Arrrrrrrrrr! Internet Piracy and YOU [Archive]

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:03 AM

Saw this come up in another thread and I wanted to expand on it a bit.

Some time ago my fiancee and I moved out to State College. One of my good friends came to our farewell dinner and offered up one HELL of a parting gift.

He had purchased most of the Marvel comic reprints on DVD and CD-rom.

40 years of stories from the X-Men, Iron Man, Spider-Man, the Avengers and many more.

Every single issue, every single annual.....all ready for download on to my computer for free.

Like I said, one HELL of a gift.

And I said 'no' yet it wasn't for the reason most would assume.

I'm a student at Penn State. I'm an astrophysics major so my free time is pretty limited.

Having the complete runs of Amazing Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four and the rest would ground me for quite awhile, lol.

I'd never get anything accomplished I fear. I'd be content to just skip class and sit in front of my computer giggling as I dove into reading the X-Men from the start up until present day.

So it was an issue with free time for me, not a moral one.

Were I not in school? If I had already graduated? I would have grabbed those copies in a heartbeat.

It's something my fiancee and I disagree about strongly. She, a former manager of FYE, feels that 'downloading' is 'stealing' and while it does harm the music industry as a whole it more directly affects stores like FYE and, as a result, affects her and her employees.

Me, I disagree for a number of reasons.

Let's say I were to download the contents of a CD, a CD sold by FYE for $20.

What have I stolen? I haven't stolen a CD because a CD is a physical object.

What I'm spending $20 at FYE isn't just music....I'm buying the CD case, the liner notes, the artwork. I'm buying a perfect copy of the music, something I can't guarantee with a download.

Similar to a comic book. When I spend 3 dollars on the latest issues of my favorite titles I'm not just buying the story....I'm buying the physical comic itself.

I'm buying something that I can hold in my hands, I'm buying something that, should I go home to find that it's damaged in any way, I can return it and receive a full refund.

Not so with a download. I'm getting something for free, nothing I can hold and nothing I can return.

What I'm downloading is not the product that's being sold in stores anywhere, so how can it be stealing?

I'm 33 so when I was growing up cassette tapes were the way to go when you bought music.

Many times I'd take blank cassettes and pop them into my stereo to record directly from the radio. Was that stealing music?

I mention that because my fiancee growing up did EXACT same thing, lol.

She had this disturbing crush on Sebastian Bach and had a number of Skid Row songs directly recorded from the radio.

So I ask her 'Honey, when you were illegally downloading those songs from the radio broadcast.....did it ever occur to you that you were stealing?'

It never did, nor did I ever consider it stealing. No matter how quick you THOUGHT you were you always ended up missing the first few seconds of the song. Secondly, the quality was wretched. Depending on your reception you might not even be able to make out anything once the song ends and you play it back.

If I wanted the top notch quality, the flawless recording, that's what I would go to the store to buy. That's what I'm actually purchasing with my hard earned dollar, not the music itself but the perfect recording of that music.

Anyway, just a few thoughts about piracy. What do you folks think? Is it theft or something else?

Also, the other thread....well....it was closed, lol. I guess there was....some unpleasantness and the thread was shut down because of it.

I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible. It's a tricky question for me as I can see value in arguments from both sides.
I don't think it's stealing but my fiancee most certainly does and throughout our discussions she's given me quite a bit to think about which is what I'm striving for here, but I'd like to keep it pleasant if at all possible.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 11:19 AM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:40 AM

Theft.

Because you're missing the point. You're focusing on the retail store.

Yes, the stores sell the stuff and make revenue but the creators get paid based on units sold.

Creators write songs they get revenue from those songs including royalties over the years. Writers who write TV shows get the same (we just sat through a writer's strike over stuff like royalties for DVD production as well as replay costs.

You illegally download something that you don't have any intention of buying ever you're stealing because you are getting it for free and as for not having anything physical -- if you save it to your hard drive then you have something you can listen to again and again and again. You can burn it to CD and have something physical, you can upload it onto a flash drive and carry it with you, etc.

Hey stressfactor, you make some great points.

The thing is, though, if I don't have ANY intention of bying the music I download who does that affect?

If I have no intention of buying a Britney Spears album she's never going to sell me a copy of her CD. I'm never going to go to a store to buy a copy of her music regardless so she hasn't lost as customer as I was never going to be her customer either way.

And when I save that downloaded song to my hard drive what am I saving? The absolute perfect copy I purchased or the copy of questionable quality that I downloaded for free?

When I buy CD's I'm not buying music, I'm buying recorded copies of that music. Or when I buy DVD's, it's not the actual movie itself I'm purchasing but a copy of it.

Part of the reason I shelled out hundreds of dollars purchasing Star Trek DS9 and TNG on DVD was because I had a love for those two series and I wanted to have the perfect copies of them.

If I had downloaded them instead, if I had gotten my copies for free I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the kind of quality I get from my store bought versions, I wouldn't get the DVD extras, the interviews, etc.

Is the system perfect? No. A lot of creators have learned that making stuff available for free can actually INCREASE sales -- you give people a taste and they want more.

Agreed. One of my first downloads was a few songs from Dimmu Borgir. Because I enjoyed the music so much I felt it was worth forking over the cash to buy their CD's.

Or the books we got on FCBD. Because of the Blackest Night One shot a lot more people will check out the crossover this summer.

I expect that the industry will eventually work something out but, in the end, if you want a song in a digital format and don't want to buy a CD then there are plenty of legal stores now where you can do that and it doesn't cost as much as buying a CD. Same on if you want a TV show of a movie on DVD. If all you want to do is watch a TV show or a movie there is Netflix and sites like Hulu which, so you have to put up with a couple of commercials, it's still not as bad as network TV and it's all legal.

It's a good compromise but I still don't consider it illegal per se.

What's being stolen whe we download? The 'product' being downloaded isn't sold in any store. The 'product' isn't the same thing being offered by Hulu or Netflix. The movies I rent from Netflix are top notch quality with all the extras. Hulu? That's my source for the Office but there's not much else I watch on there unless I miss SNL.

The thing is, I also go to alluc.org for new movies, shows, etc......all in their entirety and all without commercial interruption. Most importantly, all in varying levels of quality.

The reason why netflix is worth the money is because they allow you to rent a movie for a fair price. The movie is the best quality available which is why the cost is there.

What I see on alluc.org? NOT the best quality, lol, but that's why it's free. That's why there's no cost involved.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 11:41 AM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:47 AM

Physical objects are not the only thing that can be bought and sold. Intellectual property has value (otherwise you wouldn't be wanting to download it in the first place). When you go see a movie in a theater, you're paying for the privilege of watching it once, and you don't get any physical object to take home with you. When you buy a CD, you're paying for the privilege of listening to it; it's essentially a license to use that artist's intellectual property. If you download the music without paying for it, you're using someone else's property without their permission, i.e., stealing.

I never received their permission to watch it on youtube or on myspace or on dailymotion or any other video sharing sites, etc.

Or if I'm in my friend's car and he pops in a CD. He purchased that CD, not me. He's the one that bought the license to use that artist's property, not me.

Am I stealing by mooching off of my friend as he plays his music?

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 11:57 AM

I never received their permission to watch it on youtube or on myspace or on dailymotion or any other video sharing sites, etc.

If it's on YouTube it either has the owner's permission or it won't be hanging around for long.

Or if I'm in my friend's car and he pops in a CD. He purchased that CD, not me. He's the one that bought the license to use that artist's property, not me.

Am I stealing by mooching off of my friend as he plays his music?

No, because the licence he received when he bought the CD extends to playing it in the car or at home. OTOH, if the same friend took that CD and played it at a club, then that WOULD be illegal.

Hybrid2

05-18-2009, 11:58 AM

I watch tv shows.and japanesse video clips.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 12:01 PM

I never received their permission to watch it on youtube or on myspace or on dailymotion or any other video sharing sites, etc.

Or if I'm in my friend's car and he pops in a CD. He purchased that CD, not me. He's the one that bought the license to use that artist's property, not me.

Am I stealing by mooching off of my friend as he plays his music?Well, your friend paid for it all you're doing is hearing it a couple of times.

The ephemeral -- i.e. something that you watch or listen to but do not keep in any way -- electronic or otherwise, cannot be controlled.

The music industry doesn't care if you hear something what they care about is you being able to keep something or listen to something over and over again without paying for it. And you will note that companies have been cracking down on YouTube -- deleting accounts when people put stuff up that is copyrighted. Even people who are taking songs and making their own music videos have been finding YouTube hitting their accounts based on copyright claims against the music.

The quality of the copy is beside the point.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:06 PM

If it's on YouTube it either has their permission or it won't be hanging around for long.

Can that be said for all the videos found though?

I mean, I'm sure that they have folks workin around the clock working on that.....but is it possible to police EVERTYTHING?

In other words, how can I be sure if the video I'm watching is legal or not?

No, because the licence he received when he bought the CD extends to playing it in the car or at home. OTOH, if the same friend took that CD and played it at a club, then that WOULD be illegal.

What does this licence cover though?

For instance, an anti piracy video they filmed on campus here addressed the issue of making copies of music.

Apparently, I can make as many copies as I want for MY use, but I can't allow anyone else to listen to those copies on their own because they didn't buy that album.

I also can't let them borrow my CD's as they would listen to the CD's and enjoy the music without having paid for it.

Yet, according to this video, I CAN give them the CD as a gift.

I'm done with 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' so I give it to my roommate.

He then enjoys the music I've given him that I've already paid for.

What's to stop him from giving it to someone else when he's done with it?

That's part of why I'm not %100 sold on this 'downloading is theft' notion.

The lines are pretty blurred. Even the helpful video TELLING us that downloading is theft then goes on to tell us about the gift loophole.

Grazzt

05-18-2009, 12:09 PM

Even people who are taking songs and making their own music videos have been finding YouTube hitting their accounts based on copyright claims against the music.

Actually, it doesn't seem like they're attacking the whole account as much anymore. They just completely block out the audio track on the offending music video. Like this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvtGttMtMDE&feature=related)

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:15 PM

Well, your friend paid for it all you're doing is hearing it a couple of times.

The ephemeral -- i.e. something that you watch or listen to but do not keep in any way -- electronic or otherwise, cannot be controlled.

The music industry doesn't care if you hear something what they care about is you being able to keep something or listen to something over and over again without paying for it. And you will note that companies have been cracking down on YouTube -- deleting accounts when people put stuff up that is copyrighted. Even people who are taking songs and making their own music videos have been finding YouTube hitting their accounts based on copyright claims against the music.

The quality of the copy is beside the point.

Is it though?

If you bought a CD and found that it soudned like it was recorded in someone's barn would you keep it or return it?

I'm guessing that you'd return it and ask for another copy or your money back.

Why?

If you're like me, when you shell out 20+ dollars for a CD you expect the very best quality, the very best recording of that music.

If you had a CD that was of lesser quality, a CD that was missing 3/4ths of the liner notes, a CD that may have been scratched in transit, you would probably take it back because that price of $20 is the price of the complete product being sold.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 12:16 PM

I never received their permission to watch it on youtube or on myspace or on dailymotion or any other video sharing sites, etc.

Which is why videos frequently disappear from those sites, as the copyright holders find out about it and ask/demand that they be taken down. As is their right.

Or if I'm in my friend's car and he pops in a CD. He purchased that CD, not me. He's the one that bought the license to use that artist's property, not me.

