Feds Ask For Jailtime For GNR File Sharer
from the with-fans-like-these... dept
I have to admit that I'm still confused why the FBI was spending time going around arresting the guy who put up Guns 'N Roses' latest album, rather than focusing on issues that really matter these days. The arrest alone actually led to much more downloading than if they had just let it go. Yet, now, following a guilty plea, the feds are demanding a six-month prison term for the guy. For promoting the band. Considering how much downloads picked up after the news of the arrest broke, why isn't anyone demanding that we put the FBI agents who spent taxpayer money on this behind bars for even longer? Sure, unauthorized sharing of files breaks copyright law, but it's difficult to come up with any reasonable explanation for (a) spending taxpayer money on having the FBI track down and arrest the guy and then (b) sending him to jail. Every album that's released gets leaked online -- and plenty of musicians have learned how to use it to their benefit. That should make it clear that getting your music leaked online isn't about any economic loss. It's all about what sort of business model you choose. So, because Axl Rose chooses a bad business model, some guy who was sharing GNR music needs to go to jail and the FBI and the Feds need to be involved? Doesn't something seem wrong with this picture?
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: copyright, fbi, file sharing, guns n' roses, jailtime, music, promotion
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Consider the recent U2 album - sales are about half in the first week as their last album, this after the whole album was released online for free by file sharers ahead of the album release date.
Now, admitted, the new U2 album sucks rocks, but normally it would have sold well anyway. 200,000 less copies in the first week (at even $10 each) is a 2 million dollar loss.
While I am sure that GNR / Axel Rose didn't lose 200,000 sales, I would suspect they lost many. Just as importantly, this wasn't just a cd copy ripped, but apparently hacked into computers and stolen the content outright. Even by your own twisted logic, in that state the product was rare, not infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the end he tried to promote the band by saying check this out but it failed because there wasn't much for him to promote.
This sentence is just for sharing the songs, not hacking. Nowhere have I seen anything about hacking into anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, if the accused in the GNR case did, in fact, break into someone else's computer system to get the files, they may deserve jail time for that crime in itself. And, yes, I think Mike's claim of them "promoting" is a bit of hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we should punish people cause some dinosaur wasn't as successful at ripping people off?
huh?
Don't you see the irony there?
If it's good, it sells well, period. Exposure by any means is advertising, and can promote sales, IF THE CONTENT IS ANY GOOD. When it's it's crap, and it won't sell well, but tends to sell better when people are under educated on its (lack of) quality.
You keep accidentally contradicting yourself Harold. It makes me think that even you don't believe in a word you say here, you're just being paid to say it, and you keep slipping.
You're gonna get fired if you keep accidentally promoting free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ harold
I do believe that guy should be jailed, but only because he put up such a piece of shit not worthy of taking up hardrive space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You acknowledge the album sucks yet you ignore that fact and decide that file sharing had to be the reason instead. Since you obviously don't pay attention to facts, it's no surprise you make made-up statements like "normally it would have sold well anyway" that aren't based on any facts. It's also not surprising that you firmly believe the assumption (also not based in fact) that 1 download = 1 lost album sale.
Oh and the album didn't get leaked because someone "hacked into computers and stole the content outright", an Australian site sold it... for MONEY... too early by accident. Read about it here. Since you don't bother to look up facts, you'll believe me when I tell you that had U2 immediately released the album at the point it was leaked, any 'loss in sales' (if such a thing exists) would have been minimized or not even happened.
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
U2 = sucks = early accidental release.
GNR = not bad actually = hacked and distributed without permission.
Run along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that we've seen plenty of bands release their own tracks and use it to increase sales, I have a hard time believing, straight up, that it "likely damaged sales." It's the bad business model that damages sales. Not the leak.
Just as importantly, this wasn't just a cd copy ripped, but apparently hacked into computers and stolen the content outright.
Actually, this guy was sent the files. He was not accused of hacking into anything.
If that were the case, then there would be an argument to be made for jailtime. But that's not what he was accused of doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do me a favor and explain how there is a loss? Loss of projected sales? Loss of Revenue? Did someone rob the vault that had all their money in it and take $2 million?
You cannot count a loss unless there is actual loss. In this case, there is none, because there was no benchmark to go by yet. Now... if sales last week were 200,000 and then this week were 100,000 then I can see that there is a decline.
