Once Again, If You Don't Offer Authorized Versions Of Released Content, Don't Be Surprised If People Get Unauthorized Copies

from the broken-records dept

Thu, Feb 10th 2011 11:33am — Mike Masnick

We just had a post about a guy in the UK who could not buy the version of RosettaStone's language training software that he wanted because the company would not sell it to him. In response, he felt compelled to pirate it, rather than pay lots of money for a lesser version with no promised upgrade. And here's another, similar case, involving venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy.

Then I searched the Internet for the record. It was not even listed in iTunes or emusic. It was listed on Amazon US as an import that would be available on Feb 15th, but only in CD form. I'm not buying plastic just to rip the files and throw it out. Seeing as it was an import, I searched Amazon UK. And there I found the record in mp3 form for 4 pounds. It was going to be released on Feb 4th. I made a mental note to come back and get it when it was released.

I got around to doing that today. I clicked on "buy with one click" and was greeted with this nonsense (click on the image if you want to read it). So then I went to find a VPN or proxy service that would let me grab a UK IP address so I could buy the record. That was an exercise in frustration. All I could find was monthly or daily services that were 2-3x the cost of the record. I could not find a free service that would let me change my IP address for a few minutes so I could download the file. As much as I wanted to pay the 4 pounds and pay for the record, I wasn't going to lay out $10 or more to do that.
So reluctantly, I went to a bit torrent search. I found plenty of torrents for the record and quickly had the record in mp3 form. That took less than a minute compared to the 20+ minutes I wasted trying pretty hard to buy the record legally.

Fred points out that he spends a ton of money on music every year and wanted to spend money on this music. But he was prevented from doing so for no clear reason. As he says at the end of his post:

I don't know whose idea this is of the way to market a record but I'm hoping they read this and never do this to a fan again. Fans love music. They want to support the musicians and they want to pay for music. But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As I did this morning.

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: authorized, content, fred wilson

248 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:40am

Farrrst!

Seriously, this is an argument I had over and over again, even with the SyFy guy @BoingBoing. If I can't get access to the content I want in the 21st century, I'll get it anyway. When Amazon started selling series episodes, I tried to buy from them. I love american shows (a personality flaw, I know) and I wanted to pay to view them. I never could. Now Western Digital has earned 200u$s from me for letting me view them in my WD Live TV Hub, straight from the torrent. That's about 200 episodes I could have bought from Amazon. Shame on them for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:46am

Amazon
I don't understand why iTunes will sell MP3s to Canada, but Amazon.com will not and Amazon.ca doesn't offer it. These damn laws are too complex. I thought the Internet was supposed to do away with geographical hurdles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: Amazon
  "I thought the Internet was supposed to do away with geographical hurdles."
  
  It does, the hurdles are artificially created by the content producers and their labels/publishers/studios.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Poster, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re: Amazon
    And the governments who believe that copyright can still be protected in the Information Age.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Amazon
      I thought trade globalisation was upposed to get rid of these barriers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Amazon
        trade globalisation just guts the Legitimate government barriers that actually help (if properly used) the country in question, and long term help the consumer (by generally stimulating the local economy. again, if done right). this is then replaced with the insanity of Corporations reintroducing basically the same issues, and more, for no purpose other than lining their own pockets.
        
        globalism only favours the corporations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:51am

Managers like to manage
The media industry love their windows. At one time it maximized profit. Now it mainly frustrates fans, encourages piracy, and reduces profits. But the media giants have entire divisions built around windowing and phased releases, and executives justify their jobs my managing the whole system.

There are sometimes a legitimate reason for windowing, such as adapting to local keyboards or languages. However, in most cases products are windowed because that is the way it has always been done, and some corporate executive believes that profits can be increased that way. I can see occasions where the Amazon message should read something like "Warning: this product has not been designed for use in your region. If you purchase the product it may not work for you, and may not receive a refund if you have problems. Do you wish to assume the risk and purchase the product without warranty?" However, blocking all access usually just forces people to find a way around the block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:43am
  
  Re: Managers like to manage
  Actually, there is no excuse for windowing. I would buy a TON of Japanese language games if I could get them in the United States.
  
  I cannot because the companies in question will not allow them (in most cases) to be sold online and shipped to the United States.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:52am

I firmly believe people will pay for content...
I believe that people will pay for digital content. What they won't pay is the current, artificially inflated price. When content producers finally get smart and lower their prices, they will find they will more than make up the lower price with volume. There are literally 1,000's of songs from the last 30 years I would like to have, but at $1 or more per song, there is no way I am going to buy them. Lower the price to $0.20, or maybe lower, and I would start buying immediately. At the current price, I can't afford to build up a decent library so I don't bother.

Same goes for books, movies, etc. Digital allows for nearly free per copy distribution and the price should reflect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:58am
  
  Re: I firmly believe people will pay for content...
  Very true!
  
  And the moment your margins exceed your initial investment, every penny earned is pure profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: I firmly believe people will pay for content...
  Same here. At 25 cents I would definitely start buying. At 10 cents, I would buy almost indiscriminately anything that sounded good if it was easy enough. If I change my mind later and decide I don't like it after all, who cares - it was 10 cents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:55am

"I'm not buying plastic just to rip the files and throw it out."

In other words, there was a way for the guy to purchase the album, but he didn't want to do that so he pirated it instead.

No available means not available. This album was available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Poster, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am
  
  Re:
  He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version - and he did not want to purchase the physical version specifically just to format shift the music.
  
  Or does that not make sense to you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I understand the format wasn't what he preferred, but I fail to see how that justifies circumvention of payment.
    
    He claims he wants to "pay" for music. So why didn't he just order the CD and pirate the album? Then he would have paid, (as he claimed he wanted to do) and not had to wait or go through the apparently prohibitively difficult exercise of ripping the disc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Buying a plastic disc (that has to be transported at significant energy cost) is not exactly saving the planet is it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright infringement is far worse than global pollution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Berenerd (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you are an idiot, but we let you continue with your blabber.
        
        He wanted a digital version. He wanted it now, not in the weeks later it would be released in a format he didn't want then have to wait another several days for shipping assuming they had enough copies (amazon is pretty bad at actually having enough copies of things like this when they say they will). He saw no reason why he should have to pay MORE for something he didn't want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look, I agree with the grandparent. Pirating music is WAY worse than pollution. Pollution may hurt crops, but pirating takes hundreds of octodecillions of dollars from the economy and destroys crops (especially corn). If you can't see that then you're just a jackwagon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's eerie how close this sounds to the industry-fabricated studies on the subject.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whereas littering is a criminal offence and copyright infringement on the basis of not being able to infringe since the infringing content is not even available in your jurisdiction is at worst a civil offence that would be VERY hard to get a judgement on since they would have to show that the work was available for licensing "at the time of alleged infringement"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Annon, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Do you have any idea what the costs would have been for the physical CD as well as the shipping costs along side any possible tariffs at customs?
      
      Compare that what would be a comparable price for the same songs on iTunes.
      
      No, you cannot compare. In that case, he'd be spending 3x the money so that the same $0.10 can go to the artists. Honestly, I understand his choice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In other words: The album was available but he didn't want to pay for it. If something costs more than you want to spend, you simply don't buy it. Okay. Fine. But that is not reasonable justification for piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you could read you would see that the CD wasn't available until the 15th even though the album was available on the 4th.
        
        The whole point of the discussion is that you have a customer with money in their pocket and they want to buy something but you are insisting that they should buy a different thing because ... they're basically the same. I mean all you have to do is pay more, wait longer, waste plastic, waste cardboard, waste shipping charges, waste gas, and pollute the environment ...
        
        If you want to have an argument about the semantics of "not available" have fun with yourself but if you want to have a conversation about why this music situation is unacceptable in the 21st century ... welcome to Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But that is not reasonable justification for piracy.
        
        That would be your opinion. Millions disagree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Aaron deOliveira, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      transaction costs
      
      he said that he was willing to pay the 4 pounds for what he wanted.
      
      the additional transaction costs that occur with purchasing a cd in another country include:
      
      shipping & handling
      waiting for it to arrive
      format shifting
      knowing that some of the money went to purchase other songs on the CD that he didn't want.
      
      all of these things make it a more complicated and also more expensive, in more than just money, than just torrenting the file.
      
      bit torrent has it's own complications and wait times. competing with free means offering something better than what i can get for free.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeff Rife, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I understand the format wasn't what he preferred, but I fail to see how that justifies circumvention of payment.
      
      Perhaps he didn't have easy access to CD-ROM drive? Since he does say "rip the files and throw it out", this implies to me that he has no use whatsoever for the physical CD. He might have to use someone else's computer to do the ripping.
      
      It's really no different from any other artificial scarcity like DVD region coding, rental windows, etc. All it does it take the product off the shelves despite the fact that people are standing in the aisle trying to grab copies and pay for them. If content owners want to keep their outdated business models, that's fine, but consumers will then get the products in the way that is most convenient for them, with no care for the source.
      
      Every innovation in media distribution (like Netflix, RedBox, iTunes, etc.) has been fought tooth and nail by the content owners, despite the fact that consumers decided that these were all good distribution systems and (almost literally) threw money at them.
      
      If the MPAA had banded together and created RedBox and run it exactly like RedBox is run (not the MPAA way where rentals would have been $4.99/night with unskippable commercials in the middle of the movie), then they would have gotten all that middleman profit for themselves. Instead, they feel that suing their customers is a better way to make money.
      
      So why didn't he just order the CD and pirate the album?
      
      Because that would have the content owner both mistakenly believe that he was OK with only being able to buy the physical CD and let them use the illegal download in statistics to help buy^H^H^Hlobby for even more draconian copyright laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 11:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So why didn't he just order the CD and pirate the album?
      
      As it turns out, he would be a pirate either way.
      
      It's unlawful to download an MP3 version of an album that you bought. It shouldn't be, but it is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
    CDs are not �digital� any more?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:46pm
      
      Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
      not in the sense used here, anyway.
      
      contrasted with analog? yes.
      contrasted with physical? no.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:28pm
      
      Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
      CD's by themselves are not digital, same as vinyl records are not "analogue" They are hardware mediums for the storage of data.
      
      The data itself is analogue or digital only
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
        [/pedantry=max]
        
        The data is discrete or continuous, or a combination of the two in the time and amplitude domains. If the data is discrete it may or may not be digital.
        
        Analogue and digital mean something else than the common usage..
        
        Quantum computers are both analogue and digital!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 10:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
        Quantum computers are Trinary.. Yes, No, Maybe!
        
        Also they are full of cats! ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
        Also they are full of cats!
        
