Good lord Belle, what do you want Apple to do? Monitor its users and when it sees them pirating music and burning CD's say "Stop that! No more iTunes for you!" slap em on the wrist and just disable the software?
Apple should not be responsible for what its users do with its software when there are clear warnings that say "DON'T STEAL MUSIC" and clear guidelines about iTunes usage and legal agreements, the user knows full well what is legal and what is not. This isn't Apple's problem. For people who buy their own CDs and make their own mixes from the music they own, cracking down on the features of Apple's software just isn't fair. If you buy 10 CDs, they're yours dammit and you should be able to make whatever kind of mixes you want with them.
It's just like plagiarism or copying VHS tapes that you've rented from Blockbuster, or any other kind of stealing material. There are clear laws regarding the issue at hand, but it's not like it's Blockbuster's fault for people going out and making an illegal copy of a VHS tape just because they provide people with the ability to rent movies. Just because an author writes a book and publishes it to share with the world doesn't mean it's his/her fault if people don't abide by the law and plagiarize his/her material.
People will always break the law. Period. There is no way around it and that is the sad truth.
I don't understand how anybody can possibly justify piracy. I mean, it's one thing to say "Screw the record labels. I just want free music." But it's another to deny that piracy is wrong.
Cuz no matter how you spin it, piracy is dead wrong. Whether or not the record labels overcharge is irrelevant. Whether or not piracy promotes the music industry is also totally irrelevant. The fact is, the record labels own the copyrights to the music, so they have the right to market and sell it anyway they want. (Well, as long as they aren't a monopoly.) Consumers have the power of choice. They have the freedom to not buy the music, but they don't have the right to steal it. If no one buys music, the record labels have incentive to produce a better product, or lower their prices.
That's how the US economy works. The system encourages competition and innovation. And it happens to work very well. If you don't think so, move to Russia or China. You'll find plenty of pirated goods there, but you'll be lucky if you can afford a computer.
I know this is all simple Econ 101 stuff, but some people need a reality check every once in a while. Also, note that I'm not assigning any blame to Apple. I'm just arguing about piracy in general.
[quote] Groverat, are you aware of "fair use?" I'd bet at least 50% of all CD-Rs stay with the owner of the original content, a very conservative estimate for you.<hr></blockquote>
No way that 50% of all CD-Rs are used to "back-up" one's own ripped mp3s. (You already have it on CD, after all.)
They are used to "back-up" mp3s that you have gotten other ways. I don't keep back-ups of my Pearl Jam mp3s because I own all their CDs. All my Marilyn Manson stuff is on CD-R... guess why?
[quote]And why aren't photographers, magazines and other visual media people having such a fit about their images being saved and distributed? Why is it only DVDs and music that's threatened according to them?<hr></blockquote>
Who wants visual media stuff like photographs? (And besides, publications protect their copyrights online all the time)
Everyone wants music and movies, and they want them free. I want them free, and I get them free and put them on CD-Rs.
[quote]Cassettes in the 80's and 90's didn't cause such a commotion, why would mp3's be so destuctive to music sales?<hr></blockquote>
Cassette recording most certainly did cause quite a commotion. Why do you think the DMCA exists today?
Groverat, you're being far too narrow-minded about what's on those CD-Rs. Piracy is not so neat and tidy as to equal CD-R drives and Mp3 files. The vast majority of mine are not mp3 CDs at all. Most are other file types as data CDs and the music CDs are mixes for my car, home and computer stereos: AIFFs converted from mp3s. If anything, shouldn't these companies and groups be concerned about ripping AIFFs directly off CDs, that is, exact copies of original press material? Alas, no mention of it because these guys can't see the forest from the trees as usual. Regardless, my point isn't that piracy is OK ,and you should get your head checked if that's what you thought I said. My point is that the record industry is simply greedy, the artists (the real ones) don't get a fair share and that when I share my music with mix CDs, they generate business for the record companies. (By the way, I never just copy CDs straight. I once made the mistake of lending a person two CDs at work. He handed them back to me about 20 minutes later and I asked him if he didn't like the CDs. He replied that he hadn't listened to them, but simply copied them for later. Bad. He doesn't get my Cds any more -- after all he got for about $1.50 what I paid almost $80 for!)
