you have been give permission by the owner of the property.
A copyright is considered to have monetary value, and thus infringing on a copyright is the same thing as taking something that has monetary value. And don't quote wikipedia to me.
2. If I felt my blue flame had a huge monetary value and we made an agreement that I would sell it to you but you couldn't distribute it to anyone for any reason, and then you did distribute it, I would prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law, but I'm not trying put food in my kids mouths by selling blue flames, so it's kind of a bad argument.
3. Again, Sony showing a commercial to you about a video game or other product is not the same thing as letting you play the video game or use the product (although you can go to Walmart and do that). How difficult is that concept to grasp? Seriously. Some commericals are definately entertaining enough to watch several times, but that is completely different than giving away the product that you are advertising. It would follow from your arguement that a movie producer should show the entire movie in the commercial so you know if you want to go to the theater to watch it. You know, so you know it doesn't suck before you get there. I think you're being obtuse on purpose with this issue.
4. I agree that there are many musicians that use recorded music as advertising for a live show. And they have the right to do that, because they own the intellectual property that they are distributing. I can legally go out in the street and throw money at people (as long as I don't cause a riot). But that doesn't mean that you have the right to take my money and throw it at people. Even if I have a big bag of money sitting next to me and I'm throwing money in the street, you do not have the right to reach into my bag of money and take money out and throw it into the street. If a musician distributes their recordings as advertising that is their right. But if the musician distributes their music as a product for sale, you don't have the right to claim that the music should be treated as advertising and take it (or give it to others). Just like the advertising firm that makes commercials. Their product will be paid for before it is freely distributed. If I work for the advertising company and I have access to the commercial and I make a copy of the commercial and take it home and distribute it on the internet, I'm stealing their intellectual property. They can still sell the commercial to the company that commissioned it, and it can still be played on TV, and a lot of people that watch TV will have never seen it on the internet, and many people that watch it on the internet may never see it on TV, so my actions (in my opinion) will both benefit the company that commissioned the commercial and not financially hurt the company that produced the commercial (I say 'in my opinion' because it is the perception of the victim that matters here, the company that commissioned the ad may have had a big product launch planned to coincide with the release of the commercial and that timing has some monetary value). However, I still stole property that did not belong to me.
5. The fact is that the owner of the product gets to determine if it's an advertisement or a sellable product. And they get to determine the distribution method. You do not have the right to make those decisions for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tarded.
It is not theft. And I quote the Supreme Court:
"(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
It is still illegal to infringe, but it's a very different crime, because you are merely copying something, you are not taking something away from someone.
And... before you say that you're taking the ability to profit, that's not against the law. There is no crime against preventing someone else from profiting. Otherwise, when I open up my pizza shop next to the sandwich shop, and the sandwich shop loses half its business, they'd sue me for preventing their right to profit.
Copyright infringement is illegal. I'm not rationalizing because I do not commit copyright infringement. I believe it's wrong to infringe on copyrights. But it's not theft and insisting it is theft weakens your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tarded.
It's just an analogy. Take a step back little buddy. :)
It would follow from your arguement[sic] that a movie producer should show the entire movie in the commercial so you know if you want to go to the theater to watch it. You know, so you know it doesn't suck before you get there.
Well, there is some argument that one pays for the *movie experience* in a theater, and not just the movie. :)
It should be brought up that I'm not saying that musicians don't have the right to sell recorded music, nor am I saying that downloading copyrighted material without proper licenses is legal-- The musicians have every right to sell their recordings, and it is illegal to download songs without permission-- I'm just saying that if they looked at it rationally, their methods are a dying business model and they *should* adapt. Note again, that I'm *not* saying they have no choice.
And don't quote wikipedia to me.
I'm sorry, but I have to one more time...
You see, thats like washing my car with your water, or splicing into your power lines, or putting my trash next to your cans on trash day. Nothing to do with copyright infringement, though if you could tell me what state you're in, I'd look it up to make sure. (for myself)
if the law is called the "No Electronic Theft Act" and people actually ... pay a fine or go to jail for being found guilty, how do you not believe that according to the law, they committed theft?
Ignoring the fact that this somewhat not thought out argument has already been covered, I'd like to point out that what the NET Act does is make redistribution of a copyrighted work without permission and without profit copyright infringement. That is to say, before 1997 it seems that if you copied software and gave it away, it wasn't considered copyright infringement. Note I said software, which is what it was written for. Unfortunately, it doesn't specifically call out software, so it's used for everything. Ah well.