        We just don't know if they're living cats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mirradric, 16 Feb 2011 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
        They are both living and dead cats, simultaneously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: He wanted to purchase the digital version, not the physical version
        Not sure I follow that. Digital means the data is numeric (zeroes and ones on a CD). Analog means the data is stored analagously to how it was originally created (amplitude waves). Are those not accurate labels for the data on a CD and a vinyl record?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dean Landolt, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  Not available in digital form does *means* not available! Shipping a cd takes substantially longer than shipping a few megabytes. He'd already invested too much of his precious time trying to find this thing legitimately, now you want him to *wait* a week and then spend another 20 minutes ripping it? Screw that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes. Waiting for something that you don't actually need for survive should never be tolerated. And those 20 minutes of action that are largely automated or easily to do while you perform any other computer task? Daunting.
    
    He said he wanted to pay. He could have ordered the disc and pirated so that the horrible gut wrenching wait would have been eliminated, as well as the apparently tedious CD ripping process. Problem easily solved.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I love when buying a plastic disc just to throw it away on receipt makes sense. That's what this discussion has been downgraded to. He wanted to buy the album. He couldn't. He pirated. I understand 20+ years ago waiting a week for a plastic disc made sense. It doesn't anymore. Sorry for that, but the album was unavailable.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Throw it away? He couldn't give it as a gift or resell it? He couldn't keep it as a back-up copy? He couldn't donate it?
        
        He said he wanted to pay for the album. The album wasn't available exactly as he wanted, so rather than pay for it - which he could have done - he pirated it.
        
        That does not equal "unavailable".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So wait, you saying that ripping the CD then giving it away is a perfectly viable option?
        
        Committing copyright infringement is a perfectly viable alternative to committing copyright infringement now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Worst: he wanted the album, not a gift to somebody, he didn't want a donation and he didn't need a backup copy. I insist: the album was not available. A plastic disc was available. Different things. This is like saying that if I need a button I should buy a pair of jeans to take it from them. Actually, my example may actually make sense whereas the reasoning of buying the CD to get the content actually does not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The album was absolutely available. It was contained on that plastic disc that you are trying to pretend is not a legitimate (if less than ideal) delivery method for the content this guy wanted.
        
        This guy said he wanted to pay. He found a way to pay, but pirated instead. The title of this article is: "If you don't offer authorized versions of released content..."
        
        Except there was an authorized version released. It was available. It cost more, yes. It was less convenient, yes. But those aspects do not justify piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Blerder blah.
        
        There is no good reason for a CD to be legally available but not the MP3s. None. It literally drives piracy.
        
        It's stupid to expect anything more than what this guy did these days and you know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I do agree that there was a legitimate route to purchase, and that this is not a "justification" for piracy, but the point being made (by the article, if not the commenters) is that actively discouraging your customers by making your product so hard to get is not a sound business strategy, and that the frustration arising from this is part of the motivation of piracy.
        
        This situation is like telling a thirsty man "sure, I'll sell you water, but you must climb to the top of this tall mountain to get it! Or you could drink from that pool right there for free. It's exactly the same thing."
        
        It is completely useless to engage in a tit-for-tat discussion about whether anything "justifies" piracy. You will waste your breath and have nothing to show for it. What is useful is to discuss sound business strategy in the context of a changing digital age and changing consumer demand, which is exactly what Techdirt does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The plastic disc was NOT available at the time. You are still wrong, there. He would have had to wait for the release date, THEN wait for shipping, THEN find somewhere to rip it, and all the time be paying what? 4-5 times what the digital version cost? Really? That's your best argument? THIS is why you fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if I want to order a pair shoes online, they're "not available" because they'll take a couple of weeks to get to me? Nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think giving away an authorized physical copy of something you legitimately purchased is absolutely acceptable.
        
        We're not talking about what constitutes infringement. We're talking about a persons who claimed he wanted to pay for this item and could not, so he turned to piracy. But that justification is false. He could have paid, and he chose not to.
        
        I pirate things unavailable to me all the time. Then I buy them or rent them when they become available.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So ... you waste actual limited resources to the detriment of the environment so that you can have the moral high-ground in a forum discussion. Congratz!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Giving away an authorized physical copy of something you purchase is, indeed acceptable. But you suggest that he should do this after he has made his digital copy. Which means he has paid for one copy, but now there are 2 copies. Ergo, you are suggesting that he not commit copyright infringement by spending more money to commit copyright infringement.
        
        Also, note that in his article, he states that he'll happily pay for the MP3s when they are available for him to purchase legitimately where he lives. Why not make them available now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ergo, you are suggesting that he not commit copyright infringement by spending more money to commit copyright infringement."
        
        I don't care. Please note that I am not the RIAA and I never claimed to be against any and all forms of copyright infringement. I clearly stated that this persons argument was poor justification for piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even though his justification ("I'll purchase it when it's available") is the exact same as yours?
        
        Just admit you're wrong already. You're on increasingly shaky ground here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I concede that I missed the follow up disclaimer that the person would purchase it when it became available in a format he will accept. But this is still not the "exact same" thing as what I described. There is a difference between available and unavailable. I described a scenario where no copy was available for purchase at all. That's not the scenario linked to in the article.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In his case, at the time he wanted to purchase, it is in fact the situation. The plastic disc was not available. Hell, it STILL isn't available. Not until the 15th! And he can't get the digital version because he's no in the UK! So no, it is NOT AVAILABLE!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So if I want to order a pair of shoes online, they're "not available" because they'll take a couple of weeks to get to me? Nonsense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Semantics on your part. THe disc isn't available to him at all at this point. Don't put words in my mouth, it takes the piss from your argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't believe I put any words in your mouth. My example seems legitimate to me. Just because you cannot receive possession of something immediately does not mean it was unavailable. The album was coming out less than 2 weeks from when the guy went looking. I'm sorry, but a two week delay does not seem prohibitive to me in any way.
        
        Maybe the context has been lost or maybe I failed to make it clear initially. The "available" aspect of the discussion in this instance is in reference to the comparison of something that is wholly unavailable. Off the market completely with no certain way of making a purchase at any point in the immediate future.
        
        I don't think pirating something that is truly off the market is an offense. But arguing that a pending release that has not been made available for sale to you yet is "unavailable" is disingenuous. It's pending. If a movie is still a week away from release and you can get a copy through piracy, has the studio failed you as a customer for not having that item available exactly when you want it? Is the fact that you have to wait a week before the movie comes out reasonable justification for pirating the movie? Does that even qualify as an unavailable item?
        
        I mean, if YOU want to be semantic then I guess... sure. Fine. Technically, a thing that has not been offered to you for sale yet is unavailable. But it IS a semantic point, because we all know that in a matter of days that status will be reversed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me put it another way:
        
        If a film studio always released movies on the first Friday of every month, and pirated copies were available on Thursday, would that justify piracy? Would that mean the studio failed it's customers? If so, and the theater moves it's movies to the first Thursday instead and the pirated copies then show up on Wednesday, would that justify piracy? Would that mean the studio had failed it;s customers because the film was "unavailable"?
        
        And do the theater moves it's release to Wednesday an the pirated copy comes out Tuesday. Then Tuesday and Monday and so on until we're back to Fridays and Thursday and the studio has still failed it's customers.
        
        In short: I don't believe that waiting for a pending release date is the same thing as "unavailable".
        
        All that said: I know that people will pirate if certain demands aren't met. And I agree with the concept that the seller must try to meet these demands. But (in my opinion) if the seller fails... just don't buy the damned thing. But don't go out an pirate it either simply because you aren't getting all the conditions of the sale met exactly as you dictate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Thomas (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, as long as he ALSO pays. They don't really care how you get the content, as long as you support the record companies, CD makers, the RIAA etc. etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where specifically did I claim to be against all forms of copyright infringement? I am contesting this weak argument that "not available exactly how I want it" equals "unavailable". That's a poor justification for piracy. I never said that there weren't other forms of copyright infringement that were not justifiable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yup... We have a winner.
        
        And who, exactly, are you to determine at what point something is "unavailable"? You seem pretty quick to judge this guy who went FAR beyond what most people would have done to try to be legit and pay for the thing in the way he wanted to get it. Me? I wouldn't have tried to spoof the IP address (something I think the DCMA might have a problem with if they felt that I was circumventing the legal CR protections keeping the digital distribution out of the US) and gone straight to download.
        
        So, your whole problem is that this guy didn't want to buy it on a physical format? Well, I guess you're welcome to that opinion, but it strikes me as hypocritical coming from someone who says some forms of piracy are ok, but others aren't.
        
        You�re saying we have to accept only those formats the distributors decide to allow? Sorry, but that�s not how the market works. If you don't sell something in a format your customers want, someone else will... even if they 'sell' it for free.
        
        Again, who are you to judge which forms of piracy are justified and which aren�t?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And with you, we have a loser. See how that works?
        
        I'm not determining if something is available or unavailable. These words have definitive meaning. Either something is available to you or it isn't. It may not be available to you exactly as you want it, but it remains available. It might cost more than you want to pay, but it remains available.
        
        My problem is that this guy claimed he wanted to pay, and then balked at paying while complaining that he wants to support the musicians but can't. He can. It would be very easy for him to do this. He just chose not to because "there were too many hurdles".
        
        Who am I to judge what forms of piracy I consider acceptable and which forms I consider unacceptable? Claiming something as unavailable and using that as a justification for piracy while the item is actually available is pretty cut and dried. As for the rest, if you want to argue that borrowing a purchased copy of a book from a friend is the same as downloading a copy of that same book form the internet, go ahead. I'll disagree and then we can debate it. Because this is a forum. Not a court of law. We're discussing opinions and perspectives. I'm giving mine. You're giving yours. So why are you questioning my right to forward my perspective?
        
        Let's put it another way: Who are YOU to judge what is acceptable and what isn't?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right... you do have a right to your opinion. Just like I have a right to mine. But I'm not saying that someone's wrong when their opinion doesn't jive with mine.
        
        And before you say it, no I didn't say you're wrong in your justification of piracy... I'm saying you're wrong for saying your opinion is more correct than someone else's and then judging them on it.
        
        And since we're talking opinions and in a court of law... how is a text-book definition of 'available' a valid argument point? Since we're talking the opinion of justified piracy, how can your opinion of what constitutes 'available' be any more valid to someone else than their own opinion?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Available means that you can attain the item. Unavailable means you cannot attain the item. If the argument is that this person had no recourse other than to pirate because no legitimate copy was made available to him, then it is a false argument. The disclaimer of course is that no copy was made available to him in a form he would accept. And this is where the opinion part comes in. A lack of preferred format is not an acceptable justification for piracy.
        