Frankly, it seems like those who pirate the most assume that's what we're all doing. Well, don't ruin it for me, and don't tread on my rights as a cinsumer. With insurance, energy and communications deregulation, the last thing I need is for someone to tell me what I can and cannot do with my sole possessions. Big business is there to screw me over at every turn. I'm getting pretty fed up of these 800 lbs. gorillas beating me up and taking my lunch money. If their companies aren't making enough money, then maybe they should cut back on their pedicures and tropical vacations.
I think the great thing about CD burners is that they have forced people to reconsider who actually owns music, and who should profit from it.
Does the artist deserve money for EVERY CD sold?
Prior to recording technology, musicians had to perform live to make money. Considering the current state of pop music, one might think that is a GOOD THING, to force artists to tour if they want to make money.
Should an artist be able to walk into a studio, spend a week recording an album, and then live for years off of that one week of work?
How should an artist's music be disseminated to the masses? Should be put a handful of executives in charge of determining what songs are played on the radio? Or should we release pre-recorded music to the masses for free, and then charge people to see the music performed live?
I believe that if recorded music were free, then more bands would get exposure and success, and instead of having a handful of bands who are all filthy rich, we might have many 100s of bands who are popular, and who tour regularly to make a very comfortable living making 6 figure incomes instead of 7 or 8 figure incomes. It would be more equitable, and of course it would force the artists to work, to tour and to play their music. And surely, if they had to play their music so often, then better music would result.
I'm just raising some interesting questions about the music industry in general. It seems that the big players in todays current industry all argue that the status quo must remain, that the way things are NOW is the ONLY way, when in fact the current state of affairs is not only bad, but unique and untested when considered from a historical perspective!
Clearly, any system that produces a flood of boy bands and dancing girls who all lip synch and play not a single instrument, well such a system is flawed, at the very best.
The CD burner represents much more than a way of copying music CDs. It represents a threat to the music industry, and a mechanism for change that could very well give rise to a new way of doing business in music that is far superior to the status quo.
[quote]If anything, shouldn't these companies and groups be concerned about ripping AIFFs directly off CDs, that is, exact copies of original press material?<hr></blockquote>
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you need to start paying attention.
That's *exactly* what copy-protection implemented on CDs is designed to do.
[quote]Frankly, it seems like those who pirate the most assume that's what we're all doing. Well, don't ruin it for me, and don't tread on my rights as a cinsumer.<hr></blockquote>
I do both, actually.
Ironically, just yesterday I got my latest shipment from CDNOW.
The UK Import version of "Is This It" (Screw the US version, "New York City Cops" rules!) and Tenacious D.
Most of my CDs are mix CDs as well, and most all of them contain at least 1 song that I downloaded, if not more, mixed in among the properly ripped tracks (of which there are plenty, I own many many CDs).
And once again, all this "the industry is screwing me" blah blah blah is off-topic.
--
JD:
Yes, they should get paid for every CD because they are virtually performing every time.
Remember also, you only got to hear music when it was performed in those days.
Nearly every major pop act of the last 20 years has made more money touring than they made from record/cd sales. (A lot more.) Even the the very big acts. If you want to get filthy rich you NEED to tour.
People still need to get over the piracy argument, or at least understand it's proper context. Yes it is WRONG. But how much is tolerable/allowable/helpful? Record companies would have you believe it's damaging, yet every single bit of market information suggests that sales have increased dramatically with each new innovation in home recording (INCLUDING CDrw and MP3) going back to Casettes and VHS (for films)
In fact, home video (for film) is so lucrative now, that many films that seriously underperform at the box-office only approach their initial forcasts when they are finally released to video.
This cannot really be an argument about the behavior of consumers because consumers have more than done their share: WE BUY AN F-ING TON OF MUSIC AND FILM, and continue to INCREASE our spending on recordings every year. It is about the relevance and security of the publishing structure.
Eisner et al would like to blame technology vendors. Vendors who have done nothing but provide media that consistently (and historically) facilitate INCREASED sales. It is a smoke screen for a more insidious industry pitch -- To maintain/enforce an old model, effectively an anti-competetive one, that forces artists to either join ranks or become irrelevant.