Very cute, but the existence of a couple of common sense exceptions still doesn't make it ok to download music without paying. A good rule of thumb for these situations is, "If the artist was sitting here next to me, would they object to what I was doing?" If you're just listening to the CD in the car, obviously not. If you're burning 20 copies to distribute to your friends, then yeah, they're going to have a problem with that.

Typo Lad

05-18-2009, 12:17 PM

Right, you'd buy it and return it. Not shoplift it, then return it.

It has value.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:27 PM

Which is why videos frequently disappear from those sites, as the copyright holders find out about it and ask/demand that they be taken down. As is their right.

But as someone that frequents Youtube, how can I be sure that the videos I'm watching, the music I'm listening to, is legit?

Youtube polices the site as best they can but I'm pretty sure that a number of violators will slip through. As a viewer and listener how can I be sure?

Very cute, but the existence of a couple of common sense exceptions still doesn't make it ok to download music without paying

How is it cute? I'm in my friend's car, he pops in a cd that I never paid for, have no intention of paying for, yet there I am enjoying the music that they created.

I don't have their permission.

I'm not trying to be cute at all, I was trying to establish whether or not there were exceptions, which it turns out there are.

A good rule of thumb for these situations is, "If the artist was sitting here next to me, would they object to what I was doing?" If you're just listening to the CD in the car, obviously not. If you're burning 20 copies to distribute to your friends, then yeah, they're going to have a problem with that.

How can we tell though? I mean, I can safely say that Metallica would mind a great deal if I did that, but would Radiohead care so much?

PearlJam might object strongly, but would Dimmu Borgir?

And besides, where is that line at? Listening in the car is ok, but making 20 copies is a no-go.....where's the middle at?

There's going to be exceptions to which we have to factor in too....all of these add up and tell us that the 'illegal' nature of downloading is up in the air really.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:29 PM

Right, you'd buy it and return it. Not shoplift it, then return it.

It has value.

Right, the copy of the CD that is complete, has the liner notes, the band photos, the perfect, high quality recording of the music, THAT usually has a value of $20.

Online, the value of a song that is of variable quality, that has no liner notes, no photos, etc. can be found for free.

Or you can shop around and get a flawless copy of the song, high quality with no liner notes, no band phots, etc. for a dollar or less.

You get what you pay for in other words, lol.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 12:32 PM

I'm done with 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' so I give it to my roommate.

He then enjoys the music I've given him that I've already paid for.

What's to stop him from giving it to someone else when he's done with it?

Not a thing. Once your friend takes the CD, you don't have it (or the music on it) anymore. One copy of the music was paid for, one copy is being used. It's when you start MAKING copies without paying for them that it becomes theft.

If you had a CD that was of lesser quality, a CD that was missing 3/4ths of the liner notes, a CD that may have been scratched in transit, you would probably take it back because that price of $20 is the price of the complete product being sold.

Yes, when you buy something, you should get what you paid for. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with getting something WITHOUT paying for it, though.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 12:39 PM

Right, the copy of the CD that is complete, has the liner notes, the band photos, the perfect, high quality recording of the music, THAT usually has a value of $20.

Online, the value of a song that is of variable quality, that has no liner notes, no photos, etc. can be found for free.

Or you can shop around and get a flawless copy of the song, high quality with no liner notes, no band phots, etc. for a dollar or less.

You get what you pay for in other words, lol.On the other hand, you can shop around on the internet and can find a copy that sounds just as good as the flawless copy without being able to tell the difference... Or at least not being able to tell the difference on anything less than a $2000 sound system.

You're making it sound like EVERYTHING that you download for free is of sub-standard quality and that is NOT the case.

Gail Simone

05-18-2009, 12:40 PM

Jesus Christ, I can't take this conversation again.

Just steal what makes you happy. You will anyway and that's all that matters, right?

Screw the people who worked hard to produce and distribute that stuff. All that matters is that you get what you want for free.

You're like a hero.

And no, I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, it's just I'm sick of this conversation and the pathetic, self-serving excuses of the massively entitled.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:42 PM

On the other hand, you can shop around on the internet and can find a copy that sounds just as good as the flawless copy without being able to tell the difference... Or at least not being able to tell the difference on anything less than a $2000 sound system.

You're making it sound like EVERYTHING that you download for free is of sub-standard quality and that is NOT the case.

Oh no, of course not. What I'm saying is that if I WERE to download something of sub par quality I wouldn't have any recourse.

I didn't pay for it.

But a CD or a song I buy from Itunes, were that to be damaged or of subpar quality then I could return it for a refund or another copy.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:44 PM

Not a thing. Once your friend takes the CD, you don't have it (or the music on it) anymore. One copy of the music was paid for, one copy is being used. It's when you start MAKING copies without paying for them that it becomes theft.

Yet every CD I purchase I make a back up copy just in case my copy becomes stolen or damaged in any way.

Is that stealing, making backups of the music I've purchased?

Yes, when you buy something, you should get what you paid for. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with getting something WITHOUT paying for it, though.

Well, it's like FCBD. I didn't buy any of those books but I still had to wait in line and get scanned and I ended up with a receipt.

It listed all of my books with a 0.00 next to it and the total was 0.00.

Good deal I'd say!

thehod

05-18-2009, 12:48 PM

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 12:48 PM

Oh no, of course not. What I'm saying is that if I WERE to download something of sub par quality I wouldn't have any recourse.

I didn't pay for it.

But a CD or a song I buy from Itunes, were that to be damaged or of subpar quality then I could return it for a refund or another copy.But if something you took for FREE is of sub-standard quality you are out NOTHING because you didn't PAY anything. And, because it is sub-standard you are not going to KEEP it.

As I said before, the music industry doesn't care who HEARS stuff they care who KEEPS stuff.

You walk past an ampatheatre where a big-ticket rock grou is playing and you can HEAR the music but you're not recording the performance to keep and listen to whenever you want.

You walk though an electronics store and you can HEAR songs being played on the sound system -- advertising both the songs and the sound system -- but you're not KEEPING them to listen to them forever and ever.

You're in the local Borders and there are songs playing from a CD, again you are HEARING but you are not TAKING AWAY, you are not KEEPING. It is the KEEPING that the music industry is concerned about.

If you illegally download a crappy copy of U2's latest single and because it's crappy you don't keep it;s still dodgy if your INTENTIONS were to keep it.

Typo Lad

05-18-2009, 12:50 PM

Right, the copy of the CD that is complete, has the liner notes, the band photos, the perfect, high quality recording of the music, THAT usually has a value of $20.

Online, the value of a song that is of variable quality, that has no liner notes, no photos, etc. can be found for free.

Or you can shop around and get a flawless copy of the song, high quality with no liner notes, no band phots, etc. for a dollar or less.

You get what you pay for in other words, lol.
Liner notes? Really? That's your dodge?

You're paying for the content. The packaging and frills are extras.

Product has value, even if product isn't tangible.

Bat-Reader

05-18-2009, 12:51 PM

:biggrin:

I paid for my modem and computer and i pay a considrable amount of mouthly fee for my connection evey month. I'm entitled to download whatever i find on internet.

And i'm evil anyway. I will download and eat babies stuffed up with puppy meat. HAHAHAHAHA :p

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:54 PM

But if something you took for FREE is of sub-standard quality you are out NOTHING because you didn't PAY anything. And, because it is sub-standard you are not going to KEEP it.

As I said before, the music industry doesn't care who HEARS stuff they care who KEEPS stuff.

You walk past an ampatheatre where a big-ticket rock grou is playing and you can HEAR the music but you're not recording the performance to keep and listen to whenever you want.

You walk though an electronics store and you can HEAR songs being played on the sound system -- advertising both the songs and the sound system -- but you're not KEEPING them to listen to them forever and ever.

You're in the local Borders and there are songs playing from a CD, again you are HEARING but you are not TAKING AWAY, you are not KEEPING. It is the KEEPING that the music industry is concerned about.

If you illegally download a crappy copy of U2's latest single and because it's crappy you don't keep it;s still dodgy if your INTENTIONS were to keep it.

But see, here's where things get hairy.

How does one prove that my intention was to keep it?

Or if I DO keep it, what's the time limit on what's passable and what's not?

Maybe I have it to listen to for a day or so as I decide whether or not I want to actually go out and buy it.

I often will listen to the entire CD before I buy it to make sure it's something I wish to purchase.

And I'm not saying it's NOT stealing, I'm just wrestling with that question myself as I can consider all of the points I've read thus far to be perfectly valid.

Also, in regards to the topic being done to death:

I did not mean to upset anyone. It's something that I was discussing with my fiancee the other day and I wanted to see what fellow CBR folks thought.

Comic Book readers are an intelligent, crafty lot and I wanted to get the viewpoints of my fellow comic fans.

If this is something that has been done to death already I'm truly sorry as I've never seen it.

Many thanks.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 12:55 PM

Yet every CD I purchase I make a back up copy just in case my copy becomes stolen or damaged in any way.

Is that stealing, making backups of the music I've purchased? Actually, this is covered by FAIR USE. You are allowed to make ONE back-up copy of something that you have purchased as long as it is for your own, personal use and not for distribution or sale.

Well, it's like FCBD. I didn't buy any of those books but I still had to wait in line and get scanned and I ended up with a receipt.

It listed all of my books with a 0.00 next to it and the total was 0.00.

Good deal I'd say!FCBD is advertisement. The comic book companies are trying to draw you in to buy the titles. The COMPANIES have agree to this so this is legal and sanctioned. The writers still get paid as do the artists.

Let's use "Blackest Night #0" as an example. The issue itself was free for FCBD. As it was, however, basically the opening to the "Blackest Night" event once "Blackest Night" is collected in trade (which it will be eventually) the "free" issue #0 will be included in the trade and you will essentially be paying for it when you buy the whole trade. The writers and artists will get paid residuals based on sales of that trade and, 10 years down the line, if DC should decide to reprint that trade then the writers and artists will get paid AGAIN from sales of the trade.

If you illegally download copies of the "Blackest Night" trade then writers and artists will NOT get paid residuals because there will be no sale of the item.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 12:56 PM

There's going to be exceptions to which we have to factor in too....all of these add up and tell us that the 'illegal' nature of downloading is up in the air really.

If you're worried about legality, then the obvious thing to do is to err on the side of caution and buy the music from a legitimate source. Then your conscience is clear.

But it sounds like your main concern is "How much can I get without paying for it?", and you're going through all these legal and semantic contortions to try and justify it.

"Well, let's see, if I'm in the grocery store and I swipe one grape, they're probably not going to throw me out of the store. Maybe I can eat two, and that'll be ok? Or three or four? Gee, the line is so fuzzy, I should just be able to grab a whole bunch."

Give me a break. Just buy the damn grapes already.

Typo Lad

05-18-2009, 12:56 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 12:56 PM

Liner notes? Really? That's your dodge?

You're paying for the content. The packaging and frills are extras.

Product has value, even if product isn't tangible.

It's not a dodge.

The liner notes, the packaging may be 'frills' but if you found that the CD you just bought was missing the lyrics, was damaged or torn in some way would you just shrug it off or would you go back and return it?

If I found that the DVD I just bought was damaged in the slightest I'd most certainly go back and get a better copy. The packaging, the 'frills' and so forth have no bearing on the actual movie/music but theyr'e a part of what you're purchasing.

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 12:57 PM

Adam C

05-18-2009, 12:58 PM

Given that the discussion is revolving entirely around one person who making the same logical fallacies I think there's an important unspoken rule of internet message boards that people here are forgetting.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 01:00 PM

But see, here's where things get hairy.