        It should go without saying that this is my opinion. Do I think the guy is wrong for pirating something he could purchase? Yes? That's opinion. Do I say that it is wrong when anyone claims he turned to piracy because he had no other options? Yes. But that's not opinion. He had options, they just weren't options he preferred. That part is fact. Not opinion. The album was available to him. In my opinion, that means he had zero justification in piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fine... that's your opinion. Now get off your high-horse trotting around here claiming that you're right and he's wrong.
        
        Bottom line: this guy's opinion of what level of 'availability' justifies (or at least understandably leads to) piracy differs from yours. Stop going around like you're an authority on all justifications and that this guy is wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's funny how quickly you go from admitting I have a right to having an opinion to attempting to belittle said opinion with insults.
        
        It's doubly amusing that you try to insult me by stating that I am acting like an authority while simultaneously suggesting that I stop discussing my opinion.
        
        If you don't like what I have to say on the subject, you can argue with me about it or ignore me. I really don't care which. But it turns out that basically telling me to "have an opinion but shut up about" is just you acting like a complete douche.
        
        It's about what I would expect from someone who begins a dialog with the condescending (and frankly, unimaginative)"Yup... We have a winner" line.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And it's amusing to see you fail to understand that you can express your opinion about what justifies piracy without condemning other people. And that you fail to even address that notion even though it's the crux of what I'm on about. Instead, you twist my intention around so you can attack with it. Nice.
        
        It's the difference between saying "you don't have to believe in my god" and saying "you don't have to believe in my god but you're going to hell you heathen". The way you jump on this guy, you fall nicely into the second of those two.
        
        And the "winner" was the award for the further fall off a high-horse that day. I thought you were arguing against piracy completely and then you turned around to say your kind of piracy was ok, but not his. Glad you're sticking to you guns and really earning that award.
        
        Sorry if you feel it was unimaginative, but it was a connection to the other thread you went to spout your overbearing correctness of opinion in. I'll try harder next time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you can express yourself without condescension. Yet you chose not to.
        
        Do I condemn people for doing things I find contemptible? Yes. I try (not with 100% success, I concede) to do it civilly though. I apologize if you think that I'm somehow being antagonistic by stating my opinion, but that does not excuse the behavior you have exhibited.
        
        I never argued against all forms of piracy, so your assumption on that matter is your own failure. I think circumstances dictate certain behaviors. In this instance, the article is framed to suggest that no option other than piracy was available. This isn't true. So the implication that piracy was inevitable and justified is worth contesting.
        
        Everyone here is who isn't arguing for 100% unquestioning adherence to the law or 100% lawlessness is drawing a personal and somewhat arbitrary line. That's a given. You continually arguing that my opinion is just my opinion is pointless. You arguing that you want me to present my opinion in some other manner is also pointless. Attack the argument, not the person. That's a basic rule of civil discourse that you failed with your first response to me.
        
        And so in turn I treat you with the same attitude. Congratulations for setting the personal tone as negative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Looking back, I see you began with the condescending tone with your second post to me. Not your first. Just thought I would clarify.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am attacking the argument... you say that his piracy is not justified. I say that it was. He says that it was. So why are you right and he and I are wrong? It's a matter of opinion.
        
        The point is (which I did make before, and you supplemented) is that in this case, "available" is a matter of opinion. In his mind, he did everything he could to get the product he wanted in the way he wanted it. So in his opinion, he is justified. Just because you disagree does not make him wrong. And for you to come in here and say that his is wrong is, in itself, wrong.
        
        But if you want to nitpick the technicalities of the framing of the articles, I can go there too. Mike never said that piracy was the only option... this guy never said it was the only option...He said (and Mike agreed) that the option of piracy was more attractive than being forced to buy something he wanted in a way he didn't want (a physical CD).
        
        The whole point of the article that you sailed right past in your attack on the "technically he could have purchased it" front and the "his justification of piracy is wrong" front is this: the record label/distributor/whoever put up hurdles to getting a product in the way a consumer wanted, so he got it through illicit channels. Or, more simply, if you don't give customers what they want, they will get it elsewhere. Period.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see how you can really say that all you have been doing is attacking my argument. Your sarcastic description of me as "a winner" Is NOT attacking my argument. And you went to that well twice.
        
        As for the matter of opinion aspect: Yes. It's a matter of opinion. And you conceded that I am free to express mine, but then continued to rail against HOW I state my opinion. Again, that's you focusing on me personally rather than the subject.
        
        It wasn't claimed that piracy was the only option? That's not my reading of it: Here's the quote:
        
        "Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy."
        
        Ordering a CD IS a legitimate way to buy the album.
        
        As for the bits you claim I "sailed right past", I have repeatedly stated in this discussion that the seller is foolish to not offer more desired purchasing options. I have agreed multiple times with that aspect of the article. I have not been contesting that aspect of the discussion. How exactly does that qualify as "sailing past"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I did not say that all I was doing is attacking the argument... I said that I am. You claimed I wasn't, I pointed out that I am.
        
        And you're right that I'm railing (if you want to use that word for it, fine...) how you express your opinion... if you state your opinion with the understanding that you can be just as wrong as the person you think is wrong and allow for the fact that others can have just as legitimate an opinion as you, fine. That's not what you're doing tho... you're insisting that this guy is wrong in his opinion (which can't be be 'right' or 'wrong')... and that's not fine. One is being a contributing member of a conversation, the other is being an ass.
        
        ""Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy."
        
        Ordering a CD IS a legitimate way to buy the album."
        
        Ok, I'll grant that. Maybe Mike should have stated "could not find a legitimate way to buy a digital version of the album, or a fairly priced CD without paying the inflated 'import' cost on a physical item he didn't want in the first place..." Or, maybe Mike meant all that in "legitimate", since I would count all that in my idea of legitimately purchasing those things I want to spend my money on without having to adhere to someone else's artificially-created scarcity and restrictions.
        
        By focusing on the technicality that this guy could have bought a specific (completely unwanted, yet artificially mandated) format of this music and saying that it removes the legitimacy of his rationalization is sailing past the point that this guy did what he did because the label chose not to meet the buyer in a way that the buyer wants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see where I stated that attacking me personally was all you were doing. If I believed that, I wouldn't still be discussing this with you. I think the majority of your tone has been reasonable and civil. If I gave the opposite impression I apologize. I also apologize for calling you names and acting uncivil myself.
        
        I don't believe it is necessary to qualify an opinion as an opinion. That includes the notion that an opinion must include the caveat that other opinions might also hold validity.
        
        And I also disagree in regards to he notion that an opinion cannot be right or wrong. Unrelated to this particular discussion, there is the informed opinion versus the uniformed. More directly related to this discussion: You think my opinion is wrong. I think my opinion is right. But as we are stating opinions, there is (or should be) a silent qualifier that opinions may depend on perspective. So if you ask me if my opinion is right, my answer is yes. If I didn't think it was correct, it probably would not be my opinion.
        
        That's why the poorest response to an opinion in a debate is: "That's just your opinion." Yes. It is. Show me where specifically you believe it to be wrong. Discussion stems from there, and hopefully we both learn something.
        
        Fair enough point. I do agree that it is the sellers responsibility to make their item available in manner consumers desire. But I also very much dislike the notion that piracy is held (by some) as a justifiable response to the aforementioned failure of the seller. This guy intends to time-shift his payment. That is a principal I strongly agree with. So it was wrong for me to dismiss the scenario as simplistically as I did.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is nice to see that when we both take down our pre-defenses, we find we're actually on the same side.
        
        I will also apologize for my accusatory tone... one of my pet peeves is the 'my opinion is better than yours' tones... I'm a recovering southern-baptist... heh.
        
        I think you actually do agree with my notion of 'correctness' of opinions. As long as my opinion fits with m morality based on all available information, then I could say it is 'correct', but there is no universally right opinion that is 'better' or 'more right' than another. Which, I think, is what you're saying.
        
        I agree with you that just saying "well, that's your opinion" is a poor argument... that's why I didn't attack your opinion as being "wrong". I see your point and understand (as much as someone not you can) where you're coming from. I just happen to disagree with it, but I don't think I'm any more "right".
        
        Like I said, we do seem to be on the same side (outside of agreeing on the justification) regarding the point of the article. All I wanted was a focus on that point and not so much on whether this guy was right or wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "It was listed on Amazon US as an import that would be available on Feb 15th..."
        
        Nope, it still isn't available to him. At all. Period. See how that works?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        aaand that would be copyright infringement. If you give away a copy of a CD, you cannot keep the digital copy. That's called pirating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care. This isn't a debate over what constitutes copyright infringement. This guy said he wanted to pay. He could have paid. The album was available to him.
        
        You'll note that I am not arguing against every last form of piracy or infringement. I'm arguing against the "it costs more than I want to pay" justification for piracy.
        
        Giving away the authorized physical copy of something you legitimately purchased (particularly when you did so at a higher cost than a download), while keeping your digital copy is not a form of piracy I would contest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        so... you're ok with piracy, but only if it's your kind of piracy?
        
        It doesn't register that he would have had to pay 3x as much as the listed price? That he would have had to pay a 3rd party just to allow him access to the data?
        
        Woooow. I think we have a winner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm okay with piracy involving reasonable justification. Something being legitimately unavailable strikes me as reasonable justification. That was not the case in this instance. I'm also okay with the creation of back-up copies of items that you have legitimately paid for and I am okay with the transfer of authorized physical copies.
        
        If the cost was prohibitive, all this guy had to do was not buy it. Last I checked, no one forced him to make a purchase on this luxury item. Claiming that he was forced to pirate because the album was unavailable to him when it was available to him, just not the way he wanted it, is disingenuous.
        
        And yeah, I'm okay with certain forms of piracy and I'm against others. The world is not simply black and white. Are you for every form of copyright infringement? Not matter what?
        
        Maybe you are. If so, that's your opinion. And last I checked, we were discussing opinions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Umm... last I checked, making back-up copies of items legitimately bought, and the transfer of authorized physical copies are not forms of piracy at all. Why use them in your examples?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Other people here are claiming to me that this IS a form of infringement. So I'm responding in kind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, people are pointing out that if you buy a legitimate item, make a copy of it, and then give the legitimate item away, that THEN the copy is a form of infringement.
        
        No one said that either making a backup was illigitmate, or that giving away a legitimate copy was illigitimate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you're missing the context here. Your example of infringement is exactly what I have been responding to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        \r (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not sure your angle is quite right.. I hear what you're trying to say but I think you've staked your ground whilst looking behind you. The guy wanted a digital, UK had one (Internet == global) but said You're not here therefore you can not purchase it.
        