'Piracy or Sharing,' 'Ripping and Burning,' whatever you want to call it, (even theft) has done nothing but create more 'BUYING.'
Even the most biased reporters on the net were using this "Pirate Flag" reference in reviews of Jobs presentation of iTunes and iDVD at MacWorld Expo 2001...
So, in my opinion the tech industry IS to blame...but the installment of police software and other regulations isn't the way to go...
I personally have never downloaded MP3s off the web and probably never will. I listen to tracks on web sites like CD now and other alternative music sites, make my decisions from there, find and purchase the CDs...done.
And I think the ones that pirate music (music and movies only here) and sell them are a very small amount of people.
<strong>Good lord Belle, what do you want Apple to do? Monitor its users and when it sees them pirating music and burning CD's say "Stop that! No more iTunes for you!" slap em on the wrist and just disable the software?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, I don't think I ever suggested Apple needed to do anything. I merely pointed out that Eisner's comments, as reported in the first post -
[quote]<strong>He also cited advertising that computer makers were using that encouraged people to buy their products to burn CDs and DVDs. While he said some information technology companies believed in copyright protection, he singled out Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." ad campaign, saying the company was telling people "that they can create a theft if they buy this computer."</strong><hr></blockquote>
- aren't exactly contentious.
All he's saying is that although Apple's advertising promotes legitimate use of the hardware and software, it's quite aware that it also promotes piracy - otherwise there'd be no reason to include the "Don't steal music" disclaimer, right?
[quote]I don't mean this in a rude way, but you need to start paying attention.
That's *exactly* what copy-protection implemented on CDs is designed to do.<hr></blockquote>
I know the current copy protection does this. My point was that, as an olive branch, I would say, sure I can see why making exact duplicates of CDs can be a bad thing. So prevent ripping and recording AIFF files, but don't bother trying to block wma, mp3, off vorbis or other lossy methods of music mixing/ripping. I would be fine with that.
BTW, doesn't the iPod make music swapping a pain in the butt? I thought you can't plug one into just any computer and pull orplay the playlists from it?
PS: Matsu is getting to the essence of the argument whether you like it or not. Not your thread.
I would love to know how Copy-Protected CDs and other hindrances to music distribution would help at all. It's not going to prevent people from circumventing it...via cracks or analog conversion...
People still need to get over the piracy argument, or at least understand it's proper context. Yes it is WRONG. But how much is tolerable/allowable/helpful?
...
...
...
You have to ask yourself what's their real fear?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I argued in a previous post, it doesn't matter what their real fear is. You can present hundreds of conspiracy theories, and stories about artists getting screwed over, but it still does not justify piracy. Piracy is stealing, and should not be tolerated any longer. Since we currently have the techology and the laws (DMCA) to prevent piracy (well, 95% of it), we should go ahead and do just that. If you believe that piracy is wrong, then what is your real fear?
Although I just said the other points aren't relevant, I'll dispute some of them anyways.
[quote]
<strong>
This cannot really be an argument about the behavior of consumers because consumers have more than done their share: WE BUY AN F-ING TON OF MUSIC AND FILM, and continue to INCREASE our spending on recordings every year. It is about the relevance and security of the publishing structure.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I don't have them on me, but the latest figures suggest that music sales fell substantially last year (something like 10-20% IIRC). Some of that may be attributed to the weak economy, but it may also be due to piracy. Besides, CD burners and broadband connections are just now hitting the mainstream. As technology advances and users become more knowledgable, piracy is only going to get worse. (BTW, I recently read that January was the first month in which broadband users spent more cumulative time online than modem users.)
[quote]
<strong>
It is a smoke screen for a more insidious industry pitch -- To maintain/enforce an old model, effectively an anti-competetive one, that forces artists to either join ranks or become irrelevant.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
No one is holding a gun to the artists' heads. Movie studios, publishing houses, record labels, etc perform a service to consumers AND ARTISTS. To artists, they provide the savvy and money that are necessary to market a product successfuly. Talent and/or a great product does not guarantee success. If an artist feels the price of a service is unjustified, then they have the freedom to choose another, or produce/market their product themselves. If an artist signs a bad contract, then it's their fault.