How does one prove that my intention was to keep it?

Or if I DO keep it, what's the time limit on what's passable and what's not?

Maybe I have it to listen to for a day or so as I decide whether or not I want to actually go out and buy it.

I often will listen to the entire CD before I buy it to make sure it's something I wish to purchase.

And I'm not saying it's NOT stealing, I'm just wrestling with that question myself as I can consider all of the points I've read thus far to be perfectly valid.

Also, in regards to the topic being done to death:

I did not mean to upset anyone. It's something that I was discussing with my fiancee the other day and I wanted to see what fellow CBR folks thought.

Comic Book readers are an intelligent, crafty lot and I wanted to get the viewpoints of my fellow comic fans.

If this is something that has been done to death already I'm truly sorry as I've never seen it.

Many thanks.You can go on places like Amazon.com and listen to selections of the songs to determine if it's something that you want or not. Likewise you can go to a Borders in person and stick a CD under a listening station and hear parts of all to most of the songs on the CD to determine if it's something that you want.

DVDs are, admittedly a little harder. Probably the best thing to do would be to rent from Netflix or similiar services, watch them and see if they're something that you like. Or perhaps find a friend who has the DVDs and is willing to loan them to you so that you can check them out.

Bat-Reader

05-18-2009, 01:01 PM

You're entitled to abolsutely nothing in life.

Going all pholosifical will change nothing.

I will download as heavy as rock and as light as a feather. HAH !

Typo Lad

05-18-2009, 01:04 PM

Going all pholosifical will change nothing.

I will download as heavy as rock and as light as a feather. HAH !

Please tell me English is not your first language.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:06 PM

Actually, this is covered by FAIR USE. You are allowed to make ONE back-up copy of something that you have purchased as long as it is for your own, personal use and not for distribution or sale.

Yet I make multiple backups of every file I have.

Anybody that's ever had a project or a paper that they had to turn in will always tell you to do MULTIPLE copies.

Because you never know when you might need it and trying to redo that entire project you just did in Excel is going to be a pain, lol.

The thing is, if it's my property, if I am the ONLY one who will ever use the CD's or the copies (well, my family and I that is) who's to say how many copies I can make?

FCBD is advertisement. The comic book companies are trying to draw you in to buy the titles. The COMPANIES have agree to this so this is legal and sanctioned. The writers still get paid as do the artists.

I know.

What I was getting at was that by handing out the 'free' comics (which the stores had to buy which I didn't know until last year, lol) they're going to make a LOT more money as more people are going to come back for more.

Consider my Dimmu Borgir downloads.

I NEVER would have bought those. Ever.

But because I dowloaded one of their songs it piqued my interest. I found out more about the band, learned that I really enjoyed their music and I went out and bought all of their CD's over the years.

So from one 'lost' song I've turned around and bought their entire Discography.

Let's use "Blackest Night #0" as an example. The issue itself was free for FCBD. As it was, however, basically the opening to the "Blackest Night" event once "Blackest Night" is collected in trade (which it will be eventually) the "free" issue #0 will be included in the trade and you will essentially be paying for it when you buy the whole trade. The writers and artists will get paid residuals based on sales of that trade and, 10 years down the line, if DC should decide to reprint that trade then the writers and artists will get paid AGAIN from sales of the trade.

If you illegally download copies of the "Blackest Night" trade then writers and artists will NOT get paid residuals because there will be no sale of the item.

Or, let's say that my copy of Blackest Night #0 is sitting on my shelf at home. Because I've already 'purchased' my copy by participating in FCBD and headed into my LCS on a Saturday I've already secured my one issue.

Would I then be able to download one copy of the book as my back up (or scan it in to my computer....not sure how one would officially 'steal' comic books online) to ensure that I would have a copy were my FCBD copy were destroyed?

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:06 PM

Bat-Reader

05-18-2009, 01:10 PM

Please tell me English is not your first language.

No, it's not.

Don't be easy on me, what is my mistake ?

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:15 PM

You can go on places like Amazon.com and listen to selections of the songs to determine if it's something that you want or not. Likewise you can go to a Borders in person and stick a CD under a listening station and hear parts of all to most of the songs on the CD to determine if it's something that you want.

DVDs are, admittedly a little harder. Probably the best thing to do would be to rent from Netflix or similiar services, watch them and see if they're something that you like. Or perhaps find a friend who has the DVDs and is willing to loan them to you so that you can check them out.

And that's something that I would normally do as well.

I don't even dowload that often, first and foremost because it bothers my fiancee so much and also because I don't really have that much interest in new music nowadays.

If I do want to listen to new music I'll hit up youtube for the video or some such and give it a listen.

If it's something worthwhile I'll buy the album, if not I won't.

But even if it's morally questionable I wouldn't go so far as to say it's stealing.

If we consider downloading to be stealing then every tape I've made from the radio back when I was in high school was stealing. Every time I've picked up and read a book at Borders before I bought it is stealing.

And it's not. I can go to Borders whenever I wish, sit down with a delicious cup of coffee and read an entire book and not purchase a thing.

I can then go back, day in and day out and read that book and never purchase it.

I'm not 'keeping' it (which you clarified earlier) but how can anyone tell if I intend to keep the music or films I've downloaded.

And again, I'm not saying that I'm right or wrong one way or the other, I'm just expressing my viewpoint of it.

Typo Lad

05-18-2009, 01:22 PM

No, it's not.

Don't be easy on me, what is my mistake ?
Much of your spelling, but I am not one to talk of such things. Mostly it was your turn of a phrase. No insult was meant.

Seriously though, it's not philosophy. At the end of the day, no-one is entitled to anything, especially not for free.

Libaax

05-18-2009, 01:33 PM

You know i use to think downloading,pirating isnt a problem. Like many people just do it without thinking about it as stealing from the creators.

When i first started reading Manga before american comics i liked since back then manga wasnt as often licensed,translated to english. When i find a great manga, i started feeling guilty about the creator not getting paid for creating a comic i really enjoyed now that you could be the Graphic Novels. After that it was natural.

Thats how i found my way to LCS one day. After that you forgot thinking about you could get this for free downloading it. Same with american comics,favorite music artist,movies. You want to support the people whose work you like.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:37 PM

If you're worried about legality, then the obvious thing to do is to err on the side of caution and buy the music from a legitimate source. Then your conscience is clear.

Well, my worry over the legality over it is whether or not it's actually theft.

I don't know how old you are but when I was growing up I had a cassette stero that I'd listen to music with.

I had a number of blank tapes that I'd make mix tapes of my favorite songs from the tapes I'd already bought, plus I'd record music right from the radio.

Now back then this was common place. Most of the kids at my school would make their own tapes and then trade them back and forth.

Never once did it ever occur to us that what we were doing was wrong, not one parent ever brought up the dangers of 'stealing' music, etc.

The difference now of course it the relative ease of 'stealing' music. Back then you had to use clunky cassettes.....now we can download hundreds of songs in mere moments onto devices that can hold thousands of songs.

A far cry from the cassette stereo, lol, but does that make what we did then any less wrong? Was the lack of volume the difference or is theft theft no matter how you slice it?

But it sounds like your main concern is "How much can I get without paying for it?", and you're going through all these legal and semantic contortions to try and justify it.

No, just trying to discuss it with folks that can give me some interesting things to consider.

I don't even do it that much anymore, just something that was brought up earlier that I wanted to expand upon.

"Well, let's see, if I'm in the grocery store and I swipe one grape, they're probably not going to throw me out of the store. Maybe I can eat two, and that'll be ok? Or three or four? Gee, the line is so fuzzy, I should just be able to grab a whole bunch."

Give me a break. Just buy the damn grapes already.

Well, the grapes are physical things, things I can actually try to steal.

Music online? Not as easy to 'steal' I'm afraid.

Bat-Reader

05-18-2009, 01:41 PM

Much of your spelling, but I am not one to talk of such things. Mostly it was your turn of a phrase. No insult was meant.

Seriously though, it's not philosophy. At the end of the day, no-one is entitled to anything, especially not for free.

Heck, gosh darn it... i thought i was doing pretty good so far... ehh.. what you gonna do...

thehod

05-18-2009, 01:45 PM

Well, my worry over the legality over it is whether or not it's actually theft.

I don't know how old you are but when I was growing up I had a cassette stero that I'd listen to music with.

I had a number of blank tapes that I'd make mix tapes of my favorite songs from the tapes I'd already bought, plus I'd record music right from the radio.

Now back then this was common place. Most of the kids at my school would make their own tapes and then trade them back and forth.

Never once did it ever occur to us that what we were doing was wrong, not one parent ever brought up the dangers of 'stealing' music, etc.

The difference now of course it the relative ease of 'stealing' music. Back then you had to use clunky cassettes.....now we can download hundreds of songs in mere moments onto devices that can hold thousands of songs.

A far cry from the cassette stereo, lol, but does that make what we did then any less wrong? Was the lack of volume the difference or is theft theft no matter how you slice it?

Its not the physical act of doing that pisses me off, because I recorded songs off the radio in my day, copied friends games, and have a hard drive full of retro games that I've never owned in my life, but I know that in these cases I'm a thief.

I just don't try and justify my activity with a sense of entitlement. Grow a pair and admit what you are.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:51 PM

Its not the physical act of doing that pisses me off, because I recorded songs off the radio in my day, copied friends games, and have a hard drive full of retro games that I've never owned in my life, but I know that in these cases I'm a thief.

I just don't try and justify my activity with a sense of entitlement. Grow a pair and admit what you are.

Umm....ok, lol

I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just trying to have a discussion.

But if you consider downloading music to be thievery, if recording songs from the radio onto cassette back in the late 80's, early 90s makes me a thief then sure, I'm a thief.

I'm not laboring under any sense of entitlement, I'm just curious to see the viewpoints of other folks here on CBR.

mgs

05-18-2009, 01:52 PM

He had purchased most of the Marvel comic reprints on DVD and CD-rom.

40 years of stories from the X-Men, Iron Man, Spider-Man, the Avengers and many more.

Every single issue, every single annual.....all ready for download on to my computer for free.

Like I said, one HELL of a gift.
So....he bought those CD-Rom DVD Marvel sets for you and you declined?? :confused:

Or are you assuming that he actually scanned ALL those issues?

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 01:59 PM

So....he bought those CD-Rom DVD Marvel sets for you and you declined?? :confused:

Or are you assuming that he actually scanned ALL those issues?

No, he copied them all and was going to hand them over to me.

I was debating getting them but never did because 1) I just don't have the time to sit down and really enjoy them and 2) I just can't wrap my head around reading comics on a screen.

I've been buying comics for most of my life. There's just something more satisfying about holding a comic in your hands, turning the pages to read it.

Having all of them at the touch of a button would be cool I guess but I would much rather have the actual copies. Other than space considerations and price I can't see any advantage to having them stored on my computer.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 02:03 PM

thehod

05-18-2009, 02:04 PM

Having all of them at the touch of a button would be cool I guess but I would much rather have the actual copies. Other than space considerations and price I can't see any advantage to having them stored on my computer.

Its marginally easier to carry around a laptop than it is 40 years of comics.

I generally agree with you, I prefer the actual comic myself, but I was able to read about five years worth of xmen issues whilst on the train on my way to a meeting and back today using a DVD that I got for Christmas a few years back.

And, as you say, a DVD on the shelf rather than 600 odd comics keeps Mrs Hod much sweeter.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 02:10 PM

Its marginally easier to carry around a laptop than it is 40 years of comics.