        You can't, in any way, empathise with that? It wasn't even me and I'm mildly irritated. There is no sound nor sane reason for preventing access to what is available.
        
        We're not talking about an automobile folks - stop giving digital business the benefit of the doubt. It's an is or it's an ain't. That is, either it exists or it doesn't - you can't fake it.
        --
        Thirsty guy
        Line over there, lot's of water being passed out
        Other side of fence with barbed wire on top
        Thirsty guy
        Must wait for next full moon before you can drink but here is a box of saltines to hold you over
        (he wasn't hungry, he was thirsty and water was abundant)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I absolutely have empathy. I simply believe the proper solution is to not purchase AND not pirate. The thing is, we're not talking about water here. There are lots of things in the world that I would like to have that are not being offered quite the way I want them, or are more expensive then I believe they should be. So I walk away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't care because your argument doesn't hold water.
        
        If I want to read a new book and it's too expensive and I can't order it in my country, is it wrong for me to borrow it from a friend? Or from a library? If not, then why is it wrong to download a copy?
        
        The onus should not be on the customer to find a way to pay. The onus should be on the company / provider to make available what the customer wants. If the customer service sucks, why pay for it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care because I don't care.
        
        Libraries and piracy are not the same thing. When you borrow from a library, you are operating under a specific set of conditions. The usage of the book you check out is tracked. In some cases that means royalties are paid. In other cases it allows tax deductions. In yet more scenarios it means that more copies are ordered. So again, checking a book out at the library and pirating it are NOT synonymous.
        
        And no, I have no problem with the single transfer of an authorized physical copy of a book.
        
        The argument here is that this album was available, and this guy didn't want to pay the asked for price. Okay. Except that he claimed he DID want to pay. Furthermore, the title of this article is: "If you don;t offer authorized versions of released content..."
        
        Yeah. Okay. except there was an authorized version of this "content" available, and the guy in question chose not to make the purchase.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        @MeMyself
        Not making a product available to a consumer in a format they prefer is a business model issue. If you choose to ignore the fact that many, many people have no desire to spend money on plastic disc's, then you have lost a sale and do not deserve the money from that consumer.
        
        The bottom line is the product was not available in the preferred distribution format (digital copy), and a sale was lost because of this issue, the availability of another format is completely irrelevant, as it was obviously not targeted at this individual sale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: @MeMyself
        Nothing you are saying counters anything I said. Yes, not making the album available in a preferred format does constitute a lost sale and that is on the seller, not on the buyer.
        
        But that does not equate to "unavailable" and that does not justify piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: @MeMyself
        If the sale was lost, then piracy is irrelevant. You didn't make the sale, you didn't get the money, and YOU didn't provide the customer with a product. Someone else met the customer's need, how and why that need was met is none of your business if you couldn't sell your product to the customer.
        
        Anything that the customer did after you failed to make the sale is none of your concern, if you want it to be your concern, then offer a competing product, don't offer nothing and expect something in return.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: @MeMyself
        Your post reads like an excuse for piracy.
        
        If the product is not available, end of discussion. The lack of availability doesn't grant you rights to violate copyright and go take it from wherever you can get it.
        
        What you are doing is justifying breaking the law. That just isn't right.
        
        If you can't get the product, buy something else, or buy nothing at all. It isn't your ticket to break the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @MeMyself
        What you are doing is justifying breaking the law. That just isn't right.
        
        Even when the law doesn't make any sense?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: @MeMyself
        Funny, no one said it gave you the right to pirate, they are just saying that is normally the end result. The labels are waving the music in peoples' faces, then using artificial barriers to keep them from buying it. Then they are surprised when people jump the barriers, and people like you come around to wave 'it's the law!' flags around and support them. STOP SUPPORTING THEM! They're big heads already don't fit through the damn door!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: @MeMyself
        And this is the crux of the whole damn story - the music WAS available in the format the customer wanted, and he was WILLING to pay for it, but it was only "UNAVAILABLE" because of an artificial geographic boundary that makes absolutely zero sense in today's technological world.
        
        There was never any reason in the first place to have the same material, in the same format, available for sale eleven days earlier than the plastic version simply because of proximity.
        
        This is strictly an issue for the seller who has used a poor business model which resulted in a lost sale. So we all have proof that, on occasion, the pirated music resulted in a directly related non-sale.
        
        Except we've left out the part where: WE DON'T CARE IF THE INDUSTRY LOSES SALES - THEY AREN'T SELLING US WHAT WE WANT, IN THE FORMAT WE WANT IT IN, WITH THE RIGHT TO USE IT HOWEVER WE WANT - IN ANY DEVICE WE WANT, AS MANY TIMES AS WE WANT!
        
        I quit buying music years ago but I have yet to pirate a single song or album. I download free MP3's from Amazon when they are available and I want new music. The labels haven't lost a single sale from me because I would not have spent my money with them anyway.
        
        Whether you care or not, disagree or not, the world will keep on spinning and those who want music in a particular format will have it. People are even willing to pay for it!!
        
        Don't try to sell hot chocolate in the summer and lemonade in the winter, then have the nerve to complain about lousy sales!
        
        The market is there and the industry is watching it as it flies right past them. They can keep their excuses and legacy models to themselves - the world knows where and how to get what it wants if it's not made readily available in their preferred format and with their schedule in mind which is obviously not always necessarily on a shiny plastic disc in the near future during a sales window some jackass in a suit high on the tower has decided because it fit neatly on his schedule. The world has moved on and the entertainment industry has not. Good luck on your journey!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then why not allow for direct donation to the content creator? A PWYW model has been proven to work, if you have the right mindset about it. Yes, it's not going to make you fabulously wealthy, but it can easily make you moderately wealthy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I certainly endorse artists using such systems. Even when something like that is not set up there are still options. As way of example: I could not find a copy of a book I was looking for, so I pirated it and then tracked down the widow of the author and made a PayPal donation to her.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Someantimalwareguy, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, it is ok for you to pirate, but no one else? How enlightened of you...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not really reading what I have been saying then. I have no problem with anyone engaging in piracy when a purchase is impossible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clearly sounds like a system where the widow will get a lot of money. And then there's the fact that the widow *deserves* money. After all, his husband was a composer!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not a "system". It's something I did because, having read an enjoyed the book, I wanted to pay. I tracked down the widow of the authors blog. Turned out she was in very dire financial straits. Her husbands recent death had cost dearly. He had hardly made any money on his books in decades. The money I paid was both earned and needed. If you think there is something wrong with that, then we have little to discuss.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good! What you're saying is that, because you found value in it, you paid the rights owner a reasonable sum of money.
        
        Regardless of the act or the work, if I like it (say, for example, Mass Effect 2 for the PC), I'll happily pay for it. Just not the �40 retail price. I was happy to wait for the Steam Sale, then purchase it from there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreed. I generally avoid inflated initial retail price. I'm more of a console gamer myself, but the principal is the same. I usually wait until a system is on it's way out, with a healthy catalog of games, and purchase it (and the games) at a lower price.
        
        I'm not against exploring new and more efficient ways to compensate the people who create the things I enjoy. That's one of the aspects that Techdirt explores that I consider vital to the future of entertainment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Stuart, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Right.
      And back in the day before all of this technology/digital shit if I wanted a song and I could not get it on LP or tape and I wanted to pay for it I just hired the band to play privately for me. It's more than I wanted and it cost me more but at least I did not use their stupidity to turn me into a PIRATE!
      
      He should have bought the CD and waited.
      
      That is what the record companies want I am sure that is what they will get.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You have a strange understanding of how things used to work. Before digital technology we had this thing called a "radio". We also had these paper things called "catalogs". Catalogs were like a book form of internet shopping. Sometimes ordering things through these catalogs cost more than buying the same thing in a store. If you didn't want to pay for it, that was a choice you were free to make.
        
        Point is, the album was available to him. He just did not want to pay for it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        jjmsan (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In addition to radio there were things called tape recorders so you could record the music off the air. It degraded somewhat but it was useful enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CommonSense (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If he's turning himself into a pirate, running the risk that all pirates risk of being sued for egregious amounts of money, why exactly should he piss away that money for the disc?? Having paid for the disc legally would not prevent the MafIAAs from suing him should they find out he downloaded a torrent, so really what's the benefit to him for doing two things for one result??? There isn't one.
      
      "You can't be half a pirate these days, Nucky..."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  No available means not available. This album was available.
  
  But not in the format that was convenient for the customer in his country. It's asinine to make it available in different formats for different countries.
  
  There are plenty of movies still available on VHS that I can't get on DVD, but I sure as hell wouldn't buy them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It is asinine that the album was not available exactly as he wanted. But that is not reasonable justification for circumventing payment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why does payment even matter when they weren't selling it to him in the first place? They've lost nothing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the heart of the entire discussion. They were selling it. He could have purchased it. He just didn't like the conditions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And they've still lost nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  No available means not available. This album was available.
  
  The album wasn't available (reading comprehension?) until 11 days AFTER the digital file was available in the UK which he had already waited for.
  
  This is customer service issue, if you want to make a sale, have the product available when the customer wants to buy it. It's not rocket surgery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    11 days! Fuck! I hadn't realized. I guess he had no choice then. I mean, if he had to wait a couple of weeks, who knows what tragedy might have ensued.
    
    You're right. It's not rocket surgery. This guy said he wanted to pay for the music. He could have ordered the CD and pirated the music thus circumventing that hellish wait. His desire to pay and his desire for immediate gratification are both served. The End.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      11 days! Fuck! I hadn't realized. I guess he had no choice then. I mean, if he had to wait a couple of weeks, who knows what tragedy might have ensued.
      
      You sound almost stupid enough to work for a record label.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      11 days! Fuck! I hadn't realized. I guess he had no choice then. I mean, if he had to wait a couple of weeks, who knows what tragedy might have ensued.
      
      What an elitist ass you are being. You are talking about your customer here. If a customer has the money and is willing to give it to you and you fail provide them what they want then that truly is a lost sale. A lost sale not due to piracy what so ever, but due to your own incompetence.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree that it is foolish of the person providing the music to not make it available in all formats to everyone. I disagree that a failure to do this justifies piracy. That's the point here. If you want to buy something and the seller makes it difficult, don't buy it! But don't use that as excuse to circumvent payment either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I disagree that a failure to do this justifies piracy.
        
        I will agree that it doesn't justify piracy.
        