BTW, in a related thread, people were convinced that the Internet is a viable vehicle for marketing/selling music. Well, if you believe in it so much, then why don't you DO IT, instead of complaining about the current system? If you are right, then you'll make a boat load of money. If you are wrong, well, tough. Running a successful business is not easy. Those who pull it off get rewarded with ridiculous sums of money while consumers get rewarded with a better product.
The market will take care of economic inefficiences as long as you let it (except for monopolies).
<strong>I would love to know how Copy-Protected CDs and other hindrances to music distribution would help at all. It's not going to prevent people from circumventing it...via cracks or analog conversion...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not stop everybody, but it will stop the majority. Plus, don't forget about DMCA. If you distribute a program that circumvents a copyright protection mechanism, you'll go to jail.
Brian J, but it won't stop most people. You should pick up the latest Newsweek and read the article that talks about this very issue. It's written by our friend Steven Levy.
Your referral to the DMCA is pointless. Most of us think it's absurd.
These are the same people who went after VCRs, tapes, mp3 players, miniDV, etc. It's laughable.
Eisner may very well be right, but who cares? Stealing music is a moral issue, and it is up to ME to decide whether to do it or not. It is not up to the government to take away legitimate tools that I use for perfectly legal purposes simply because others refuse to recognise the difference between right and wrong. What is at issue here is personal responsibility and conscience, and to remove the tools that many use for good due to a few (yes, a FEW) that use them for ill is wrong. Do we ban medicine because some people become addicted to it? Do we ban guns because some people use them to kill? Do we castrate everyone in America to reduce out of wedlock births? Do we dismantle the internet to reduce child exploitation? The government can make such things illegal, but it is up to the people to decide to do right. At issue is not "rip, mix, burn", but the mentality of those who think nothing of stealing, regardless of whether it is music or anything else.
With regard to Apple specifically, I don't think the demographic targeted with the iTunes commercials is technically sophisticated enough to find and download MP3s from the 'net. There is nothing on a new Mac that references Napster or Gnutella or Hotlline etc., and there is a very good chance that the target mom&pop users, even if they had heard of these services, wouldn't have the first clue how to go about utilizing them. Now if Apple started advertising a new X-Windows iTunes to the Linux crowd with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" tagline then I think the charge would be valid. It's all about the demographic, and Apple's target market simply isn't capable of large scale pirating.
<strong>I don't have them on me, but the latest figures suggest that music sales fell substantially last year (something like 10-20% IIRC). Some of that may be attributed to the weak economy, but it may also be due to piracy.</strong><hr></blockquote><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/25/music.sales.reut/index.html"; target="_blank">Here's an article about that.</a>
It's a little confusing, because there are lots of ways of measuring sales. But unit shipments (CDs, DVDs, LPs, casettes) were down about 10% and sales were down about 5% in 2001 compared to 2000.
The RIAA said it was due mostly to piracy, and cited a study that said 23% of music customers say they are buying less because they are pirating.
I rightfully own every mp3 on my HDD, so I hope you're not calling me a pirate. You probably have an illegally downloaded mp3 lurking somewhere onyour HDD.
All my mp3s are LAME encoded (--alt-presets extreme.) I can't stand anything less than that. My CD collection amounted to 2 CDs before mp3s became wildly popular in 1998. I have 300+ CDs now, thanks to mp3s and file sharing programs that let me preview music.
Be careful what you wish for, Brian J. The RIAA isn't your friend. They're just afraid artists won't need them any more...not with a robust distribution channel like the internet. Like I said before, the bigger pirates lie int he recording industry.
Comments
Apple should not be responsible for what its users do with its software when there are clear warnings that say "DON'T STEAL MUSIC" and clear guidelines about iTunes usage and legal agreements, the user knows full well what is legal and what is not. This isn't Apple's problem. For people who buy their own CDs and make their own mixes from the music they own, cracking down on the features of Apple's software just isn't fair. If you buy 10 CDs, they're yours dammit and you should be able to make whatever kind of mixes you want with them.