I generally agree with you, I prefer the actual comic myself, but I was able to read about five years worth of xmen issues whilst on the train on my way to a meeting and back today using a DVD that I got for Christmas a few years back.

And, as you say, a DVD on the shelf rather than 600 odd comics keeps Mrs Hod much sweeter.

This is ANOTHER consideration. Soon-to-be Mrs. Calibos would like nothing more than for me to just give it up entirely.

In fact, I took her with to FCBD and she saw a number of collections they offered. All of them are in the 30-40 dollar range.

'So....it's EVERY issue of Spider-Man in THAT box?'

'Yup. Even the annuals.'

'Don't some of the earlier issues cost a lot of money though? Like that one with the evil Spiderman?'

'Venom. Yes. Issue 300. Got it for 30 bucks.'

'Huh. And you can get ALL of them for about that price then....'

Crap, I thought.....she KNOWS.....

And I explained to her that it isn't the same. There's just something ultimately satisfying about looking at a long box and realizing 'I have every issue of Amazing Spider-Man from issue 187 on....'

I could have saved a ton of money and space, sure, but I'd never be able to physically flip through 30+ years of comics.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 02:25 PM

Here's my view.

In the digital age, the royalty payments to a creator should be 100% of net.

Anyone working in editing, publishing, or distributing should be regarded as providing a service to the creator, and deserving of either a fee or a percentage. Same for subsidiary creators like colourists, letterers, inkers, etc. In some circumstances these should be considered as co-creators, in some circumstances, even a writer or a penciller could be just providing a service.

As long as old school publishing is failing to pay creators, I see no ethical objection to the customer failing to pay the publisher. If the publisher fails to pay creators fairly, then the customer should feel obliged to fail to pay the publisher fairly.

And on top of that, I see no more ethical objection to copying someone else's DVD than to borrowing it or renting it. Of course, there may be consequences to that, if you're not paying into the system somewhere.

With music, it's known that those who download a lot also buy a lot. They're already paying in more than everyone else, so where's the ethical objection, really?

Of course, in an ideal world, we'd be able to pay the money direct to the creator, or buy through a service that charges a fair amount to the creator. And we should all try to support such services where they exist.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 02:26 PM

Well, the grapes are physical things, things I can actually try to steal.

Music online? Not as easy to 'steal' I'm afraid.

So your argument is what...that music has no value and therefore should be free? That musicians don't deserve to be compensated for their work?

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 02:31 PM

What's the legalities of downloading a TV show that is not broadcast on any channel that is available to you? Essentially, a show where the ONLY way to watch it is to download it or watch an online stream.

I've been watching some shows from the new anime season, which are broadcast in Japan and then subtitled by fans. Is downloading these illegal?

Technically.

But until the producers come after the fansubbers, I shouldn't worry about it, if I were you. After all, that's how the producers build the audience for these shows in the first place.

And anyway, if they can't be arsed to create a subtitled version for the foreign markets, and distribute it digitally for a fair price, then tough noogies on them.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 02:33 PM

Much of your spelling, but I am not one to talk of such things. Mostly it was your turn of a phrase. No insult was meant.

Seriously though, it's not philosophy. At the end of the day, no-one is entitled to anything, especially not for free.

Contariwise, then no content producer is entitled to be paid, either.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 02:39 PM

Liner notes? Really? That's your dodge?

You're paying for the content. The packaging and frills are extras.

Product has value, even if product isn't tangible.

Iffy argument.

Technically, you're paying for the artists to do their work, just as you would pay a plumber for his labour.

But in the creative world, to strain the metaphor, you're also paying 50% to the person who took the call for the plumber, 48% to the plumber's boss, and 2% for the actual plumber's work.

So any time you buy a CD, you're paying a 98% markup for the privilege of getting all the packaging and frills.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 02:41 PM

So your argument is what...that music has no value and therefore should be free? That musicians don't deserve to be compensated for their work?

Of course not.

But we're not talking about the price of 'music', we're talking about the delivery method of said music.

FYE, Circuit City, Target, any store that sells a CD isn't selling 'music', they're selling a product.

An actual, physical thing that is usually worth around 15 to 20 dollars.

If I pick it up and pocket it and walk out of the store I'm actually stealing it.

If my friend makes me a copy of the CD HE bought and gives it to me or if I download it without paying for it I don't consider that stealing at all because I haven't taken anything.

But I could be wrong. As I mentioned to thehod if it's actually determined that downloading is theft, if burning copies for friends is thievery then yes, I'm a thief.

But I can't consider it stealing because what have I stolen?

You mention 'music has no value and therefore should be free?'

Music does have value but no monetary value. CD's or other copies of music DO have value though.

Consider this, if I sat here and recorded myself reading the newest issue of the Hulk (it'd be something like this: 'Oh man....ANOTHER big fight....and then blah....and then MORE blah......oh, and we still don't know who the Rulk is...), recorded it and sent it to you before you bought it would that be theft?

It's an idea, it's the story, not the actual product.

I can buy a copy of ASM for 3 bucks 3 times a month OR, I can just read it in my LCS and download reviews. That way I get the story without actually paying for it.

There's not an easy answer,which is why I started the thread to discuss it, but in my book unless there's a product, unless there's something physical I can hold there can't be a theft.

Otherwise every spoiler thread here at CRB that divulges key plot points of major motion pictures could be considered thievery.

Ghost

05-18-2009, 02:43 PM

Me, I recognize that pirating is illegal, as well as bad news for the people who lose money on it. My conscience doesn't trouble me enough for me to bother trying to excuse that away. That said, I'm still wrestling with the question of whether or not it is actually wrong and not just an unfortunate effect of the paradigm shift our information technology has been going through this last couple of decades.

As it is, it's not terribly important to me either way. I have this nagging feeling that I should probably care more - I'm hoping to be a writer one of these days, after all - but I guess I can't convince myself that one should have to pay for information that can be infinitely copied and spread.

Still, I'm not like those really hardcore pirates who download anything and everything on sheer principle. (Or my brother, who downloads stuff specifically because it robs the companies on their monies.) I will still pay for stuff if I think its worth it. (Or if I'm lazy, or simply if I feel like it, etc.)

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 02:57 PM

There's not an easy answer,which is why I started the thread to discuss it, but in my book unless there's a product, unless there's something physical I can hold there can't be a theft.

So if I hack my bank and transfer a big pile of electronic money into my account, that's not stealing in your book? Awesomesauce

Otherwise every spoiler thread here at CRB that divulges key plot points of major motion pictures could be considered thievery.

If you can't distinguish between reading a description of a movie and downloading that movie in digital form, I question how you survive on a day to day basis.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 03:06 PM

So if I hack my bank and transfer a big pile of electronic money into my account, that's not stealing in your book? Awesomesauce

Nope, poor comparison.

The money actually represents actual funds that actually belong to somebody.

A better, more accurate comparison would be for you to walk into a FYE and deposit a handful of burned CD's that you intend to exchange for store credit.

'These aren't the same thing bringthenoise.....you purchased the original copies of these CD's.....but these are just copies and, as such, aren't what we sell here.'

That's the key here. What does FYE and other similar stores actually sell? Do they sell music or do they sell CD's?

If you can't distinguish between reading a description of a movie and downloading that movie in digital form, I question how you survive on a day to day basis.

That's nice.

Anyway, by giving away the ending a filmgoer could ruin the future purchase of a potential ticket buyer.

If I know that the ending sucks why would I go and see the film?

Besides, you bought your ticket for your own personal viewing of the film. To share that experience with folks that haven't bought their ticket yet.....you don't consider that a bit shady?

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 03:11 PM

Of course not.

But we're not talking about the price of 'music', we're talking about the delivery method of said music.

FYE, Circuit City, Target, any store that sells a CD isn't selling 'music', they're selling a product.

An actual, physical thing that is usually worth around 15 to 20 dollars.

If I pick it up and pocket it and walk out of the store I'm actually stealing it.

If my friend makes me a copy of the CD HE bought and gives it to me or if I download it without paying for it I don't consider that stealing at all because I haven't taken anything.

But I could be wrong. As I mentioned to thehod if it's actually determined that downloading is theft, if burning copies for friends is thievery then yes, I'm a thief.

But I can't consider it stealing because what have I stolen?

You mention 'music has no value and therefore should be free?'

Music does have value but no monetary value. CD's or other copies of music DO have value though.

Consider this, if I sat here and recorded myself reading the newest issue of the Hulk (it'd be something like this: 'Oh man....ANOTHER big fight....and then blah....and then MORE blah......oh, and we still don't know who the Rulk is...), recorded it and sent it to you before you bought it would that be theft?

It's an idea, it's the story, not the actual product.

I can buy a copy of ASM for 3 bucks 3 times a month OR, I can just read it in my LCS and download reviews. That way I get the story without actually paying for it.

There's not an easy answer,which is why I started the thread to discuss it, but in my book unless there's a product, unless there's something physical I can hold there can't be a theft.

Otherwise every spoiler thread here at CRB that divulges key plot points of major motion pictures could be considered thievery.First off: Your reading the comic book to the person does not mean that the person can see the art and the action for themselves.

Second, yes such things HAVE gotten someone in trouble in the past. There was a poster over on the DC MB's (I forget his name). During the heyday of "52" he was basically posting detailed plot synopsis of each issue a day before the issue was being released. He carefully put spoilers in the thread title and everything and people were copying this synopsis and posting it on other comic book MB's. Eventually someone tipped DC to what he was doing and he got in some trouble with the DC hierarchy and eventually stopped doing it.

Third, you PERSIST in confusing the music with the DELIVERY METHOD. When people write songs they GET PAID FOR THEM NO MATTER WHAT THE HELL THE DELIVERY METHOD IS!

Here's an example: Let's say we have a solo artist named John Singer. John Singer writes all of his songs himself and performs them himself. John Singer is an up and coming guy so he plays clubs and bars and also the occasional "free concert in the park" at local towns. The thing is the bars, clubs and towns are PAYING John to perform even if the PATRONS are getting to hear him for free. At these shows John sells CD's of his music as well as gives out information on a website where people can pay to download his songs digitally.

John has a SKILL -- he writes and sings songs. John's skill is MARKETABLE and the way John makes money off of his skill is to SELL HIS MUSIC. He sells his music in the form of offering liver performance in return for pay AND by selling copies of music to those who hear him and want to keep a copy for themselves. Now, if you are illegally downloading John's songs then John is making no money from this.

It doesn't MATTER if John's songs are on a tanglible format like a CD or whether they are on an intangible format like a digital download. John loves to sing but he also needs to live and as such John's form of income is the SALE OF HIS MUSIC in WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES.

The Medium in NOT the message here.

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 03:13 PM

Nope, poor comparison.

The money actually represents actual funds that actually belong to somebody.

And the music is composed of songs that actually belong to someone.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:13 PM

So if I hack my bank and transfer a big pile of electronic money into my account, that's not stealing in your book? Awesomesauce
.

See if you can spot the logical fallacy here.

JKCarrier

05-18-2009, 03:13 PM

Music does have value but no monetary value. CD's or other copies of music DO have value though.

So they should charge the same price for a blank CD as they do for one with music on it? Since the CD is the only valuable part?

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:14 PM

And the music is composed of songs that actually belong to someone.

Still not addressing the fallacy here.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:16 PM

Third, you PERSIST in confusing the music with the DELIVERY METHOD. When people write songs they GET PAID FOR THEM NO MATTER WHAT THE HELL THE DELIVERY METHOD IS! .

Really? You think that's how it works?

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 03:17 PM

Still not addressing the fallacy here.