        But the reality is that is exactly what does happen. It seems to me that more productive solution to piracy would be fixing these kind of problems rather than suing (potential/actual) customers and lobbing for more draconian laws. It all seems like money spent the wrong way to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Agreed. 100%.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. LemurBoy (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aye, that does indeed seem to be a fair assessment of the situation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you are completely missing the point. This isn't about the CD at all, that isn't what he wanted to buy.
        
        He searched for what he wanted to buy. He found something that wasn't what he wanted so he kept looking. He then found what he wanted but it wasn't available yet. He waiting. When it was available he tried to buy but was blocked by artificial barriers. He really wanted to give them some money so he tried to get around the barriers to give them money. The do this he would have to give many times the amount of his item to 3rd parties to get what he wanted so instead he found a different way to get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right. This isn't about the CD it's about the music. That's what the guy wanted, and that's what he would get from the CD. Music.
        
        My opinion in regards to an item either taking to long to reach you or not delivered in the exact method you want or priced at more than you would prefer is this: Don't buy it. But don't use these things as justification for piracy.
        
        I'm not questioning the concept that this is a stupid way fro any company to run their business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It was listed on Amazon US as an import that would be available on Feb 15th, but only in CD form.
    
    Just checked Amazon myself...not due to be released until Feb 15.
    
    Checks calender...hmmm says Feb 10....so album STILL not available.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Memyself, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Not five more days!!!! No sane person could EVER be expected to wait five whole days!!! Time to pirate!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ron Rezendes (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People die every day - do you want the sale right now, or not?
        
        This guy might not be around in five days.
        
        Hell, you might not be around in five days!
        
        No dead person will ever be able to buy in five days.
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:44pm
  
  Re:
  he didnt want to pay shipping to wait longer
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 11 Feb 2011 @ 3:00am
  
  Re:
  In other words, there was a way for the guy to purchase the album, but he didn't want to do that so he pirated it instead.
  If it had been the other way round trying to buy a US album from the UK technically he'd have pirated it anyway. In the UK it is as I understand it technically illegal (though an accepted breach according to the BPI) to rip a CD to digital format. So no perhaps it wasn't available legally even had he been willing to jump through the ludicrous hoops to buy it. Don't you just love when you can pay full price for something and still be a "criminal"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Memyself, 11 Feb 2011 @ 3:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nowhere in this discussion have I framed things in a legal perspective.
    
    But yes, I agree that the scenario you describe is ludicrous.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 11 Feb 2011 @ 3:18am
  
  Re: Oh.... My... God!!!!
  About 100 posts aguing over a tiny semantic difference of interpretation of the word "Available". Seriously?
  
  Sounds like the Redbeard Rum argument to me:
  "Opinion is divided: Everyone else says it is, I say it isn't".
  
  I suppose you have to admire such tenacity in the face of overwhelming reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 14 Feb 2011 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  Making your customers wait longer and pay more because you can't be arsed to make use of modern technology? Yeah, your business is going to be a long-term success.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:01pm

What a load of crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm

I went through this recently with the movie Tron. I wanted to watch it, preferably in HD, before the new movie came out. You'd think Disney would have capitalized on all the hype surrounding the new one and released a new Blu-ray edition of the original. But supposedly what happened was they did some test screenings of the original, and younger audiences were turned off by how cheesy it was. Fearful that this could actually hurt the new movie, Disney scrapped plans for a DVD/Blu-ray release. So, when I went to try and legally purchase this film, it wasn't available ANYWHERE. The closest I could find was a used DVD on Amazon, for something like $40 because it's out of print. So, I pirated it - I found a nice 720p copy that someone had ripped from an HDTV broadcast. I watched it, got the hit of nostalgia I was looking for, and now that I've seen it I would probably be unlikely to buy the film if and when it gets an official release. Good job throwing money away, Disney!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to the wonderful world of the Disney Vault. If you ever wanted a case study of the ridiculousness of artificial scarcity, look no further. They only release movies once every 10 years or so (still waiting on Fantasia 2000...) for a year or so, then back to the vault it goes. So guess who else pirated Tron before the new release...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - athe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OT, but the BD of Fantasia 2000 is available from Amazon.co.uk
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Too bad I don't have a blu-ray player and have no plans on upgrading to one. Hmmm.... guess that AVI is going to have to do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - athe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        28th March for the Platinum Ed DVD...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSO, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:15pm

They need to understand what market they are in
Amazon and other digital distributors! Remember:

You are not selling *content*! You are selling EASY ACCESS to content. If your "easy access" is harder than torrents... byebye.

Honestly, there's a very insightful article that summarizes it much better than me:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- m3mnoch (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: They need to understand what market they are in
  +1 for the kevin kelly post. loooooove him.
  
  m3mnoch.
  
  p.s. well, love, not "in-love." ewwww....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: They need to understand what market they are in
  It doesn't matter if they are selling "access", they cannot do more than their contract allows.
  
  They may be blocked by the record companies.
  
  They may be blocked by their credit processing.
  
  They may be blocked by local law.
  
  They may be blocked by collection agencies.
  
  Everything is harder than a torrent, because torrents are free and in your house. But just because it is easier or handier doesn't make it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:40pm
    
    Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
    Steam is easier than a torrent, and they're raking in the money.
    
    iTunes is easier than torrents, and they're raking in money too.
    
    Netflix is easier than torrents...oh, look, they're raking in money as well.
    
    Imagine that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
      Steam isn't available outside of the US.
      
      Itunes wasn't available up until fairly recently outside of the US.
      
      Netflix isn't available outside the US and Canada.
      
      Imagine that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - m3mnoch (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        um. i think that's what we're saying is the problem.
        
        m3mnoch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Three vary valid reasons why people need to chill the hell out on this Intellectual Pooperty protection. Steam, iTunes, and Netflix are clear examples that you can compete with free and not providing it is just a big middle finger to your fans.
        
        We just got Netflix again because it's just so much easier with Google TV. Granted, I'm in the US, the one country these people seem to want money from for some strange reason.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Actually, Itunes only made it because there was very few other ways to get content onto your ipod. They were a locked in, walled garden (which is supposedly horrible) and that is what got them started.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Imagine what?
        
        You said everything was harder than a torrent. I just gave you three extremely successful platforms that are completely contradictory to that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Therefore, if all of these people would stop blocking the traffic, thinking it will stop the progress and they can go back to selling discs, then maybe they could actually make money instead of whining about the pirates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - RikuoAmero (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Steam isn't available outside of the US? Then what am I, an Irishman, doing with over 40 games paid with euros under my Irish Steam account?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Imagine that. That is the same level of stupidity as all the blocks you listed above.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MadderMak (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Oh me oh my... Parochial much?
        
        Netflix outside the US? nope (last I looked).. or maybe it was Hulu... whatever.
        
        There are quite a few hundred thousand steam users outside the use... sarcasm/ pity we have to fly to the US every time we want to play /sarcasm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 1:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They need to understand what market they are in
        Steam is available in almost every single country on the goddamned planet.
        
        Don't talk bollocks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:22pm

Not selling things that people would buy isn't an example of a bad business model.

It is the PERFECT example of a NON-business model.

Beggars belief, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRTV, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm

Tough!
As far as the record labels are concerned, they think there's many other great artists available for legal download, so you'll just have to make do with them. Another example of the belief that the customers cater to the record labels rather than the record labels catering to it's customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re: Tough!
  Yep, plenty of other great artists available for legal download.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnny canada, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:41pm

New Business Model
Set up a web site (like iTunes)

Have all the features but you can not buy music/movies there.

The site links to the Artist's site where you buy the music directly from them (no label involved)

The Music site get a percentage of the sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg G (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: New Business Model
  And you will be sent DMCA or C&D notices from the **AA's if you dare to do something like that.
  
  Can't anyone think of the **AA executives that will be put out of work because of something like this??
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 12:19am
    
    Re: Re: New Business Model
    And you will be sent DMCA or C&D notices from the **AA's if you dare to do something like that.
    
    If you get sent these notices, they wouldn't have any legal teeth.
    
    Remember, you're linking to the artist's site, not a Torrent site or whatever. These would presumably be completely legal licensed copies.
    
    It's one of the reasons I like Last.fm. They allow any artist to provide a link where users can purchase anything. It's not quite as trivial as providing an Amazon or iTunes link, but it's still pretty trivial.
    
    (Contrast this with Pandora, which requires a UPC code to even be on the site at all. This leaves out a whole swath of indie artists, and even some smaller labels.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm

"Fans love music. They want to support the musicians and they want to pay for music. But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As I did this morning."

Classic demonstration of rationalization tied to immediate gratification disorder:

I want it! I want it! I want it NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!

I can't have it NOW??????

Well screw waiting until it's available, I'll steal it!

They MADE me do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  As opposed to the arbitrary corporate decision of windowed releases?
  
  "There are thousands of fans that want to pay us!"
  "Too BAD, WINDOWS WINDOWS WINDOWS!"
  "Sir, they're going elsewhere now."
  "WINDOWS WINDOWS WINDOWS WINDOWS!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  "classic demonstration of rationalization tied to immediate gratification disorder:"
  
  No its supply and demand, period. If there is a demand, but no supply from the "official" outlets, someone/thing WILL accommodate the demand, especially when there is money to be made. Right or wrong does not matter.
  
  "Classic demonstration of rationalization tied to immediate gratification disorder:"
  We got Dr. sigmund Long here now. Thanks doc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re:
  Classic demonstration of rationalization tied to immediate gratification disorder:
  
  Perhaps an end result of the MTV Generation being blitzed with 3 minute videos and commercials containing thousands of different images resulting in a whole generation with attention spans of about 30 seconds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:51pm

Argument for copyright to be like trademark
This sounds like a good argument why copyright should be more like trademark in that you must actually be "trading" to retain the copyright.

If you aren't offering something for sale/license then it should quickly revert to the public domain.

In that case, I'd even favor unlimited terms -- as long as someone supports the content, they get to have rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm

Techdirt logic: If I can't get whatever I want whenever I want it, it's OK to just take what I want.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153246/i-do-what-i-want
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re:
  average_joe logic: If I set up enough arbitrary boundaries, everyone will mindlessly fall into line.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What boundaries did I set up?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He is talking about the arbitrary boundaries that are set up around the world by licence providers that divide the world into where and when and how you can purchase products/services.
      
      DVD and Blue Ray Discs publishers are renown for this and can be shown by the Region Number at the back of the disc box. They use this to control what you can play in the machine you bought. region locked machines will ONLY play a region 4 disc in a region 4 player for example.
      