Times are changing, and everyone is bitching because sales are down. how about instead of saying it is because of piracy, lets get to the root of it and say that since a lot of parents have lost jobs recently, they are not allowing their kids to waste money on music or anything else for that matter. Cannot look at it through a microscope without looking at the entire picture as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Sales down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correlation is not causation.
>"Now, admitted, the new U2 album sucks rocks, but normally it would have sold well anyway."
Maybe. Or maybe it does suck enough that people aren't buying. Or maybe people are buying less music in this economy. Or maybe Bono pissed people off, somehow. One big problem with all these filesharing lawsuits is that when it comes to proving that filesharing actually hurt profits, the prosecution can't do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Explain to me why I should buy a U2 album that sucks?? How does throwing my money away make any sense to anyone except those who profit from the money I wasted? Record companies don't want to let us try before we buy, which is bullshit. Why should we pay for a garbage CD? How is that our burden to bare?!? Make a product I want to buy. Don't try and trick me into helping offset the cost of a garbage product. Its that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't yell at the FBI, argue with the lawmakers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bush?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is this hacking? It's copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, in reply to Harold: U2's more recent music is terrible, and of course that would affect CD sales. You really expect them to sell as many as their last album if the album sucks? You think people just buy it blindly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bad album
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Recording Industry....
Arresting file sharers is exactly like taking a piss in the ocean...if you think you are changing the ocean....laughs are on you....
That which doesn't adapt perishes......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So You Can Kill People Knowingly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knowing that the album wasn't even in stores, and that no legal copies of the music existing in the wild, the blogger still posted the stolen music on his website.
Standard conspiracy theory, not all members of a criminal undertaking have to perform all of the acts to be found guilty. Basically, the guy plea bargained down to avoid having to face a much larger pile of charges.
Stealing is bad, doesn't matter what you do with the stolen stuff. Don't let Mike confuse you with "because Axl Rose chooses a bad business model, some guy who was sharing GNR music needs to go to jail and the FBI and the Feds need to be involved? Doesn't something seem wrong with this picture?" - there was no business involved, the music was stolen before it was released, not after. by his own measurements, the music was a rare commodity when stolen.
As for U2: My point is this: Without the full album being on the net ahead of time, sales likely would have been higher (more people buying a sucky album I guess). Certainly in the few days lead time that the album had online, plenty of their fans would have downloaded it. The margin fans (the ones who sort of like the band but aren't rabid about it) likely would have said (like most of us do) "damn this sucks" and thought nothing more of it. Had the album not been online would they have purchased it?
Just imagine what the sale would be without the online slip, and then you know what was lost (I suspect about 50-75k copies in the first week, maybe more).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Copying != stealing. If the album was stolen, the studio would no longer have it and would not be able to release it. This was copied or "leaked" via "hacking", which whether you like it or not is usually treated as a civil offence.
2. The history of music is built on copying. Every student I knew at school, college, colleagues at work copied albums back in the 90s. Many of us went on to buy the same albums afterwards as well as buy merchandise, concert tickets, etc. Why do people like you think this is impossible in the digital age, despite the evidence to the contrary?
3. However you try to spin it, any digital good is infinite. Just because it wasn't *intended* to be released at that point does not make it a non-infinite good, merely an artificially restricted one. I have "workprint" copies of several movies which have never been officially released in that form, but their restricted status does not make them non-infinite.
"Just imagine what the sale would be without the online slip, and then you know what was lost (I suspect about 50-75k copies in the first week, maybe more)."
Do you have any figures to back this up, or are you just pulling them out of your arse again. Yes, some sales may have been lost by people downloading the album (although from the comments above this has as much to do with poor quality as anything else).
But what about other factors? There are many people who would simply not have bought the album regardless of whether it was available to download or not, thus thus were not "lost sales". There are also many people who pre-ordered the album but decided to download the album while they were still waiting for an official release (but still bought the album, thus again not a lost sale). I could go on about how fixed release dates are a harmful anachronism in the digital age, but I'll stop there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justification is pathetic
1) He Broke the Law
2) It's not OK, in any sense, for individuals who are not connected to either the distributor or the creator to take it upon themselves to "promote" and album... especially when the distributor AND the artist are telling you NOT to do that AND you are breaking the law
3) The FBI is doing its job by enforcing the law. There are times for civil disobediance... but "focusing on what really matters the days" is not a compelling argument.
Again,stealing content and illegally distributing that content is WRONG, both morally and legally. You are grasping at straws with this stupid argument: "it's good for sales". Even if it is, it is up to the people who have IP rights to decide if they want to waive those rights to help sales.