Enlighten me.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:25 PM

Enlighten me.

If I take money from someone else's account, they can't use it any more. Only a single iteration of that money exists.

In the age of digital reproduction, "product" has no intrinsic value, since there's no scarcity value. If you had a magic machine that duplicated gold bars, gold would become worthless. In the same way, digital content is intrinsically worthless.

What isn't worthless, because scarce, is instantiations of digital content: books, CDs, DVDs, etc. These can be commoditized because there's always a limited number of them.

However, hardly anyone wants the actual hard copies any more; and the number of those that do will scale to near zero over the next 50 years (the antiquarian trade will boom, however).

The business model that works at the moment is about commodifying the "download". I can't think of an uglier usage than nouning the download, and that linguistic violence tells us that it's no more than an interim solution.

The other thing that isn't worthless is the labour of the artist. And since the hard copy is a dead model, at the end of the day, we move away from commodified culture, and towards a culture of patronage. We pay artists to produce -- as we paid Dave Sim to keep banging out Cerebus through the convenient method of buying a comic book -- so that we can keep reading or listening to or watching their work.

But what we are not actually doing is buying a commodity. There is no such thing as a digital commodity.

bringthenoise

05-18-2009, 03:29 PM

...and towards a culture of patronage. We pay artists to produce -- as we paid Dave Sim to keep banging out Cerebus through the convenient method of buying a comic book -- so that we can keep reading or listening to or watching their work.

I simply lack the faith that people will pay artists enough to actually support them without being forced to by law.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:35 PM

I simply lack the faith that people will pay artists enough to actually support them without being forced to by law.

It's not a matter of faith, is it. It's right there in front of your eyes.

You can get a book from the library. But people buy books.

Sure, people download music. Those same people are buying music hand over fist.

Ask anyone who used to tape their friends' albums. Did they also buy a buttload of albums? All signs point to yes. In fact, as far as that goes, digital reproduction actually frees up capital previously spent on blank tapes so you can buy more tunes.

Sounds like I'm talking utopia here, but the real bottom line here is that people like to shop, and information junkies like to shop for information.

For that matter, the markets are massively larger now than they used to be, and production costs are lower, and -- bad news for retailers and distributors, but there you are -- there are fewer middle men who need to be paid.

Even if the digital market doesn't perform for a creator as much as one tenth of the commodity market, the creator's no worse off.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 03:36 PM

Really? You think that's how it works?

Like I said before -- I have a friend who makes specialized arrangements. She takes something like "My Immortal" by Evanescence and transforms it into acapella four part harmony (Look up a group called "Sweet Adelines International" to get some idea of what she's doing).

She MUST contact the copyright holder and ask permission FIRST. She PAYS them to transform the song. THEN she creates her version of the song in four-part acapella harmony. She then is able to SELL her version for a set amount of money. She usually includes the sheet music and a demo track tape for the group to get started with. A PORTION of what she earns must then also be given to the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT holder.

Groups perform her material and then other groups who want to perform the same song contact her and PAY her for copies of the sheet music and the demo tape.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

In the end, it doesn't matter if the song was originally in a digital format, on a CD or what she still has to pay whoever WROTE the song -- music and lyrics.

Little different than plays. When a high school wants to perform "Our Town" they have to buy licensed copies of the script from an authorized source. The license then includes the rights to perform said script as a play on stage.

Corrina

05-18-2009, 03:37 PM

Sounds like I'm talking utopia here, but the real bottom line here is that people like to shop, and information junkies like to shop for information.

But they don't like to pay for it, else newspapers wouldn't be imploding at an alarming degree.

Professionalism costs.

AcesX1X

05-18-2009, 03:49 PM

do you people support a comic book iTUnes?

personally, i don't have a lot of space to go storing a lot of useless books. but, i have portable hard drives which hold a lot of stuff.

i love my iTunes. i pay my 99 cents per song and it is very convenient for me.

there is no functional equivalent to iTunes in comic books. well, there is, it is just not regulated by the people who think they deserve the money to be made off of them.

so really, the burden of responsibility is on the publishers and creators to step into the 21st century and not on the people who are bored with waiting.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 03:51 PM

Like I said before -- I have a friend who makes specialized arrangements. She takes something like "My Immortal" by Evanescence and transforms it into acapella four part harmony (Look up a group called "Sweet Adelines International" to get some idea of what she's doing).

She MUST contact the copyright holder and ask permission FIRST. She PAYS them to transform the song. THEN she creates her version of the song in four-part acapella harmony. She then is able to SELL her version for a set amount of money. She usually includes the sheet music and a demo track tape for the group to get started with. A PORTION of what she earns must then also be given to the ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT holder.

Groups perform her material and then other groups who want to perform the same song contact her and PAY her for copies of the sheet music and the demo tape.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

In the end, it doesn't matter if the song was originally in a digital format, on a CD or what she still has to pay whoever WROTE the song -- music and lyrics.

Little different than plays. When a high school wants to perform "Our Town" they have to buy licensed copies of the script from an authorized source. The license then includes the rights to perform said script as a play on stage.

Yes, I understand that's what the copyright holders want you to do.

But the copyright holders are not necessarily the creators.

And the people collecting the money don't necessarily pass the money on.

And the record company has a lot of ways to cheat their people; just like Marvel does. I saw Steranko once refuse to sign the Nick Fury reprints because he didn't make a penny off them.

For that matter, every time Pete Townshend performs one of his own songs, he LOSES money -- he has to pay a cut to whoever it is collects the money. And there's no guarantee that the money he pays to perform his own song will actually come back to him.

Shisho

05-18-2009, 03:55 PM

Wow, that's kind of spooky. This is pretty relevant to something I'm playing with right now. Weird. For anyone who cares, check out my sig and give Abney Park (http://www.abneypark.com)a listen to. I've burned some of their music to CD and passed it out to my friends who might like that genre. Since they call themselves "airship pirates," I'd like to think they'll forgive me for stealing their music. I've also recently done this for Shiva in Exile (http://www.shiva-in-exile.de/), because I heard them on a podcast, and I liked the style, so I went and downloaded both CDs from iTunes. I'm pretty sure the Podcastle (http://www.podcastle.org) people don't pay the band royalties for using Shiva in Exile as their theme music, but they plug them every episode.

In any case, I kind of wish people would get off their high horse about "downloading is stealing blah blah blah." You'd be surprised at how many bands are big now partly because of the whole "stealing" bootleg thing. Yes, I'm looking at you Metallica, and fuck you Lars. You know what I do with a band I really like? I burn their CD and pass it out to anyone I think might like their music. Sometimes, if the band I like has a few CDs out, I'll make a sampler. Sometimes I'll make a sampler of a bunch of different bands and pass them out to my friends. When my friends like those bands, they end up asking for more. If they like them enough, they'll go out and buy the freakin' CD, just like I bought the CD (or downloaded it from iTunes because I'm lazy and like immediate gratification.) People won't buy a band they've never heard of, but they will be more likely to buy a band they really liked because a friend, or a friend's friend let them listen to a CD or two. Same with books, btw, but no one complains about how giving away your old paperbacks will put Barnes and Noble out of business.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 04:08 PM

First off: Your reading the comic book to the person does not mean that the person can see the art and the action for themselves.

True, but the story has been told to me already.

I love the artwork of course but what I was waiting for, the meat of the story, has now been revealed.

Second, yes such things HAVE gotten someone in trouble in the past. There was a poster over on the DC MB's (I forget his name). During the heyday of "52" he was basically posting detailed plot synopsis of each issue a day before the issue was being released. He carefully put spoilers in the thread title and everything and people were copying this synopsis and posting it on other comic book MB's. Eventually someone tipped DC to what he was doing and he got in some trouble with the DC hierarchy and eventually stopped doing it.

Did he work for DC?

While what he was doing was certainly tacky (and while they can remove him for whatever reason they wish) if someone receives word about an upcoming story.....unless they work for DC or Time Warner in some capacity there's really nothing that they can do about it.

When I was overseas we could find pretty cheap copies of movies that were in theaters back in the states.

I lucked out and got a copy of Spider-Man and Star Wars: Episode II a week before each of them hit theaters.

Now these were definitely illegally downloaded films that hadn't even hit theaters yet, but f it, I was overseas, what do you want, lol.

I sometimes doubted that I'd last the week so when a Turkish kids wants to sell me a pirated copy of Spider-Man for a buck I jump at it.

Now I could have called or emailed home and ruined it for my friends (I can't BELIEVE they killed Jar Jar so VIOLENTLY....:biggrin: ) but I didn't because that would be tacky.

Not illegal, but tacky.

Third, you PERSIST in confusing the music with the DELIVERY METHOD. When people write songs they GET PAID FOR THEM NO MATTER WHAT THE HELL THE DELIVERY METHOD IS!

Here's an example: Let's say we have a solo artist named John Singer. John Singer writes all of his songs himself and performs them himself. John Singer is an up and coming guy so he plays clubs and bars and also the occasional "free concert in the park" at local towns. The thing is the bars, clubs and towns are PAYING John to perform even if the PATRONS are getting to hear him for free. At these shows John sells CD's of his music as well as gives out information on a website where people can pay to download his songs digitally.

John has a SKILL -- he writes and sings songs. John's skill is MARKETABLE and the way John makes money off of his skill is to SELL HIS MUSIC. He sells his music in the form of offering liver performance in return for pay AND by selling copies of music to those who hear him and want to keep a copy for themselves. Now, if you are illegally downloading John's songs then John is making no money from this.

Another example. I have NEVER heard of John. His music isn't the kind I normally listen to and I never really stray near that end of the musical spectrum.

Now I happen to download one of his tunes for free and I take a listen......and you know what? He's pretty good.

Not what I normally listen to but he's definitely got talent.

Now because of the download John has an additional fan who finds enough quality in his work that he'll go out and pick up his new CD when it comes out.

That's what happened with Dimmu Borgir. Never would have occured to me to pick up anything by those guys, but because I happened across one of their songs I've bought all their CD's.

Now that's not the case for EVERY download but they've made money thanks to folks discovering music in this decidedly non-traditional way.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 04:08 PM

But they don't like to pay for it, else newspapers wouldn't be imploding at an alarming degree.

Professionalism costs.

Newspapers never make their money off the customers. They make it from selling circulation to advertisers.

And the painful fact is that most American newspapers aren't a compelling source of information now that people can go elsewhere.

Why pay for the SF Chronicle when most of the articles are wire stories?

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 04:12 PM

So they should charge the same price for a blank CD as they do for one with music on it? Since the CD is the only valuable part?

No, it's the recording, it's the liner notes, it's the 'extras', the frills as someone else put it.

The 'valuable part' is the entire thing. That's why they charge $20 for it!

Consider this, you buy a CD from FYE only to learn that it's missing half of the liner notes.

Not that big of a deal, I mean, the CD works and all......but the liner notes, the band photos, the lyrics, a lot of those lil' extras are gone.

Do you return the CD and get a different one or do you keep the one with the damage?

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 04:13 PM

That's what happened with Dimmu Borgir. Never would have occured to me to pick up anything by those guys, but because I happened across one of their songs I've bought all their CD's.

Now that's not the case for EVERY download but they've made money thanks to folks discovering music in this decidedly non-traditional way.

Precisely why I pay for music through emusic. They're somewhat curated, have high-end obscure content which is easy to get at and sample, with decent editorial content telling you what's up, and it's a quarter of the price of iTunes.