      Thankfully a region 4 country (Australia) had a huge court case over this and the court stated that region locking was not in the best interests of the consumer and made it legal for multi-region players to be sold and used. This caused the publishers to have coniption fits to this day and state that grey market importing will cost millions of jobs etc. etc. yada yada, thankfully the Australian government realised that this was a strange and unproven (in fact highly unlikely) statement and has since proven to be not only incorrect but Jobs have been CREATED by the release of import restrictions on such items as books, CD's, DVD's etc etc.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - athe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet, in Australia, the manufacturers have done exactly the same thing with Blu-ray. Somehow they get away with it for now because it is a new format. Sure, we can import from other R2 countries (I do all the time from UK), but what about R1?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re:
  Average Joe Logic: Due to my many, many years in business, I can affirm once and for all that the whole "the customer is always right" thing is completely incorrect. Customers must suck the teets we give them and quit making demands. That's how we'll make loads of cash.
  
  Also, lawyers do it best!
  
  http://www.darkhelmetthinksyouregettingsilly.com/hereismy/anus/doyoulike?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That is one url I am NOT clicking on...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MadderMak (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Dagnammit DH! Please hurry up and register the domain.... I keep hoping for Dark Humour (or a book teser) at the end of your links.
    
    :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  Perfect missing the point.
  What you think you read "If I can't get whatever I want whenever I want it, it's OK to just take what I want."
  
  what you read "If someone can't get whatever they want whenever they want it, THEY WILL just take what I want."
  
  The point is not what is right or wrong. the point is what the reality of the marketplace is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I get the difference. It's clear to me that Mike pretends to merely be pointing out that "they will," while it's readily apparent that he thinks it's "OK."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "while it's readily apparent that he thinks it's "OK." "
      And your interpretation of that is more valid than, say, mine... because?
      
      Joe, I can see why you would feel that way given the difference between your views and Mike's... but that interpretation is reading into and between lines that are barely there... You're inferring his motiviations. And attacking him based on that (opinion-based) interpretation. And a lot of us find that childish and petty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        His motivations, goals, and agenda are clear enough to me. If you disagree, that's OK.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly, but if you start attacking him based on what you think you see, be prepared to be called out on it. That's all I'm saying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TDR, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DISCLAIMER
        Average Joe: "I am a shark-wannabe who dreams of fleecing my customers like any bad lawyer, and I cannot understand the concept of fighting against bad laws rather than simply letting them stand. I worship the law and bow down before it, and to me it can do no wrong. If there was a law that said I had to go streaking in my neighborhood every day, I would do it without question, because it would be the law."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        herodotus (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "His motivations, goals, and agenda are clear enough to me. If you disagree, that's OK."
        
        This is childish, Joe.
        
        It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with someone if they consistently engage in ad hominem attacks and argue with their interlocutor's supposed motivations as opposed to their stated arguments.
        
        I mean, if one were to respond to your statement, quoted above, on the same level, we would get something like:
        
        YOUR motivations, goals, and agenda are clear enough to me as well: you want to make a fortune off of sleazy entrepreneurial litigation schemes, and you hate Mike because his efforts raise awareness about just how sleazy these schemes really are. If you disagree, that's OK.
        
        This isn't conversation. It's little more than name-calling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I get the difference. It's clear to me that Mike pretends to merely be pointing out that "they will," while it's readily apparent that he thinks it's "OK."
      
      If I thought it was "OK" I would do it myself. I don't, because I don't think it's ok.
      
      There's a difference between saying "this is what the market is doing, and this is how to deal with it" and saying "I think it's great that people are making unauthorized copies."
      
      For someone who pretends to be so literal about everything, I would think you would understand that difference. That you don't... well... that says something.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But aren't you really saying it's okay when you suggest companies should base their business models on accepting piracy?
        
        All of the music (or just about) is available on various systems in the US for purchase. Are you saying that charging is a mistake because piracy exists? Isn't that really saying "just give in, it's okay"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't. You are too busy pointing out who this is all the victim's fault. You put no blame where it's actually due.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't. You are too busy pointing out who this is all the victim's fault. You put no blame where it's actually due."
        
        I didn't get this from reading this story at all. The "moral of the story" I'm getting from what Mike wrote is "If you want to make money, don't make it hard for your customers to buy your product, especially when they could easily download it illegally if they choose to do so".
        
        Why are you attacking that? Does that not make since?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike: "I don't think it's ok."
        
        joe: If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't.
        
        That's right folks, joe has officially stopped reading. You would think this would put a crimp in that career in law, but it is largely built around ignoring statements that you would like to ignore as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I meant say so in his articles. His articles are too busy focusing on how everything is the victims' fault to point any blame whatsoever at those who intentionally violate those victims' rights. He says in the comments that he doesn't think piracy is OK, sure, but that's an obvious attempt to save face. Why is there never an indicia of blame on the pirates in his articles? I'm not talking about saying the Anonymous shouldn't DDOS people. I'm talking about blaming those who intentionally walk all over others' rights. If he really thinks piracy is not OK, his articles would indicate this. They don't. It's article after article about how dumb the rights holders. This article we're commenting on is a good example.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 8:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Victims"?!
        Most of these stories are about 'rightsholders' who are also DISTRIBUTORS. Distributors who are NOT DISTRIBUTING in ways that satisfy potential markets.
        
        If they are "victims" it is only of their own moronitude.
        
        If anything, it is the artists that are victims of distributors that aren't doing their jobs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't."
        
        Did you even read the comment you replied to? Here's an excerpt...
        
        "If I thought it was "OK" I would do it myself. I don't, because I don't think it's ok."
        
        You are getting extremely tiresome. Since you seem to like to talk/type so much, why don't you start your own blog where you can be king. Is it because you know it would be a failure because the masses of the world clearly disagree with you?
        
        You're nothing but a legend in your own mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! I have my own website already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! A link or it isn't true.
        
        P.S. Facebook doesn't count.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nope. Not sharing that link with anyone here. Guess it isn't true for you then. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suit yourself hypocrite. I expected that. Maybe liar's the right word. I don't know, but I find it hard to believe with as much time as you spend here criticizing Mike and others who disagree with you, plus running your own website (so you say) that you also have time for... law school? Seems to me that would require many hours of class time and studying, not leaving all the free time you seem to possess. Seems more to fit the profile of some unemployed kid living in mom's basement who has no friends, no girlfriend, and no life. I know when I was in college I was out living it up with friends and getting laid when not studying or in class, not spending every free moment I had sitting at a keyboard.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suit yourself hypocrite. I expected that. Maybe liar's the right word. I don't know, but I find it hard to believe with as much time as you spend here criticizing Mike and others who disagree with you, plus running your own website (so you say) that you also have time for... law school? Seems to me that would require many hours of class time and studying, not leaving all the free time you seem to possess. Seems more to fit the profile of some unemployed kid living in mom's basement who has no friends, no girlfriend, and no life. I know when I was in college I was out living it up with friends and getting laid when not studying or in class, not spending every free moment I had sitting at a keyboard.
        
        I don't go out with my friends because I'm too busy with my kids, as I've posted elsewhere. My two oldest are at school, I'm feeding my toddler breakfast, and my infant is sitting in my lap drinking a bottle. Somehow I can manage this and do all of my homework with a full class schedule. I get very little sleep, but I don't care. Not that this is any of your business, but I'm happy to share.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, none of that is my business, but that response just gained you a little more respect today.
        
        I never really cared about the link anyway, it was how you responded that I was more interested in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll give you couple hints. It's a message board. It's not about law, although occasionally law is the topic. There's about 100 regular posters who check in every day or so, and plenty more who read it or post irregularly. I've had the board for about 6-7 years. It's not facebook. Not even close. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What Mike really said was this:
        
        "If I thought it was "OK" I would do it myself. I don't, because I don't think it's ok for me, but I am happy to base my business models and assumptions around it. I also happily encourage torrent sites, come down on their side legally in all cases, and generally support the pirating community. But pirating is bad".
        
        That is where AJ is going with this - while Mike may say "Pirating isn't okay" in this particular post, the rest of TD is about how to profit from piracy, how to use piracy, how piracy is changing everything, and why piracy is legal. Not exactly a solid condemnation of the concept.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If I thought it was "OK" I would do it myself. I don't, because I don't think it's ok for me, but I am happy to base my business models and assumptions around it. I also happily encourage torrent sites, come down on their side legally in all cases, and generally support the pirating community. But pirating is bad".
        
        That is where AJ is going with this - while Mike may say "Pirating isn't okay" in this particular post, the rest of TD is about how to profit from piracy, how to use piracy, how piracy is changing everything, and why piracy is legal. Not exactly a solid condemnation of the concept.
        
        It's amusing that he thinks that saying piracy is not OK somehow erases every single thing other thing he does to promote piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You both miss the nuances here.
        
        Piracy is not OK but (given human nature) it is inevitable.
        A business model that relies on the absence of piracy makes as much sense as an airline based on the absence of gravity.
        
        Coming down on the side of torrent sites legally (which he does not do all the time) is based on protecting the legitimate users on the sites from collateral damage.
        
        If piracy is legal then it does not deserve to be described as such. Some activities which the copyright maximalists portray as piracy are in fact perfectly legal and not morally objectionable except to a warped mind.
        
        The solid condemnation that you seem to want would not be useful except as part of a general attempt to brainwash the masses into continuing to consume old fashioned MSM. It would also not be interesting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's amusing that he thinks that saying piracy is not OK somehow erases every single thing other thing he does to promote piracy.
        
        I've heard that Mike raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Sure, he might have claimed that he never raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. But if he really did NOT rape and murder a young girl in 1990, why has he never provided evidence to disprove the accusation that Mike raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That wasn't Mike. That was your dad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Haven't read a whole lot of the back catalogue here, have you? Mike is very clearly on record saying that he does not believe piracy is a good thing.
        
        Why do people seem to have an issue with this? Piracy is like drinking (bad metaphor time). You can legislate it away all you like, won't stop people from doing it. Then you've got the morons who want to make the law stricter. You know, the law that is already not being followed? That doesn't work, either.
        
        Then you come along and start telling Mike he's advocating piracy by trying to help people to deal with its existence. Sorry, but the 'fight' is the sham. It will go nowhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, I see what you did there! Since he didn't EXPLICITLY say he was against it, he MUST be for it! You must be a real joy to debate against. This is the same as putting the words right in his mouth. Trying to set up an argument that can't be disputed, because if it weren't true he'd just say so.
        
        Let me put it another way. 'If you really DID think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't. You're too busy pointing at the facts, and assigning no real blame except where the information presented follows. '
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are too busy pointing out who [sic] this is all the victim's fault.
        
        If you're not giving the customers what they want, you're not a "victim," you're a bad businessman.
        