This argument has no principle, and I am tired of hearing it. YAWN!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are you still confused?
Was it a crime? Was the crime within the jurisdiction of the FBI? If so, then it is the FBI's responsibility to investigate. If not, then that's the argument to make.
How can you claim there is no reasonable explanation for enforcing the law? The law was broken. You may not agree with the law, fine. Argue why the law makes no sense. Argue why unauthorized file sharing shouldn't be a violation of copyright law (I would hope with a better argument than "it's going to happen anyway"). But as long as the law is in place, it is not unreasonable to expect that the law will be enforced by those whose job it is to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are you still confused?
Because stopping file sharing is about as easy as trying to stop people from going outside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why are you still confused?
See Simpson episode about the monorail. Great song in there about the stupidity of mob rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why are you still confused?
The people demand the benefits that technology brings about. They will not be denied because an old industry doesn't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are you still confused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's going to jail because.... um... he's stealing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is like Mike said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then it's counteracted with drivel-laden comments from a few that don't understand that the times are a changin.
Harold, why not take a moment to meet the 62 million people who are going to throw you under the bus?
http://www.flypmedia.com/issues/24/#1/1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, you don't get it
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
There, you can read all about it. It doesn't matter what YOU think SHOULD be, whatever false romantic notion you have about the record company, etc. The law is pretty clear on this one.
YAWN!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh... In case YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ
506. Criminal offenses4
(a) Criminal Infringement. —
(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.
(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh... In case YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ
Do you refute any of these points? Because your post doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh... In case YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ
so a) yes it is serious, and b) doesn't matter, see A.
Even if online is good for the industry (not proven in the slightest) it should be up the artists and those that own those rights to make the choice, not some dumbass with a blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh... In case YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ
As for the second point, they're just victims of their own hype. They can't have it both ways. The GnR album had been hyped for around a decade, the U2 album for 5 years. They can't generate hype (= making people want the album) and then refuse to sell it to them before X date without people looking for an early copy. Since the major labels refuse to sell digitally before the CD copies are pressed and shipped, they're basically asking people to go to the pirates in my view. This is especially true in view of the U2 album, which was leaked while people were basically awaiting permission to buy it.
Copying an album before it's been mastered and approved is a bit much, of course, but it's hardly surprising given the amount of time that fans - yes, fans - had been waiting. I highly doubt that many sales were lost as a direct result of the leak, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh... In case YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ
Mike isn't forcing his ideas on anyone nor is he condoning unsolicited file sharing. He's pointing out the fact that file sharing will not go away no matter what the industry douse and no matter what dilutions people like you have. This, in the end, leaves the industry with two choices:
1) Litigate and risk alienating paying customers. We have already seen this with Metallica and a few other artists that have been mentioned here
2) Embrace file sharing and risk getting a smaller portion of a much larger pie. This has already been proven by NIN and other large and small bands.
I don't know about you but I'd would rather take 10% of a $2 million pie and possibly making it bigger over a controlling share in a $1,000 pie and potentially making that pie $0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Knock Knock* The past is at the door!
What happens? Well, when the risk of being a fan outweighs the value of the art, people generally stop being fans, and find something else.
I'm not saying what happened was right, I'm just saying the negative stigma attached to this type of PR will have a much further reaching effect to any future sales. GNR & UMG could have let this die without a murmer, but didn't. And the reason you don't have a lawsuit coming out of Nettwerk or Terry saying nonsensical things loudly about the music business is that they don't exist; he says sensible things quietly.
GnR's next albums, (possibly three), will have to be much better than the leaked one to equalize out the negative actions levied by the label and associated artist. By the time they figure that out, surely Terry McBride's team will have found, produced, and leaked an album by an artist that sounds like GnR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To Paul T
2) Irrevelant side question. It doesn't matter if there is a global financial benefit to the music industry. To broad an issue. what matters is in each specific case has the Artist been harmed (in any way, not just financially). To that I would say YES... it is harmful to take people's work and distribute it without their permission.