Which is why I spent the weekend listening to Sadie Harrison (a composer I'd never heard of before), Emily Barker (folksinger I'd kind of heard of, but never heard), and Clive Bell (who I've met, even, but hadn't heard of that record before).

It's easy enough to part the punters from their money if you've got the right model.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 04:20 PM

Precisely why I pay for music through emusic. They're somewhat curated, have high-end obscure content which is easy to get at and sample, with decent editorial content telling you what's up, and it's a quarter of the price of iTunes.

Which is why I spent the weekend listening to Sadie Harrison (a composer I'd never heard of before), Emily Barker (folksinger I'd kind of heard of, but never heard), and Clive Bell (who I've met, even, but hadn't heard of that record before).

It's easy enough to part the punters from their money if you've got the right model.

Emily Barker is the stuff. The girl has a copy of Photos, Fire, Fables that I listen to quite a bit.

Ultimately, it boils down to fan control. In this day and age the consumer has more and more power and distributors recognize this and are scrambling to accomodate us.

This is why downloading actually benefits smaller artists in a way. It's the ultimate word of mouth. Why would I spend $20 on an unknown quantity when I can download a few songs, really see what the artist has to offer and then decide whether or not their music is worth the money to me?

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 04:27 PM

Emily Barker is the stuff. The girl has a copy of Photos, Fire, Fables that I listen to quite a bit.

Is new record. Is better.

You on emusic? You should be.

Also, you should let me friend you to emusic. Then we both get free stuff.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 04:31 PM

Is new record. Is better.

You on emusic? You should be.

Also, you should let me friend you to emusic. Then we both get free stuff.

email link, I'll give it a look see. I like it, I let you friend me.

Do we have an accord? :smile:

Karen El

05-18-2009, 04:40 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 04:46 PM

If what we are doing is buying a license to listen to the music or watch the movie, why is it that we are expected to buy a whole new one when the thing it's stored on (eg. disc or tape) wears out or the delivery system (eg. cassette players) becomes obsolete?

If I'm allowed to make copies of stuff I own for my own use, does that mean if I own a casstte tape of Stateless by Lene Lovich it's okay for me to download it? Does it make a difference if I can't play the tape because I have nothing to play it on? How about if I have a copy of No Man's Land on LP record and nothing to play it on, but since it was never released on CD there is no possible legal way for me to listen to it - is it okay to download it then?

An interesting question.

You bought the right to play those songs over and over again whenever you wish. If you have it on cassette why should you have to buy it again on CD? Or in digital form?

You've bought the music once, has Master of Puppets changed at all in the years since it was released? All of those old cassettes that we used to pay top dollar for as kids are now pretty much worthless, same goes for CD's in another decade or so.

I can't take those in to trade for NEW cassettes and certainly not for viable copies of the album I already purchased.

Expletive Deleted

05-18-2009, 04:53 PM

I simply lack the faith that people will pay artists enough to actually support them without being forced to by law.Cory Doctorow releases everything he writes online for free under a Creative Commons license, and his books still sell. Heck, his latest book was on the New York Times bestseller list for a couple weeks.

It may not be appropriate for all artists in all media, but there does seem to be a market for items that are freely, legally available in other formats

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 04:56 PM

Cory Doctorow releases everything he writes online for free under a Creative Commons license, and his books still sell. Heck, his latest book was on the New York Times bestseller list for a couple weeks.

It may not be appropriate for all artists in all media, but there does seem to be a market for items that are freely, legally available in other formats

I think that's exactly the way to go. Creative Commons everything. Put the work up somewhere where people can pay money to support the artists. And people will, at least in sufficient numbers to keep an artist with a big enough fan base in business; and at sufficiently little cost that smaller artists can still take their work to market.

Which is more than Diamond offers.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 05:58 PM

Yes, I understand that's what the copyright holders want you to do.

But the copyright holders are not necessarily the creators.

And the people collecting the money don't necessarily pass the money on.

And the record company has a lot of ways to cheat their people; just like Marvel does. I saw Steranko once refuse to sign the Nick Fury reprints because he didn't make a penny off them.

For that matter, every time Pete Townshend performs one of his own songs, he LOSES money -- he has to pay a cut to whoever it is collects the money. And there's no guarantee that the money he pays to perform his own song will actually come back to him.

This is something else few consider.

The RIAA is quick to tell anyone that downloading music hurts artists......but who hurts the artist more, the consumer who, weary of spending 20+ dollars for a new CD, decides to download his music for free or the record companies themselves who nickel and dime the artist to death?

CutterMike

05-18-2009, 06:44 PM

The point that I think most of the people are trying to make -- and which you seem to keep trying to dodge -- is that an item does not need to have physicality to have value.

Suppose that I call a plumber to fix a leaky toilet. I tell him that I bought all of the parts but I just don't have time to put it all together. He comes over and does the repair.

At the end of that, he presents his bill for services rendered and I refuse to pay because I already paid for the parts. Since I already had the physical stuff there's no need to pay.

Assuming that I didn't end up with a stilson wrench stuck up someplace extremely painful, I would shortly be in court for "theft of services"; I utilized his expertise for something I valued without paying for it.

In the case of downloading music/movies, etc., you are receiving the use of someone else's expertise -- often MANY other peoples' expertise -- without recompensing them for their labor.

To bring the example closer to home for you:
(....)
I'm a student at Penn State. I'm an astrophysics major so my free time is pretty limited.
(...)
Let's say I were to download the contents of a CD, a CD sold by FYE for $20.

What have I stolen? I haven't stolen a CD because a CD is a physical object.

Astrophysics...? Let's assume for a moment that you're planning to go on to graduate study (if you're not there already): You're working on your Doctoral thesis and you believe that it's research that is likely to make your career. Before you present to your committee, however, someone xeroxes your notes and copies your computer files and publishes first.

They didn't walk away with your papers or hard drive so, according to the argument that you seem to be making, they didn't actually steal anything from you.

The point, however, is that they have received value from your expertise and effort without compensating you for it.

Now, it's up to you whether you feel that you would have the right to be outraged at having your work -- possibly YEARS of it -- go to someone else's benefit and not your own but, really... what have they stolen, by your argument, and how does that differ from not paying a musician for his music or a plumber for her labor?

What I'm spending $20 at FYE isn't just music....I'm buying the CD case, the liner notes, the artwork. I'm buying a perfect copy of the music, something I can't guarantee with a download.
(...)
Not so with a download. I'm getting something for free, nothing I can hold and nothing I can return.

What I'm downloading is not the product that's being sold in stores anywhere, so how can it be stealing?
(...)

The point that you seem to be ignoring here is that that download is an intangible object UNTIL it resides on your hard drive, music player, CD, etc. At THAT point it becomes a physical manifestation of someone else's time and expertise. It may only ever be manifested as magnetic bits, but it exists and it is in your possession. Ignoring the middlemen -- disk pressers, packers, delivery drivers, stockers, and all of the people who make moving physical product work, and whose labor you have bypassed and so don't need to pay -- you now have in your possession a physical manifestation of another human being's time and energy (which is, in the end, the ONLY thing we have available to us with which to earn our daily gruel) for which that person has not been paid. That person has provided labor, the result of which you possess to your benefit, for which s/he has received no benefit.

Which brings us to:

(...)
The thing is, though, if I don't have ANY intention of bying the music I download who does that affect?

If I have no intention of buying a Britney Spears album she's never going to sell me a copy of her CD. I'm never going to go to a store to buy a copy of her music regardless so she hasn't lost as customer as I was never going to be her customer either way.

And when I save that downloaded song to my hard drive what am I saving?
(...)

Again, what you appear to be ignoring is that you have acquired something of value, without paying the creator of that value.

You have argued that, because you are not stealing a physical object, you are not taking something of value. However, by downloading and keeping a copy of a readily-available album, you have admitted that THAT ALBUM HAS VALUE TO YOU. If it was completely valueless to you, you wouldn't have downloaded it! Do you pick up garbage in the street and take it home to keep, just because it's free? I will presume that you do not -- because it has no value to you. By the same token, you choose to download some things and not others because some things have value to you and some do not.

So, we can see that the movie/music that you have downloaded has value to its creator(s), since it represents time and energy expended (the ultimate universal resource by which we all live, as noted above), AND has value to you, since you chose to acquire it for your use.

Now, you may feel that you shouldn't have to pay the distribution costs and the corporate profits that come out of the retail price of a packaged disk, since you have bypassed those aspects of acquiring the item that you wanted, but not dropping a couple of bucks into an envelope and sending it off to the person whose work you ARE utilizing to your benefit is...well, if it's not theft, then it's -- at very least -- damned tacky.

Corrina

05-18-2009, 06:47 PM

I think that's exactly the way to go. Creative Commons everything. Put the work up somewhere where people can pay money to support the artists. And people will, at least in sufficient numbers to keep an artist with a big enough fan base in business; and at sufficiently little cost that smaller artists can still take their work to market.

Which is more than Diamond offers.

But that's Cory Doctorow's choice. His work, he can do whatever he wants with it. He wants to make it free, great. More power to him.

*Though I would point out that he wouldn't have a book contract if he hadn't started out in the traditional manner.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 07:00 PM

disk pressers, packers, delivery drivers, stockers, and all of the people who make moving physical product work, and whose labor you have bypassed and so don't need to pay

And if I eat at home, a waitress goes hungry! :biggrin:

Again, what you appear to be ignoring is that you have acquired something of value, without paying the creator of that value.

And this is the point I want to stress again.

You haven't acquired a thing, and it isn't of any value.

It's really important to understand this if we're going to make sense of a digital economy, and anyone who doesn't get this is going to go out of business.

It's also deeply unclear to me that downloading work costs anyone any money at all.

It doesn't seem to me that people would be prepared to pay for the things that they download if they aren't already paying to download them -- that is, assuming they're even available to download. And, as I say, the research says that people who download stuff tend to buy a lot of stuff too.

So, we can see that the movie/music that you have downloaded has value to its creator(s), since it represents time and energy expended

That's one heckuvan assumption. Are we honestly saying that every creative work has value to its creator other than as a paycheck? Because I'm telling you that racks and racks of dross say otherwise.

What clearly is of value to the artist is the stipend that allows them to not do anything else; well, that and buckets of cash for whores and whisky etc. (or am I just projecting?).

Now, you may feel that you shouldn't have to pay the distribution costs and the corporate profits that come out of the retail price of a packaged disk, since you have bypassed those aspects of acquiring the item that you wanted, but not dropping a couple of bucks into an envelope and sending it off to the person whose work you ARE utilizing to your benefit is...well, if it's not theft, then it's -- at very least -- damned tacky.

Finding a better way to compensate creators is a good idea.

Rewarding the current unjust and rather rubbish system will only get in the way of that.

The way I look at it, music etc. that you find for free has been gifted to you. Which is nice, we all like presents -- especially when we're broke. But if you like the work, you're then obligated to get money to the creator when you've got it. Preferably by buying their creator-owned projects. :evilsmile:

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 07:02 PM

But that's Cory Doctorow's choice. His work, he can do whatever he wants with it. He wants to make it free, great. More power to him.

*Though I would point out that he wouldn't have a book contract if he hadn't started out in the traditional manner.

Except that his first book did well precisely because he gave it away at the same time as it was published for cash.

Well, that and because he was giving his writing away for free on Boing Boing.

Chris Hansbrough

05-18-2009, 07:13 PM

But that's Cory Doctorow's choice. His work, he can do whatever he wants with it. He wants to make it free, great. More power to him.

*Though I would point out that he wouldn't have a book contract if he hadn't started out in the traditional manner.