It's just like plagiarism or copying VHS tapes that you've rented from Blockbuster, or any other kind of stealing material. There are clear laws regarding the issue at hand, but it's not like it's Blockbuster's fault for people going out and making an illegal copy of a VHS tape just because they provide people with the ability to rent movies. Just because an author writes a book and publishes it to share with the world doesn't mean it's his/her fault if people don't abide by the law and plagiarize his/her material.
People will always break the law. Period. There is no way around it and that is the sad truth.
Cuz no matter how you spin it, piracy is dead wrong. Whether or not the record labels overcharge is irrelevant. Whether or not piracy promotes the music industry is also totally irrelevant. The fact is, the record labels own the copyrights to the music, so they have the right to market and sell it anyway they want. (Well, as long as they aren't a monopoly.) Consumers have the power of choice. They have the freedom to not buy the music, but they don't have the right to steal it. If no one buys music, the record labels have incentive to produce a better product, or lower their prices.
That's how the US economy works. The system encourages competition and innovation. And it happens to work very well. If you don't think so, move to Russia or China. You'll find plenty of pirated goods there, but you'll be lucky if you can afford a computer.
I know this is all simple Econ 101 stuff, but some people need a reality check every once in a while. Also, note that I'm not assigning any blame to Apple. I'm just arguing about piracy in general.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
No way that 50% of all CD-Rs are used to "back-up" one's own ripped mp3s. (You already have it on CD, after all.)
They are used to "back-up" mp3s that you have gotten other ways. I don't keep back-ups of my Pearl Jam mp3s because I own all their CDs. All my Marilyn Manson stuff is on CD-R... guess why?
[quote]And why aren't photographers, magazines and other visual media people having such a fit about their images being saved and distributed? Why is it only DVDs and music that's threatened according to them?<hr></blockquote>
Who wants visual media stuff like photographs? (And besides, publications protect their copyrights online all the time)
Everyone wants music and movies, and they want them free. I want them free, and I get them free and put them on CD-Rs.
[quote]Cassettes in the 80's and 90's didn't cause such a commotion, why would mp3's be so destuctive to music sales?<hr></blockquote>
Cassette recording most certainly did cause quite a commotion. Why do you think the DMCA exists today?
-----
Thanks for the clear-headed response, Brian J.
Frankly, it seems like those who pirate the most assume that's what we're all doing. Well, don't ruin it for me, and don't tread on my rights as a cinsumer. With insurance, energy and communications deregulation, the last thing I need is for someone to tell me what I can and cannot do with my sole possessions. Big business is there to screw me over at every turn. I'm getting pretty fed up of these 800 lbs. gorillas beating me up and taking my lunch money. If their companies aren't making enough money, then maybe they should cut back on their pedicures and tropical vacations.
Does the artist deserve money for EVERY CD sold?
Prior to recording technology, musicians had to perform live to make money. Considering the current state of pop music, one might think that is a GOOD THING, to force artists to tour if they want to make money.
Should an artist be able to walk into a studio, spend a week recording an album, and then live for years off of that one week of work?
How should an artist's music be disseminated to the masses? Should be put a handful of executives in charge of determining what songs are played on the radio? Or should we release pre-recorded music to the masses for free, and then charge people to see the music performed live?
I believe that if recorded music were free, then more bands would get exposure and success, and instead of having a handful of bands who are all filthy rich, we might have many 100s of bands who are popular, and who tour regularly to make a very comfortable living making 6 figure incomes instead of 7 or 8 figure incomes. It would be more equitable, and of course it would force the artists to work, to tour and to play their music. And surely, if they had to play their music so often, then better music would result.
I'm just raising some interesting questions about the music industry in general. It seems that the big players in todays current industry all argue that the status quo must remain, that the way things are NOW is the ONLY way, when in fact the current state of affairs is not only bad, but unique and untested when considered from a historical perspective!
Clearly, any system that produces a flood of boy bands and dancing girls who all lip synch and play not a single instrument, well such a system is flawed, at the very best.
The CD burner represents much more than a way of copying music CDs. It represents a threat to the music industry, and a mechanism for change that could very well give rise to a new way of doing business in music that is far superior to the status quo.
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you need to start paying attention.
That's *exactly* what copy-protection implemented on CDs is designed to do.