        That term may be technically correct in a legal context, but it's not appropriate in this one. It implies that the person suffered some gross harm, and that the harm was undeserved. Here, the harm was not "gross" (the copyright holders were not even harmed in practice, since they could not make that sale in any situation). And it was, in my opinion, deserved.
        
        It's also an extremely loaded term. If I said that extended copyright lengths "victimized" the public, you'd jump down my throat. Yet that's a direct analog to what you're saying here.
        
        As far as placing the blame where it's due... If you're a bad businessman, you're to blame for losing customers. That's exactly what happened here. Whether the person pirated the music or simply obeyed the law and didn't buy it, the result is the same: no sale. That's 100% the fault of the businessman.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I also think it is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances for the actions that Mr Wilson took in trying to obtain the digital songs.
      
      To make it an absolutely ethical action I would also suggest that Mr Wilson take his 4 pounds and send it directly (if possible) to the Band itself with a note explaining the actions he has taken and why.
      
      That way he has done exactly what he wanted to do in the first place.
      
      And before you go off and state that I don't know what I am talking about and have no clue on the laws etc, I do hold an LLB though do not practice since my Digital Forensic consulting pays the bills better and lets me sleep better at night too
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Betcha your Forensics are no match for my counter-forensics (or anti-forensics, if you prefer), which I DO practice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Waves a 2000 gauss neodymium magnet in your general direction.. oops.. no need for anti-anti-forensics now.
        
        My bad ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds like you've seen "The Core".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  Techdirt logic: If I can't get whatever I want whenever I want it, it's OK to just take what I want.
  
  Hey look, AJ is misrepresenting what I say again. How childish.
  
  Stop that. No one said it's okay to take it. What we said is that PEOPLE WILL DO THAT. So if you're in the business of producing content, and you know that people are going to take the content if you don't give them a good way to get it legally, why don't you figure out a way to give it to them legally?
  
  Is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Or must you simply misrepresent what I say to make you feel better?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Quick thing Mike... I think it's more accurate to point out that these people are in the business of distributing content... and failing to do so in a way their customers like.
    
    As has been shown in many ways, you can compete with 'free'... but not if you choose not to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Coasty (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Both your post, and that of Mike, cut to the core of the matter.
      
      I'll give you a specific example of that.
      
      I grew up in the late 40's and 50's listening to big band, pop, and early rock. As a fan of those genres over the years I built up a huge collection of LP's, almost 400 albums. A big part of that collection was all of Ferrante & Teichert's albums. After I retired from the service in 1983 I put most of my household possessions, including my music and book collections, into storage while going back to school and living on campus. Shortly after doing this the warehouse they were stored in burnt down to the ground destroying everything I owned. I quickly discovered that my LP's were mostly not replaceable as they were no longer available, either as LP's or (later) CD's. What was available was mostly "Best Hits' compilations, usually consisting of the same few songs repeated across the various titles. Such is life, and I accepted that at the time, because there were no other affordable options (such as paying $20 or more for a used and well scratched LP).
      
      Fast forward a whole lot of years to when the Internet had become well established and digital versions of music were common place. I then made the rounds of the various record labels (phone calls, letters, email etc), specifically to buy replacements for my most favorite artists. Again, I use Ferrante & Teichert as an example. In a nutshell, I was told well here's the seven or so "Best Of" albums, take it or leave it. I.E. multiple copes of the same songs and, for all intents and purposes, none of the tunes "I" wanted. I was perfectly willing to buy replacements for my destroyed LP's, be it a CD or digital version, but the music labels weren't interested in making them available, especially as digital copies, because they were no longer main stream big dollar makers and people like me weren't a big enough market for them to care about. That last sentence, by the way, is pretty much exactly what I was told by the music label representative on the phone (if I remember correctly the company was BMI).
      
      About two years ago, while doing a Google search on Ferrante & Teichert fan sites, back on about page 3 or so of the search I noticed a Bit Torrent link for one of their tunes. That was when I discovered that somebody had gone to the trouble of making high quality digitized copies of just about of all their album releases. Not too surprisingly, it wasn't done by a record label. As it was the _only_ way I could replace those tunes, I downloaded them all, which took a huge hunk of time. Since then, because I had no other option, I've done the same for just about all of the LP's I lost in that warehouse fire.
      
      The one common denominator in all of this, is that virtually none of the music I replaced was available for purchase by the record labels. To replace what I lost I literally had no other option other than to 'pirate' the music. I wanted to give the record labels my money, hell, I was practically begging them to take it, but they gave me no way to do that. So, I became a 'music' pirate in the process, and have not one iota of guilt about it. I tried to be 'honest' about it, and the record labels basically laughed at me.
      
      Is there a market for older music releases, like I was unsuccessfully trying to buy? You bet there is! If you don't believe this, do some quick searches on Google, Amazon, or Ebay. Are the record labels making even minimal attempts at servicing that market? Hell no, not even when the cost of creating digitized copies of the music is virtually pennies compared to the ROI!
      
      The labels lost sight of their market, it changed on them and they didn't have the wit to see it. Which pretty much gives you a snapshot of why record labels are bleeding profits right and left. It has nothing at all to do with 'piracy', and everything to do with not being able to recognize profit making opportunities when they're staring them in the face.
      
      In a nutshell, basic marketing (kindergarten version), if you don't offer what your market wants, at a price it's willing to pay, that market will eat you alive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I was perfectly willing to buy replacements for my destroyed LP's, be it a CD or digital version, but the music labels weren't interested in making them available, especially as digital copies, because they were no longer main stream big dollar makers and people like me weren't a big enough market for them to care about. That last sentence, by the way, is pretty much exactly what I was told by the music label representative on the phone (if I remember correctly the company was BMI)."
        
        And there you have it folks! A perfect example of why all the copyright extensions are a joke not worth respecting, right from the horses (BMI's) mouth. If all the major labels do die, while holding onto nearly eternal copyrights, they can take the music with them to their grave depriving everyone of the culture of their generation.
        
        Great post, Coasty. I had a similar experience with a house fire. Lost everything. Most were LPs long out of print already never to return. Most were from smaller labels that just folded up, never getting swallowed up into a larger label where they may have had a chance to resurface, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway for the reasons you stated. All the insurance money in the world couldn't replace most of what I lost. Thanks to the internet some of it is turning up. Downloading something that is not for sale, cannot be considered a lost sale, and therefore cannot be misconstrued as theft either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's a wonderful story, but basically ignores the business realities.
        
        Digitizing all of that music from the original masters would be a job in itself. It takes time to find the masters. It takes time to capture each of the masters. It takes time to them turn around and re-master them for digital distribution (such as CD or download). Not to forget of course that they have to go back through the process to assure that they have the rights for a re-release, etc. Many older works are owned by various companies, as artists didn't always record for the same companies back in the day.
        
        Get that all done, release it, and the total market is about 50 copies.
        
        Now, if they charge what is costs to produce plus a small profit, for those 50 people, it would be insanely cost prohibitive.
        
        In a nutshell, basic marketing (kindergarten version), if you don't offer what your market wants, at a price it's willing to pay, that market will eat you alive.
        
        Actually, it's basic business: If you have to invest time and money into something that only a small market wants and is unwilling to pay the costs to obtain, don't bother.
        
        As a side note, just like everything else, times are changing. With music being "all digital masters" now, and with more and more companies going into their back catalogs and digitizing the content for sale, the back catalog right now probably stretches 40+ years for most artists. There will be exceptions as you get older then the 80s or so, but generally, if it was made, it was digital and easily store and re-printed without major costs. 30 - 40 years from now, when The Scorpions are considered truly classic music, their material will be readily available because there will be few costs associated with selling it - and will likely be available all the time. The gap that exists right now is because of cost, time, effort, and the lack of return on investment.
        
        Since Coasty already paid for the music once, I don't think anyone really sees any loss here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good points from Coasty and others right here.
        
        I raise one issue, AC Above Me, in that while I understand the time it would take for masters to be digitized, the recording industry could've started all that going on 15 years ago, but instead they tried to kill it via lawsuiting, so I have little to no sympathy for them there.
        
        I see, in situations such as Coasty's especially, those that digitize and share obscure or low ROI music as archivists, doing the work of preserving music that is neglected or seen as 'not worth the effort' by the ones who hold the rights. In that respect, 'pirates' have only my admiration.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        While I agree with you, that the digitizing of the old music probably doesn't make a lot of business sense for the record company, here's the kicker - why are they clutching them so close to their chest then?
        
        They are not worth updating them themselves, yet they are too valuable to release into the public domain so someone else (or bunch of someones) could update the format for them. And they could still sell them after that, just not own the copyright. (At least that's my understanding of public domain - someone correct me if I am wrong)
        
        Not to mention the fact that under original copyright deal these would already be in the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 Feb 2011 @ 4:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It takes time to find the masters. It takes time to capture each of the masters. It takes time to them turn around and re-master them for digital distribution (such as CD or download).
        
        Hey, that's what the Library of Congress is for!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're touchy today, Mike. Classic.
    
    You're not just saying people will do it, you're celebrating the fact that people will do it. You think it's someone's own fault that others will violate their rights. You enjoy rubbing their face in it. That's why you write "gotcha" articles pointing this out over and over again. You never blame the person doing the violating. You always blame the victim. Broken record indeed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Celebrating? I guess that explains all the party hats and ice cream! Good times!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You enjoy rubbing their face in it. That's why you write "gotcha" articles pointing this out over and over again.
      
      That's not the take i get from these types of articles, AJ.
      
      It seems more like:
      
      You can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink. Then that horse turns on you and bites you on the ass. After that I would laugh quietly to myself too when that stubborn ass horse died from dehydration.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Broken record indeed.
      
      That's rich coming from you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're not just saying people will do it, you're celebrating the fact that people will do it.
      
      Funny. For someone who insists that I prove everything I say, you seem to have no problem ascribing to me beliefs that I do not have.
      
      I mean, it's sad, but it's funny.
      
      You think it's someone's own fault that others will violate their rights.
      
      Isn't there a concept in the law about the responsibility to minimize damages?
      
      You enjoy rubbing their face in it.
      
      I don't enjoy rubbing anyone's face in anything. I find it sad. Situations like this could easily be avoided, and one way to avoid them in the future is to get more people to do the right thing.
      
      You never blame the person doing the violating. You always blame the victim.
      
      You are free to believe that. You are wrong. It's really kind of sad how wrong you are.
      
      I spend a ton of time and effort helping people make more money out of their content creation. For you to claim that I cheer content creators having problems is sickening and blatantly untrue.
      