I respect any artist who does that. I've turned a lot of people on to bands I like that have free songs up on their interwebs. However the thing is this. THE BAND IS PUTTING THOSE UP. If I make a comic and I put the first issue online in the hopes that it attracts people to buy the main book then yes, you can look at it where I've put it online. I put it out there. Not some jackass with a scanner.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 07:25 PM

The point that I think most of the people are trying to make -- and which you seem to keep trying to dodge -- is that an item does not need to have physicality to have value.

I'm not dodging anything, I've stated several times throughout that 'I could be wrong but....' or 'imho....' and such.

I'm acknowledging their viewpoints, I just disagree.

Suppose that I call a plumber to fix a leaky toilet. I tell him that I bought all of the parts but I just don't have time to put it all together. He comes over and does the repair.

At the end of that, he presents his bill for services rendered and I refuse to pay because I already paid for the parts. Since I already had the physical stuff there's no need to pay.

Assuming that I didn't end up with a stilson wrench stuck up someplace extremely painful, I would shortly be in court for "theft of services"; I utilized his expertise for something I valued without paying for it.

In the case of downloading music/movies, etc., you are receiving the use of someone else's expertise -- often MANY other peoples' expertise -- without recompensing them for their labor.

What you've done is pay for something of value, his physical labor.

Something that millions of Americans are compensated for daily.

Now if he had set up a Youtube video going into great detail about how to fix toilets.....if he had set up this 'how to' video showing anyone with the prerequisite 'leaky toilet' and necessary parts to complete the job.....that would be a far better example.

He may have been paid by someone to create the video, he may have been compensated in some other way, but regardless, I have now benefitted from his knowledge, I'm able to fix my toilet without spending a nickel.

His words, his expertise has been condensed and sent out via the Inter-web to millions of homes who are in desperate need of toilet fixing.

Now, should I compensate him for the advice that he gave out on Youtube? He may not have gotten paid at all but just felt the urge to put up a video showing people how to do it.......so it doesn't cost me a cent.......but just because I'm getting the plumbing lesson for free does that take away from it's value at all?

To bring the example closer to home for you:

Astrophysics...? Let's assume for a moment that you're planning to go on to graduate study (if you're not there already): You're working on your Doctoral thesis and you believe that it's research that is likely to make your career. Before you present to your committee, however, someone xeroxes your notes and copies your computer files and publishes first.

They didn't walk away with your papers or hard drive so, according to the argument that you seem to be making, they didn't actually steal anything from you.

Again, not the argument I'm making but I'll go along with this as it's an interesting example.

The point, however, is that they have received value from your expertise and effort without compensating you for it.

Now, it's up to you whether you feel that you would have the right to be outraged at having your work -- possibly YEARS of it -- go to someone else's benefit and not your own but, really... what have they stolen, by your argument, and how does that differ from not paying a musician for his music or a plumber for her labor?

But the thing is, whatever research I'm doing, whatever work I've already completed, I have ONE 'set' of that. I have a handful of copies, some rough drafts, some lab work, etc. but I have, in essence the one 'copy' of my research.

When an artist makes an album and has it distributed to the point where I can find a few decent copies online that artist has already been compensated. He's already received recognition and he's already had the 'thesis' turned in as it were.

What we're concerned about here is that point in the process that I've ALREADY been published. When I've already received recognition and payment for my work.

The question is, who's getting 'robbed' when we download music (or published papers for instance :smile: ) is it the artist who's already been paid for his work, for the completed product, or is it the record label who has already put the album on the market?

The point that you seem to be ignoring here is that that download is an intangible object UNTIL it resides on your hard drive, music player, CD, etc. At THAT point it becomes a physical manifestation of someone else's time and expertise. It may only ever be manifested as magnetic bits, but it exists and it is in your possession. Ignoring the middlemen -- disk pressers, packers, delivery drivers, stockers, and all of the people who make moving physical product work, and whose labor you have bypassed and so don't need to pay -- you now have in your possession a physical manifestation of another human being's time and energy (which is, in the end, the ONLY thing we have available to us with which to earn our daily gruel) for which that person has not been paid. That person has provided labor, the result of which you possess to your benefit, for which s/he has received no benefit.

The difference here, and it's one that everyone is sort of glossing over, is that I'm not buying 'music'. when I buy a CD.

I'm buying a CD, a recording of music.

What I'm spending money on is a perfect copy of the music that I choose to listen to. I'm buying the Record Label's promise that all of the songs contained therein are quality copies and I'm buying the 'frills' that come with the package......the photos, the liner notes, etc.

I'm not buying the music. The music is what the artist(s) come up with on their own. If they're good enough LOTS of people want to hear what they can produce, so CD's are made.

What we buy is a copy of what they produce in the studio.

When we buy concert tickets we're not buying 'music', we're buying the chance to see them perform that music live.

Which brings us to:

Again, what you appear to be ignoring is that you have acquired something of value, without paying the creator of that value.

You have argued that, because you are not stealing a physical object, you are not taking something of value. However, by downloading and keeping a copy of a readily-available album, you have admitted that THAT ALBUM HAS VALUE TO YOU. If it was completely valueless to you, you wouldn't have downloaded it! Do you pick up garbage in the street and take it home to keep, just because it's free? I will presume that you do not -- because it has no value to you. By the same token, you choose to download some things and not others because some things have value to you and some do not.

The Blackest Night issue that came out on FCBD meant quite a bit to me. I'm looking forward to the big crossover this summer and that was the one 'must get' book on my list on FCBD.....if nothing else I HAD to pick up that book.

It meant a lot to me. Didn't cost me a cent.

So, we can see that the movie/music that you have downloaded has value to its creator(s), since it represents time and energy expended (the ultimate universal resource by which we all live, as noted above), AND has value to you, since you chose to acquire it for your use.

Now, you may feel that you shouldn't have to pay the distribution costs and the corporate profits that come out of the retail price of a packaged disk, since you have bypassed those aspects of acquiring the item that you wanted, but not dropping a couple of bucks into an envelope and sending it off to the person whose work you ARE utilizing to your benefit is...well, if it's not theft, then it's -- at very least -- damned tacky.

What item did I want again?

The CD? No, I didn't want the CD otherwise I would have spent $20 or more on it.

The music? Yes, that's what I want. The music that I download that isn't sold in any store, the music that doesn't have a price tag on it.

There's an important difference between 'the music' and 'the recording of the music' that you're not understanding.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 07:27 PM

I respect any artist who does that. I've turned a lot of people on to bands I like that have free songs up on their interwebs. However the thing is this. THE BAND IS PUTTING THOSE UP. If I make a comic and I put the first issue online in the hopes that it attracts people to buy the main book then yes, you can look at it where I've put it online. I put it out there. Not some jackass with a scanner.

To explain the creative commons thing a bit (and Cory was instrumental in it, I think), the whole point is that it's free for anyone to hand out so long as you're not making money out of it.

The theory is that it's good marketing that will sell the hard copy. Which seems to work for now.

Paul McEnery

05-18-2009, 07:30 PM

The question is, who's getting 'robbed' when we download music (or published papers for instance :smile: ) is it the artist who's already been paid for his work, for the completed product, or is it the record label who has already put the album on the market? .

That one doesn't fly. The artist hasn't already been paid for a CD -- they get advances against sales. The same is true of any creator-owned work. Your argument only applies to work-for-hire, and even then, the artists may get (and depend on) royalties.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 07:31 PM

To explain the creative commons thing a bit (and Cory was instrumental in it, I think), the whole point is that it's free for anyone to hand out so long as you're not making money out of it.

The theory is that it's good marketing that will sell the hard copy. Which seems to work for now.

Exactly.

Friend of mine gave me his copy of Vertigo 'fresh cuts' or some such.

It came out a few months back and reprinted the first issues of Air, DMZ, Jack of Fables, Loveless, etc, and most importantly Scalped.

Thanks to my 'pirating' of the $5 Vertigo release I now pick up the Scalped trades whenever they come out, something I would never have done unless that book was handed to me for free.

That one doesn't fly. The artist hasn't already been paid for a CD -- they get advances against sales. The same is true of any creator-owned work. Your argument only applies to work-for-hire, and even then, the artists may get (and depend on) royalties.

Well, I stand corrected. I would think that they would get paid before the record was released but I was mistaken.

Reverend Smooth

05-18-2009, 07:34 PM

If you want these people to be able to keep affording to make your entertainment, you should send them money, since you are benefiting from their labor.

Making music is work. So is making comics. It doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy or bought a book, they are the ones who invested time and energy (and forgo other paying work) into that material. If you want to consume it, you should be courteous enough to send them your dime, since that compensation is what allows them to continue to produce. You are not paying for the hardcopy, you are paying for their labor in producing the work (along with the costs, if you buy the hardcopy, of disseminating the work).

Otherwise, you're effectively telling those artists that you disrespect them and their work.

My view is, if you download a whole comic or a whole album and consume the whole thing, buy a hardcopy or a digital copy, or send money to the artist via donation. You don't need the whole work to preview it.

Tadhg

05-18-2009, 07:58 PM

Except that his first book did well precisely because he gave it away at the same time as it was published for cash.

Well, that and because he was giving his writing away for free on Boing Boing.

And that he's a good writer.

His book of collected essays, content (http://craphound.com/content/) is worth reading and while most of it is not directly related to the conversation "Piracy: Threat or Menace" the articles on copyright and the internet can only add to the level of discourse.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 07:59 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 08:11 PM

And put me in Chris and Corrina's camp.

Yes, offering free stuff CAN and probably DOES increase sales on certain other things BUT it HAS to be the creators decision.

If a creator doesn't want to do it then people shouldn't bypass their wants.

Let's say you were angry at someone and you made a rather vicious, satirical comic obviously featuring them. Later you and that person made peace but you forgot you kept the comic. Another friend finds it and reads it. He thinks it's funny as hell and says you should put it on the internet. You say no, you don't want to because you made it in a fit of anger and you're cool with the person now and you don't want to dredge up old crap. The friend steals the comic and posts it up on the web anyway.

That wouldn't be cool, would it? So why shouldn't creators make their own decisions about what goes up and what doesn't?

Everything is changing, albeit slowly, and I think in the next couple of years we'll have a different model anyway. But in the meantime, people deserve the right to control their stuff.

They should be able to control how copies of their work are distributed, but as you said in a few years there's going to be an entirely different model anyway.

At some point, owing DVD's, CD's, etc. will be a thing of the past as you'll be able to store thousands of movies and albums in a device that will fit in your pocket and you can plug into any tv anywhere.

Nobody is going to buy CD's, nobody is going to buy bulky DVD box-sets, all of it is going to be able to be downloaded.

Anyway, the thing is for an artist, what's 'hurting' them is also helping them at the same time.

While they might not be able to control just how their music is distrubuted their music could reach a far greater number of folks through file sharing and, as a result of that invaluable word of mouth, net them that many more sales.

CutterMike

05-18-2009, 08:21 PM

And if I eat at home, a waitress goes hungry! :biggrin:

And I really have no problem with that; if you're not taking advantage of a service (shipping, waitressing, etc.) you shouldn't pay for it.

But if you ARE using a service (reading/watching/listening to what someone else has produced) you should be willing to pay the creator for that service or choose not to use it..

And this is the point I want to stress again.

You haven't acquired a thing, and it isn't of any value.

It's really important to understand this if we're going to make sense of a digital economy, and anyone who doesn't get this is going to go out of business.

I'm sorry, Paul, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to explain this point, because I'm not seeing it.