[quote]Frankly, it seems like those who pirate the most assume that's what we're all doing. Well, don't ruin it for me, and don't tread on my rights as a cinsumer.<hr></blockquote>
I do both, actually.
Ironically, just yesterday I got my latest shipment from CDNOW.
The UK Import version of "Is This It" (Screw the US version, "New York City Cops" rules!) and Tenacious D.
Most of my CDs are mix CDs as well, and most all of them contain at least 1 song that I downloaded, if not more, mixed in among the properly ripped tracks (of which there are plenty, I own many many CDs).
And once again, all this "the industry is screwing me" blah blah blah is off-topic.
--
JD:
Yes, they should get paid for every CD because they are virtually performing every time.
Remember also, you only got to hear music when it was performed in those days.
People still need to get over the piracy argument, or at least understand it's proper context. Yes it is WRONG. But how much is tolerable/allowable/helpful? Record companies would have you believe it's damaging, yet every single bit of market information suggests that sales have increased dramatically with each new innovation in home recording (INCLUDING CDrw and MP3) going back to Casettes and VHS (for films)
In fact, home video (for film) is so lucrative now, that many films that seriously underperform at the box-office only approach their initial forcasts when they are finally released to video.
This cannot really be an argument about the behavior of consumers because consumers have more than done their share: WE BUY AN F-ING TON OF MUSIC AND FILM, and continue to INCREASE our spending on recordings every year. It is about the relevance and security of the publishing structure.
Eisner et al would like to blame technology vendors. Vendors who have done nothing but provide media that consistently (and historically) facilitate INCREASED sales. It is a smoke screen for a more insidious industry pitch -- To maintain/enforce an old model, effectively an anti-competetive one, that forces artists to either join ranks or become irrelevant.
'Piracy or Sharing,' 'Ripping and Burning,' whatever you want to call it, (even theft) has done nothing but create more 'BUYING.'
You have to ask yourself what's their real fear?
Lest we all forget. What Silicon Valley computer company developed its
new product under this rebel pirate flag?
Why Apple of course...some people forget.
And it has been known that most of the early technologies were being "borrowed" from
one company to another...
<a href="http://www.mediawhore.com/3-minute/roast1.html"; target="_blank">A funny take on this...</a>
Even the most biased reporters on the net were using this "Pirate Flag" reference in reviews of Jobs presentation of iTunes and iDVD at MacWorld Expo 2001...
<a href="http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3662-8-4437806-1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3662-8-4437806-1.html</a>;
So, in my opinion the tech industry IS to blame...but the installment of police software and other regulations isn't the way to go...
I personally have never downloaded MP3s off the web and probably never will. I listen to tracks on web sites like CD now and other alternative music sites, make my decisions from there, find and purchase the CDs...done.
And I think the ones that pirate music (music and movies only here) and sell them are a very small amount of people.
End of random thoughts...
<strong>Good lord Belle, what do you want Apple to do? Monitor its users and when it sees them pirating music and burning CD's say "Stop that! No more iTunes for you!" slap em on the wrist and just disable the software?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, I don't think I ever suggested Apple needed to do anything. I merely pointed out that Eisner's comments, as reported in the first post -
[quote]<strong>He also cited advertising that computer makers were using that encouraged people to buy their products to burn CDs and DVDs. While he said some information technology companies believed in copyright protection, he singled out Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." ad campaign, saying the company was telling people "that they can create a theft if they buy this computer."</strong><hr></blockquote>
- aren't exactly contentious.
All he's saying is that although Apple's advertising promotes legitimate use of the hardware and software, it's quite aware that it also promotes piracy - otherwise there'd be no reason to include the "Don't steal music" disclaimer, right?
That's *exactly* what copy-protection implemented on CDs is designed to do.<hr></blockquote>
BTW, doesn't the iPod make music swapping a pain in the butt? I thought you can't plug one into just any computer and pull orplay the playlists from it?
PS: Matsu is getting to the essence of the argument whether you like it or not. Not your thread.
[ 03-05-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
People still need to get over the piracy argument, or at least understand it's proper context. Yes it is WRONG. But how much is tolerable/allowable/helpful?
...
...
...