The point is, they could have named it anything, the title of an act means nothing, its the wording contained within the act. It could have been the "No Electronic Molestation" act, and I would not be charged with electronic molestation. I'm also fairly sure the people who name these things think of a word (e.g. Net) and make an acronym to fit it. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if you're saying that it does, then it's either you or the US Supreme Court. I place my bets on it being you.
Lie.
But since you're anonymous, and quite possibly a paid shill to boot, you'll just keep repeating the same lie, not matter how many times you're caught. There's nothing I can do about that but to keep calling you out on it.
Just like I can't make you RIAA guys shut up, neither can you make me.
By the way, you guys just seem to sink lower every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue Breakdown from a CD
No one wants a CD anymore. They want music they can use on any portable device, and every single computer these days has a CD Burner if they want a CD for the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revenue Breakdown from a CD
So the musician makes $1 per CD. How much do you think it costs to make the CD? The production company probably buys the disc for less than $1 (I'd guess a couple pennies at most). Then they pay for a studio, they pay for production engineers, they pay for the limo and the nice hotel for the band to stay in, they pay for the advertising, they pay for the process time to dupilcate the original. If the band records their own music and does all the mixing and post production work themselves, great, but not many bands can do good production on their own.
Led Zeppelin used to record in public bathrooms on a 4 track tape recorder, but I think that's the exception more than the rule.
So if the artist sold their song for $4 drm free from their own web site, and you bought it and gave it away for free p2p, how is the artist any better off? He made $3 bucks more? Wow, what a payday!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: y8
Look at it this way. Take out all the physical component costs of a CD. Take out the middleman costs and mark ups. Say the cost is now $5-$6 split amongst the artist and the recording label/promoter/whatever. In addition to selling the CD normally, you don't think additional sales/revenue would be earned by selling online?
There is no downside to selling the music directly to the consumer in the form they want. DRM free music isn't going to increase the number of people that make illegal copies. All it does is cut profits from people that handle/sell the physical CD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yo D
This isn't about legal distribution of recorded music. This is about how to convince people that they should pay for the official copy instead of downloading the free one. Many here seem to think that it is the job of the victim to figure out how to stop being a victim in a way that doesn't offend the criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be obtuse. The short title is whatever the authors want it to be. If you violate the PATRIOT act, you aren't found guilty of a lack of patriotism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM wouldn't have ever been applied if it were not for copyright infringement. People justify it all they want, but they are stealing others IP, then try to blame the people they are stealing from.
I love how others have decided to steal the IP, justify it (as their right), then tell others how they should run their business and their life, and if they don't, tell them sorry, thats the way of the new world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sneak onto an airplane that isn't full, hey, you can order a beer (that should take care of the extra gas you cost the airline) and if they provide good service, you may book a flight on that airline in the future. Its great advertising for them.
Wow, we could create a whole new industry here. I like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
------A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.-----
This whole problem was not an issue before recording devices came about. Musicians would play/sing for money and that was peachy. The facts here are that technological advancement nullified the scarcity of recorded music, not the musician. That is a fact that will never change(barring ultimate nuclear war and a new dark age). The point to my ramble is that classical economics no longer applies to recorded music and making it illegal to copy 1s and 0s is just wrong.
Technological advancement will(hopefully) ultimatly lead to humans being able to duplicate almost anything by building it atom by atom and the universe is said to be limitless which implies unlimted resources. In that end, classical economics will no longer apply to most everything humans consume and use. I'm sure the humans in that future will look back in wonder at this argument about recorded music.
This country is rapidly losing its true capitalist, free market nature and will soon be a sucky place to live....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, it was. And did they play only original material? Not hardly.
Actually, the classical economics I studied in college seem to apply just fine. The laws of supply and demand in the face of scarce and non-scarce goods and artificial suppression of supply by government protected monopolies still work. Especially the part about such monopolies suppressing innovation and efficiency and being detrimental to the good of the overall economy.
Agreed.
Actually, the problems surrounding copyright are just the result of past mistakes catching up to us. Monopoly granting laws were a mistake to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
=D
I will admit that I am on Joe and Mike's side of the argument here, but they do honestly shoot down all the other argument with solid proof.
Only reinforcing my opinion when I claim that copyright infringement (like downloading songs) is not theft.
Which I feel the need to point out every single post somebody replies to saying that it is theft.
Just merely trying to correct the terms so the argument is more solid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the SCOTU opinion and I quote “As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose - "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" - to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment 2314 makes criminal.”
So in fact, in the example you provide, the Supreme Court does in fact say that copyright infringement is in fact stolen, converted or taken by fraud, but somewhat “awkwardly.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't believe me, ask your own lawyer to explain it to you. But you being an admitted shill, I suspect you already knew this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]