      But, you just love to shoot the messenger. I tell people how they can make more money and you claim I'm celebrating their demise. Incredible. It's sad that you would misinterpret things so completely, but it sure is funny.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Get more people to "do the right thing"? Funny how you aren't talking about the people violating other people's rights. God forbid you should ever think they should "do the right thing." You think the onus is on the victim to "do the right thing."
        
        You're more than just the messenger, Mike. You're the mouthpiece.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Get more people to "do the right thing"? Funny how you aren't talking about the people violating other people's rights. God forbid you should ever think they should "do the right thing." You think the onus is on the victim to "do the right thing." "
        
        If you want to start your own blog and rant about whether or not file sharing is right or wrong, go right ahead, but that�s not the purpose of this blog or this post so quit whining about it.
        
        Anyone with a modicum of business sense can see that Mike is pointing out clearly self-destructive behaviour on these companys� part. Where you just see misplaced blame, most people are simply seeing a description of an obvious problem with an obvious solution, one that can benefit everyone. Why you would argue against that is beyond me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        BUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How childish.
    
    Why are you the first one to name calling?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Good call. Mike goes right into the name-calling when you disagree with him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And even more bullshit from you. Funny for you to keep doing it in a discussion where you're being called out for making baseless statements about Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  You and memyself should start a record label.
  
  It could be called tardSoUnds. You could release your music on 8 tracks and player piano scrolls. You could personally punch every "customer" in the face.
  
  I doubt it would be very successful, but by your logic, serving customers isn't the goal of a business; businesses should focus all their efforts on restricting customers and suing them, if possible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hold on! A punch to the face? Like, grazing the cheek, or square-on the jaw? This sounds like something I get get behind, well, in front of!
    
    Oh, wait, in order to get the free punch in the face I have to buy music?
    
    No thanks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      'A punch to the face' is a derivative of Punch and Judy's 'A bonk on the head.' You'll get a bill, now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re:
  What's wrong about your statement is that he could get whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, and there was someone who could have profited from that but chose (explicitly) not to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCL, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:07pm

Does not buying it = stealing it?
He couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and found an alternative free version.... the record labels say they didn't directly get money for it so they call that "stealing"...

What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and didn't find a an alternate and just ignored it... the record companies still don't directly get money for it... did he still steal it? True he didn't get anything in return...

What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and heard the song on the radio ... the record companies didn't get any money directly from it... did he steal it?

What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and heard the song on the radio and recorded it... the record companies didn't get any money directly from it... did he steal it?

What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and heard it on somebody's overly-loud headphones ... the record companies didn't get any money directly from it... did he steal it?

What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and started humming it from memory ... the record companies didn't get any money directly from it... did he steal it?

Personally I don't buy much music these days, I listen to the radio or rip my old shiny disks, purchased back in the day when there were few alternatives to them. If digital music cost less I would probably buy more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Does not buying it = stealing it?
  What if he couldn't get what he wanted by buying it and heard the song on the radio ... the record companies didn't get any money directly from it... did he steal it?
  
  Common error. Radio stations are paying rights fees to use the music (as are night clubs, etc). There is no stealing there, someone has paid for it to be heard / performed.
  
  If he records it, yes he has actually obtained a copy without license. However, it is an imperfect copy, and used without the boundries of fair use (time shifting), it might be acceptable.
  
  The rest of your questions are sort of foolish. I think Mike would say "childish".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DCL, 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Does not buying it = stealing it?
    And how long ago was it that radio stations were paid to play a song more then others, why was that and what has changed since?
    
    It was just a rambling thought exercise, no need to call it childish. If I get some people to think about it a bit more then they did before I have succeeded with my comment.
    
    On a side note I have been reading on and off for 4+ years and I have never seen Mike call a thought exercise childish as long as it attempts to help the conversation... the only times I have seen him call things childish is when it pertains to obfuscation of the idea flow by being petty and resorting to personal attacks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 1:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Does not buying it = stealing it?
      Payola. IT still happens periodically, mostly through third-party intermediaries, such as...the RIAA. Whilst illegal if done directly in the US, it still occurs when someone pays to be promoted.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Does not buying it = stealing it?
      Payola has existed, and probably still exists in some cases. But in the same manner that some people speed when the drive, it doesn't discount the value of transport.
      
      It is a tired argument that pretty much matches up with Mike's use of 1950s data to try to make modern points.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DCL, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Does not buying it = stealing it?
        True it is an old idea, but it points to the value of the product or service that are outside the bounds (often arbitrary) of the rules.
        
        If it is illegal to speed and there are consequences of doing so then why do people do it? They have to find some value in it. Maybe it is based on safety, maybe revenue... in 50 years will the speed limit on Main street be the same as it is today?
        
        If payola existed then it must have had some value and if still possibly exists now then it has value now.
        
        So to go back to music they are giving it away... actually paying to give it away. Most probably because they see value in promoting... which is why people get excited to buy... so why limit ability for people to purchase?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toy-hu, 10 Feb 2011 @ 1:11pm

Digital copies are almost free to produce
yes DRM etc costs money. The truth there is more money in it than the mass produced cd because there is no distribution pipeline just a few selected distribution points. Producers fear digital copies so we all suffer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:13pm

So to recap here, did they connect with the fan? Nope the fan felt frustrated and estranged.

Did they give him a reason to buy? Yes, he liked the music and wanted to.

Did they let him buy? No. This should be upsetting to them. Not making a sale to a customer that wants to buy... just doesn't make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank, 10 Feb 2011 @ 2:38pm

Information doesn't want to be free... but it sure as hell wants to be accessible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dennis S. (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:34pm

From the Original Article (I wish Techdirt had included this as well).
The last paragraph: "When The Streets and their record label choose to make the Computer and Blues mp3s available for purchase in the US, I will go buy the record legally. Until then, I'm a pirate."

To all saying he should have just bought the CD. I'm sorry but that is not what people want these days, any more than people want horse drawn buggies to get around. Many reasons have already been given for why CDs are not preferred by many, environment, shipping, time, space, etc. Things change and the industry is not adapting.

Also if he had bought the CD, ripped it, then given it away or resold it, it would be worse than what he did now. The only time you can give away or resell a CD is if you are not still keeping a copy of the music for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dennis S. (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:54pm
  
  One More Thing (Re: From the Original Article (I wish Techdirt had included this as well).)
  I am not advocating piracy or giving away everything for free. DRM or No DRM, localization or no localization, there will still be jerks who refuse to pay for things and pirate, but by selling things at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame in a convenient manner things will be better in the long run for everyone involved and you will decrease the amount of piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm

The Sound of Reality Whooshing By
What you are doing is justifying breaking the law. That just isn't right.

"But . . . but . . . there's a law! You can't just ignore the law! I wrote it down and everything! You have to abide by it! Are you listening? I have important things to say! I won't be ignored! Hello?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 4:55pm

Question
I have an argument going on where someone is actually arguing about how there's moral rights to those who have their rights infringed upon.

The problem comes up that they want to value content creation as a property right (which is truly wrong, but let's stay out of this one...)

Now, as I've explained to them, it's far better to focus on the money you can bring in with the tools that you can use. But as this article shows, if you can't provide something legally, people will pirate it.

What I find amazing about the morality issue is that people still conflate the property of your head the same as your house, with little to no evidence to prove it. Just trying to get a feel for how to approach someone that can't notice the abuses of copyright plus the problems where the authors that try to enforce it are creating more problems than they solve for themselves...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:14pm

There have been CDs that I have attempted to obtain "legitimately" and turned to downloading after being unable to find them (ever tried to find Ms. Sancha's "Mssanchalive.com" in a store?). Plus, the internet has given me access to many rare, out-of-print, next-to-impossible to find albums (some of which, in my foolish youth, I bought on tape instead of CD).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 5:40pm

How else except by so-called "piracy" can an American obtain Disney's "Song Of The South" or Traci Lords' 80's movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re:
  Getting some of Traci's 80's movies will likely get you a stretch in gaol, since she was underage at the time which is why they are no longer available.
  
  Though I understand what you are saying and agree that if things are no longer being produced and can no longer be legally be purchased for sale due to the copyright holders decision (and not because of other legal reasons. ie: Indecent imaging/video) then yes you should be able to get a copy from other means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:05pm

"But if you put enough hurdles in front of them, they will become pirates. As I did this morning."

As I, so long ago, after spending lots of money on crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dohn Joe, 10 Feb 2011 @ 6:42pm

Making the Case for Draconian Copyright Laws
Yes, but the reason they do this in the UK and Canada is to then show "studies" to the Government "proving" that they need to follow US-style DMCA laws to increase "legal" downloads and deal with "piracy". I mean...just look at the awful thing Fred was allowed to do without Digital Restrictions Management and the Dumbest Move on Copyright by America there to stop him!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:47am
  
  Re: Making the Case for Draconian Copyright Laws
  Yeah, some of our officials in government (United States or otherwise) are not too bright, cannot reason that DRM just pisses off legitimate customers and makes them go the illegal route, and that the real solution is to DECREASE PRICES and offer some added benefit to buying the real thing in question.
  
  Dead Space 2 did that by offering special weapons and suits if you connected to EA's network and had the actual legitimate article.
  
  Of course, the problem with that was that some of the things DISAPPEARED if you were not connected to EA's network, and I have complained about this to EA.
  
  Hopefully, they will get the message and send out a patch that says that once the thing in question is enabled, it is enabled for good whether you are online or offline.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 10:40am

No excuse...
"And here's another, similar case, involving venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who could not find a legitimate way to buy The Streets' new album after hearing that it was being released. After searching all over for it, the best he could do was order a CD. Instead, he ended up getting an unauthorized copy."

The second sentence above demonstrates the complete falsity of the first sentence. There WAS a "legiitmate" way for him to buy the album. It just wasn't his preferred way. So, despite his claim that he "wanted" to pay, and the fact that there was a way he COULD pay, he intentionally chose to pirate the album.

Not a good example of the principle you're trying to support here.

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David Liu (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: No excuse...
  I don't even own a CD player any more. I don't even have a DVD drive on my computer either, built in 2010. I install all my games through Steam or other online distribution means. What would one do with a useless disc?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:27pm
    
    Re: Re: No excuse...
    What would one do if one's hard drive broke down?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an electronic Rodent, 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: No excuse...
  And if you wanted a new car for the weekend and the only one available was right hand drive, runs on LPG and has to be imported from England so you can have it a month next Tuesday would that be a reasonable alternative?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 4:08pm

KATY HUDSON
Y KAN'T TORI READ
H.W.A.
B.W.P.
Try to find those in a store!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]