You have to ask yourself what's their real fear?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I argued in a previous post, it doesn't matter what their real fear is. You can present hundreds of conspiracy theories, and stories about artists getting screwed over, but it still does not justify piracy. Piracy is stealing, and should not be tolerated any longer. Since we currently have the techology and the laws (DMCA) to prevent piracy (well, 95% of it), we should go ahead and do just that. If you believe that piracy is wrong, then what is your real fear?
Although I just said the other points aren't relevant, I'll dispute some of them anyways.
[quote]
<strong>
This cannot really be an argument about the behavior of consumers because consumers have more than done their share: WE BUY AN F-ING TON OF MUSIC AND FILM, and continue to INCREASE our spending on recordings every year. It is about the relevance and security of the publishing structure.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I don't have them on me, but the latest figures suggest that music sales fell substantially last year (something like 10-20% IIRC). Some of that may be attributed to the weak economy, but it may also be due to piracy. Besides, CD burners and broadband connections are just now hitting the mainstream. As technology advances and users become more knowledgable, piracy is only going to get worse. (BTW, I recently read that January was the first month in which broadband users spent more cumulative time online than modem users.)
[quote]
<strong>
It is a smoke screen for a more insidious industry pitch -- To maintain/enforce an old model, effectively an anti-competetive one, that forces artists to either join ranks or become irrelevant.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
No one is holding a gun to the artists' heads. Movie studios, publishing houses, record labels, etc perform a service to consumers AND ARTISTS. To artists, they provide the savvy and money that are necessary to market a product successfuly. Talent and/or a great product does not guarantee success. If an artist feels the price of a service is unjustified, then they have the freedom to choose another, or produce/market their product themselves. If an artist signs a bad contract, then it's their fault.
BTW, in a related thread, people were convinced that the Internet is a viable vehicle for marketing/selling music. Well, if you believe in it so much, then why don't you DO IT, instead of complaining about the current system? If you are right, then you'll make a boat load of money. If you are wrong, well, tough. Running a successful business is not easy. Those who pull it off get rewarded with ridiculous sums of money while consumers get rewarded with a better product.
The market will take care of economic inefficiences as long as you let it (except for monopolies).
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
<strong>I would love to know how Copy-Protected CDs and other hindrances to music distribution would help at all. It's not going to prevent people from circumventing it...via cracks or analog conversion...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It may not stop everybody, but it will stop the majority. Plus, don't forget about DMCA. If you distribute a program that circumvents a copyright protection mechanism, you'll go to jail.
Your referral to the DMCA is pointless. Most of us think it's absurd.
These are the same people who went after VCRs, tapes, mp3 players, miniDV, etc. It's laughable.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
With regard to Apple specifically, I don't think the demographic targeted with the iTunes commercials is technically sophisticated enough to find and download MP3s from the 'net. There is nothing on a new Mac that references Napster or Gnutella or Hotlline etc., and there is a very good chance that the target mom&pop users, even if they had heard of these services, wouldn't have the first clue how to go about utilizing them. Now if Apple started advertising a new X-Windows iTunes to the Linux crowd with the "Rip, Mix, Burn" tagline then I think the charge would be valid. It's all about the demographic, and Apple's target market simply isn't capable of large scale pirating.
<strong>I don't have them on me, but the latest figures suggest that music sales fell substantially last year (something like 10-20% IIRC). Some of that may be attributed to the weak economy, but it may also be due to piracy.</strong><hr></blockquote><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/25/music.sales.reut/index.html"; target="_blank">Here's an article about that.</a>
It's a little confusing, because there are lots of ways of measuring sales. But unit shipments (CDs, DVDs, LPs, casettes) were down about 10% and sales were down about 5% in 2001 compared to 2000.
The RIAA said it was due mostly to piracy, and cited a study that said 23% of music customers say they are buying less because they are pirating.
All my mp3s are LAME encoded (--alt-presets extreme.) I can't stand anything less than that. My CD collection amounted to 2 CDs before mp3s became wildly popular in 1998. I have 300+ CDs now, thanks to mp3s and file sharing programs that let me preview music.
Be careful what you wish for, Brian J. The RIAA isn't your friend. They're just afraid artists won't need them any more...not with a robust distribution channel like the internet. Like I said before, the bigger pirates lie int he recording industry.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>