Finally I would add that if you are trying to make a MARKET DRIVEN Business argument than you are corrupting the idea. If this is true we should start seeing start-ups trying to capitalize on this new found distribution technology and business models. (Which we do). That should be good for everyone. But again, don't confuse the issue. The change should come because people start listening and buying music that is distrubuted from Artists who consent to the new business model, not from people violating the IP of Artists who do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To Paul T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To Paul T
In this, I always give the example of my own buying habits. 10 years ago, I didn't care whether I bought a major label product or not. After the RIAA's constant anti-consumer activities, I made a conscious effort not to fund them. I still buy plenty of music that I enjoy, I just use alternative sources to get them, which include different business models like NIN/Radiohead's model, AmieStreet, eMusic, buying direct from independents artists' sites and others. I just won't spend a dime on a RIAA-related album. I don't pirate, I just don't bother with them. Yet, I spend at least €30/month on recorded music, which makes me a heavy duty customer according to the industry's statistics. I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this, consciously or not.
I'm not arguing that copyright should be removed completely, just that the way it's being enforced at the moment - at the behest of the RIAA - does nothing to help the music industry, and in my view actually harms it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, this doesn't mean the case should have ever been brought, but all the same, that damage has already been done.
Whether infringing is a criminal offense isn't relevant here as far as I can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ chris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@doombringer
Finally, someone who is willing to get right to the point of it. At least this guys is honest.
And that's my point. There is no principle, other than "I want something for free", behind defending people who break the law. It's just a simple "I don't give a shit, give me my music."
At least doombringer has the courage to say he is/supports criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @doombringer
And that's my point. There is no principle, other than "I want something for free", behind defending people who break the law. It's just a simple "I don't give a shit, give me my music."
Yup. Let's ignore 230 years of economic precedent and evidence about how protectionism is bad and limits markets.
Everyone who wanted to get rid of sugar monopolies? Bastards, they just wanted cheaper sugar.
What a bunch of jerks.
How dare some of us suggest that everyone can be made better off with more efficient business models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @doombringer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we are not in a democracy. We are in a rep rebulic... specicially designed with things like bill of rights so mobs aren't in control.
NEXT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death Penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax dollars at work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ILLEGAL
Yes I am waiting for the net nazis to knock at my door any minute too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the sound of the tone, Harold will be in traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At the sound of the tone, Harold will be in traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Stealing
Slightly off topic, but I'd like to respond a bit to these kind of comments, that downloading is "stealing" and "taking things that don't belong to you". Putting aside the copyright vs theft arguments and moral arguments (which are kind of weak anyway), let's look at another scenario:
Suppose that you walked up a vending machine and pushed a button, and out came a can of cola, without putting money into it. Would you take it? Most people probably would, and wouldn't think twice about it. Now suppose that this particular vending machine did this every time you pushed a button, with an apparently endless supply of coke cans. Most people wouldn't consider the "moral" implications of "stealing" from the soft drink vendor, or at least I wouldn't.
But for some reason, as soon as you replace infinite supply of cola with music, people get huffy. Why shouldn't we treat it like other commodities? If it's available and there's demand for it, it should be consumed (even at zero price). Individuals who cannot capitalize on market conditions should have to deal with that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Stealing
Because for some reason some people don't want to grant music right holders the same control over the product that they would grant the guy with the coke machine. In some weird way, a can of coke is something, but music is nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Stealing
That says a lot about you, and nothing good. Even if it's the machine that faulty, you are still depriving the owner of that machine, who paid for the cola that you are taking, of money. The fact that you wouldn't think twice about that does not speak well about your morals.
Music is and isn't the same thing. Not, it's not a good you can holds in your hand like the can of coke, but there was an investment of time and money made by the creators of that music. If you want the music that someone created, they are providing you with a service (Entertainment) and should be compensated the same way the person who provided you with the Coke should be. If the band chooses to give their music away for free because they believe that will bring in more money in other ways, that is their choice. If they believe selling the music will net them the most money, that is also their choice and should be respected. If you don't like the choice, then go download some one else's music, someone who wants to give it away for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Stealing
This is kind of how I view things like P2P; infinite goods with zero marginal cost. Does it cost the original owner if I download from him? Not except for some bandwidth. Technology making things better for everyone, on the whole. Sure there's some creative destruction, but that's progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On Stealing
"This is kind of how I view things like P2P; infinite goods with zero marginal cost. Does it cost the original owner if I download from him? Not except for some bandwidth"
In your "infinite free coke" example (I am sure some Columbians are out there screaming "NO! NO!" right now), you almost get it. Basically, here is the deal: You are thirsty, you are willing to pay, but you get it for free. Now, from your point of view only, you satisfied you needs and it cost you nothing. Win for you. But the real loss is that you didn't buy anything, and once you learn about the infinite free coke machine, you are likely never to pay for a soft drink again.
If you tell all your friends (or bring them all the free coke they want) then they too are no longer paying consumers. They still consume, they just no longer pay for it. Over time, the market for coke erodes, and suddenly the company that paid to build, install, and maintain the infinite coke machines goes out of business, the machines are removed and sold for scrap metal, and you have nothing left to drink. Now you can't get a coke no matter how much you pay, the only thing you can find is poor immitations like Kik Kola and Royal Crown. Then someone comes back in with "NEW COKE!", and charges $20 a can.
Right now in the music business, we are in that fun stage where we have infinite free music and we are telling all our friends and sharing our infinite free music with all our friends. At some point, the music business will end up being cut up and sold for scrap, and there will be no more source left. The only music you can find will be made by some guy in his garage down the street and some weird eurotrash synth-pop loop music.
So yeah, right now it's all fun and free cola. But it is unrealistic to assume that the free cola will last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On Stealing
You never get to a point where "no one can get a can of coke" because the premise of this silly example is that the supply is infinite.
Though the example is pointless, the one thing to note is that the savvy business people will seize on the MASSIVE OPPORTUNITY that giving away a free product offers (hmm...ring any bells??) and create a substantially larger overall market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several Replies
Did you guys miss the part where he said it was a pop machine that had an infinite supply?
Please see JMG's response for a logical conclusion that 99% of the population would come to. He did clarify it so you can't really be confused about what he was implying any more.
@Chris
You mentioned that downloading music is morally wrong. My morals are not your morals, and don't try to force your morals down my throat. Just makes you look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me finish it for you Harold......
The point is, the free cola cat is out of the bag and you’re not getting it back in no matter how many people get taken to jail. What you can do is use the interest in your free cola to sell something else that is not free, and can't be copied. Adapt or Die, you can’t stop evolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me finish it for you Harold......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me finish it for you Harold......
Now, the argument would be that there is no guarantee that the alternative business model would rake in the bazillion-fold profit that the previous model had made. However, since the only investment was that time (and maybe the equipment used to derive the recipe), I wonder why we feel that the Cola Artisans have a "right" to such a ridiculous return?
Ultimately the Harolds of the world end up arguing in favour of the Big Guys. They say that in a world of "Free!", where business models are based on the new efficiencies of new technologies, there isn't the possibility to make massive returns on investments (or at least, it involves selling "LOTS of t-shirts").
The change in the technologies mean that there is a change in the overall markets. Efficiencies mean that the population as a whole should no longer be paying many times the cost of something. So yes, Big Guys won't be gazillionaires, and inefficient middle-men cease to get anything at all. And this is a problem, why???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let me finish it for you Harold......
To use music for an example, I came across an old post of Mike's where he said "more musicians are making more money." This is absurdly misleading. It takes into account all of the bands who sell a couple CDs here and there. For example CDBaby made something like $25 million in 2007, but each artist made an average of only $126! This is an irrelevant sum. What we should all be hoping for, creators and consumers alike, is that musicians who have a demand for their music are able to make a decent living off of music. This enables them to do music full time, which lets them create more music, and spend more time perfecting the music they create. We also want them to have the money record the best possible product. So a stat that would be a better measure of whether piracy helps or hurts musician and consumers would be how many musicians are able to make a decent living (I know decent living is subjective, but lets be honest, if most musicians made say $15,000 a year, they probably wouldn't spend their lives as full time musicians), and how does that compare to 10 or 20 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI and GNR
I am very disheartened that the FBI would be involved in a domestic IP dispute; shouldn't be that way. Was never intended to be that way.
It shows the power of campaign funds; more and more, all that matters is collecting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealing
The argument that music should exist to promote t-shirt sales or live concerts is silly. Isn't the song the important thing? Shouldn't the 'art' and not the consumer product be supported? And not every tour makes money; not every artist tours. How to compensate people who are songwriters, but not performers?
It's deeply saddening that people think nothing of spending $2 on a beer or coffee that gets peed out in a few minutes, but refuse to spend half that on a song they'll have for life.
Which of the posters here arguing for free music, make music as a career? (Full time, not hobbyist; using revenue to pay rent, etc.)
Here's a thought: if you've pirated a song/album and listen to it more than once... why not then go and buy it, knowing that every penny ultimately does help more music to be made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]