If someone is in possession of something that they did not previously possess -- even if that something is a particular arrangement of 0s and 1s on a hard drive that was not there before -- I fail to see how they have not "acquired" it. I mean, the very POINT of downloading a file is to acquire the use of it for one's own purposes.

Clearly the item downloaded IS of value to the person doing the downloading, since s/he desires it and IS downloading it. Or do you really believe that the majority of people will download something that has no value to them, simply because they can?

It may not be the value that the distributors of the physical product believe it SHOULD have, but as long as someone produces it and someone else wants it, then -- by definition -- it has value and the only task remaining is finding a valuation that both parties are willing to accept.

It's also deeply unclear to me that downloading work costs anyone any money at all.

Well, as I said in my previous post, the creator has expended time and energy in performing the work ("work", here, meaning the task of creation, and not the result of that creation). Time is a limited commodity -- if you're really well paid for your work, you might be able to buy yourself a bit of extra time, but only a finite amount and no guarantees, even, of that. Energy has to be replaced one way or another. My personal feeling is that, if someone wants the benefit of my time and energy, they should be willing to admit that MY time and energy has value to THEM and enter into an arrangement that is fair to us both. If they aren't willing to even consider that the expenditure of my time and energy has value to them, then they shouldn't be trying to acquire the results of that expenditure.

Now, if I CHOOSE to freely give away the results of that expenditure, that is MY decision, but that is not a choice that I would like others to arrogate to themselves.

That's one heckuvan assumption. Are we honestly saying that every creative work has value to its creator other than as a paycheck? Because I'm telling you that racks and racks of dross say otherwise.

What clearly is of value to the artist is the stipend that allows them to not do anything else; well, that and buckets of cash for whores and whisky etc. (or am I just projecting?).

And, actually, we're in agreement, here. While I will accept that I, and many creatives that I know, have a bit of the shaman in us -- we can't NOT do whatever it is we do that defines us -- we also see what we do (if we're very lucky) as a way of avoiding having to do real work. The value that we take from our expenditure of time and energy may the satisfaction of creating something new, it may be ego-boo and it may be a paycheck at the end of the week. Personally, I have no problem with any of them.

Finding a better way to compensate creators is a good idea.

Rewarding the current unjust and rather rubbish system will only get in the way of that.

Agreed.

The way I look at it, music etc. that you find for free has been gifted to you. Which is nice, we all like presents -- especially when we're broke. But if you like the work, you're then obligated to get money to the creator when you've got it. Preferably by buying their creator-owned projects. :evilsmile:

The one stipulation that I would put on that "...music etc. that you find for free has been gifted to you," thing is that the gift HAS TO HAVE BEEN THE CREATOR'S CHOICE. If a creator wants to CC their work, or public-domain it, or anonymously toss it to the winds, it should be the CREATOR'S choice. Anyone else making that decision for that creator has, IMO, simply stepped into the same position as the corporate gatekeeper, deciding what will be done with someone else's effort.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 08:49 PM

Clearly the item downloaded IS of value to the person doing the downloading, since s/he desires it and IS downloading it. Or do you really believe that the majority of people will download something that has no value to them, simply because they can?

It may not be the value that the distributors of the physical product believe it SHOULD have, but as long as someone produces it and someone else wants it, then -- by definition -- it has value and the only task remaining is finding a valuation that both parties are willing to accept.

The thing is, every song I recorded from the radio to a tape on my tape player when I was in Jr. High.....I valued ALL of those songs yet I wasn't allowed to purchase them.

The only way I could hear Metallica was from tapes we 'pirated' from our local radio stations. That or my friends would make copies of the albums that they COULD buy, letting me at least have the copied, second hand version of the music that their parents allowed them to purchase.

I didn't pay one red cent for those copies yet I found great value in them. If I went up to James Hetfield or Dave Mustaine or anyone else and told them of this, told them about the music I 'stole' from them as a child and then asked them what they would consider fair compensation, do you think that they'll come up with a figure or do you think that they'll just let it go?

Corrina

05-18-2009, 09:02 PM

While they might not be able to control just how their music is distrubuted their music could reach a far greater number of folks through file sharing and, as a result of that invaluable word of mouth, net them that many more sales.

If everyone is getting the work free through file-sharing, then how does that increase sales, if that's the only distribution system?

In other words, at what point do I get paid?

P.S. I'm not being snide, I'm just asking in the new system, how do I make money by being creative? If not, I guess I'll be busy spending my time doing something else that might feed me and keep a roof over my head. In which case, no creative work, nothing for anyone to download.

Paul, if I recall, your position is that I really shouldn't get paid, there's no such thing as intellectual property. Is that correct? My memory could be faulty, there.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 09:07 PM

One thing that I think is important is that record sales aren't just about money for the artist. Record sales can have an impact on the artist getting future work. If an album sells poorly, they could dropped from their label, or have less focus from their label invested in them. A band doesn't want to be branded as a failure.

So I think it's important to purchase the products that you think are good, because the artist deserves the recognition for having created something good.

Karen El

05-18-2009, 09:09 PM

Crowforge

05-18-2009, 09:19 PM

piracy is bad but the measures meant to stop piracy don't work and only get in the way of people that pay for stuff.
As for the riaa, screw those guys.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 09:20 PM

If everyone is getting the work free through file-sharing, then how does that increase sales, if that's the only distribution system?

In other words, at what point do I get paid?

P.S. I'm not being snide, I'm just asking in the new system, how do I make money by being creative? If not, I guess I'll be busy spending my time doing something else that might feed me and keep a roof over my head. In which case, no creative work, nothing for anyone to download.

In the future? No clue. I imagine that they'll come up with a system that truly deters illegal downloading, how they would go about it I have no idea.

One thing for sure though, whatever technology they create A) They'll find a way to charge us and B) Someone will find a way around it.

Musicians have been compensated for their craft since we stumbled our way out of the caves, musicians have earned a living plying their craft before the rise of the technological wonders at our disposal and they'll earn a living long after those wonders are rendered obsolete.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 09:24 PM

The thing is, every song I recorded from the radio to a tape on my tape player when I was in Jr. High.....I valued ALL of those songs yet I wasn't allowed to purchase them.

The only way I could hear Metallica was from tapes we 'pirated' from our local radio stations. That or my friends would make copies of the albums that they COULD buy, letting me at least have the copied, second hand version of the music that their parents allowed them to purchase.

I didn't pay one red cent for those copies yet I found great value in them. If I went up to James Hetfield or Dave Mustaine or anyone else and told them of this, told them about the music I 'stole' from them as a child and then asked them what they would consider fair compensation, do you think that they'll come up with a figure or do you think that they'll just let it go?
Someone still paid for the stuff to be played on the radio station. The station has a license to broadcast and makes arrangements with record companies to broadcast their material legally. In turn, the radio station sells advertising space. You get to hear the songs for free but you get commercials in between sets.

Any time you recoded something off the radio you had to be sitting there, listening, waiting for your song to come on (or else just get lucky) . If you were sitting, listening then you likely heard at least some advertisements. The advertisers got what THEY paid the radio station for -- which was your ears -- and the radio station got the ad money to allow them to keep playing songs on the air.

Even National Public Radio and PBS aren't "free". The stations run pledge drives because stations "buy" the shows and in turn the money paid goes toward paying all the people who make the shows. Even when something like NPR has a "sponsor" you will note that the announcers say "Sponsored by the Kellog Foundation" or something similar -- that's an ad. It's making people aware that the the Kellog foundation does nice things -- they support NPR, aren't they spiffy? Maybe you get inpressed enough to support their mission because they're spiffy enough to support NPR.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 09:25 PM

An interesting, if loaded question. How would you feel if they gave you a figure based on the current cost of the albums and waited for you to hand over the cash?

I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't and my wager would be the amount of money I'd bring 'just in case' they actually broke out that calculator, lol.

How would I feel about it?

I don't know. I've already lost a lot of respect for Metallica over their comments concerning online piracy.....but if they were to actually go to that extreme? If they were willing to come up with a figure that I somehow owed them for recording their songs from the radio?

I'd cheerfully pay them, tell them to go f**k themselves and then I'd drive home heartbroken that my childhood metal heroes had turned out to be such utter, complete d-bags.

I'd probably start listening to Hatebreed at that point and start buying clothes from Hot Topic, lol.

Karen El

05-18-2009, 09:29 PM

I'd be willing to bet that they wouldn't and my wager would be the amount of money I'd bring 'just in case' they actually broke out that calculator, lol.

How would I feel about it?

I don't know. I've already lost a lot of respect for Metallica over their comments concerning online piracy.....but if they were to actually go to that extreme? If they were willing to come up with a figure that I somehow owed them for recording their songs from the radio?

I'd cheerfully pay them, tell them to go f**k themselves and then I'd drive home heartbroken that my childhood metal heroes had turned out to be such utter, complete d-bags.

I'd probably start listening to Hatebreed at that point and start buying clothes from Hot Topic, lol.

So after informing them that you had stolen from them and would now like to pay for all the entertainment you'd received, you'd be heartbroken if they agreed with you? That hardly seems fair.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 09:34 PM

Someone still paid for the stuff to be played on the radio station. The station has a license to broadcast and makes arrangements with record companies to broadcast their material legally. In turn, the radio station sells advertising space. You get to hear the songs for free but you get commercials in between sets.

Any time you recoded something off the radio you had to be sitting there, listening, waiting for your song to come on (or else just get lucky) . If you were sitting, listening then you likely heard at least some advertisements. The advertisers got what THEY paid the radio station for -- which was your ears -- and the radio station got the ad money to allow them to keep playing songs on the air.

Even National Public Radio and PBS aren't "free". The stations run pledge drives because stations "buy" the shows and in turn the money paid goes toward paying all the people who make the shows. Even when something like NPR has a "sponsor" you will note that the announcers say "Sponsored by the Kellog Foundation" or something similar -- that's an ad. It's making people aware that the the Kellog foundation does nice things -- they support NPR, aren't they spiffy? Maybe you get inpressed enough to support their mission because they're spiffy enough to support NPR.

Yet every cassette I made lacked those spiffy commercials. For instance, when you sit down to listen to the radio you're getting the opportunity to listen to 'free' music......the way that you get to listen to 'free' music is by sitting through those ads.

Now what I did was remove that nagging little requirement. Sure, I may have listened to the ads once or twice as I waited for a good song to come on, but once my cassette was filled witih good songs I was done.

I could now listen to a few hours of music, commercial free, whenever I wanted to.

I beat the system. I was able to listen to the most popular songs of the day on my time without those annoying ads.

So the music has been paid for but I don't listen to the ads which circumvents their intentions.

They play the top hits to make sure that I stick around to learn about Dog food or travel agencies or SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY.....TRUCK-A-SAUR-US!!!!!

If I record the nation's top twenty I get to skip all of that.

Further, I can make a copy and give to my friend. He makes a copy, gives it to HIS friend and the cycle continues until everybody had most of the music that was being put out in that time frame.

We had a real racket going on, lol, but it was 1987 and there wasn't that much good stuff on the air anyway.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 09:38 PM

So after informing them that you had stolen from them and would now like to pay for all the entertainment you'd received, you'd be heartbroken if they agreed with you? That hardly seems fair.

No, you're probably right. I think telling them to 'f themselves' is a bit harsh.....but I would still feel let down.

And I would probably ask them why they thought a 6th grader who was recording songs off the radio was engaged in 'stealing'.

But that's neither here nor there, it was a hypothetical question and I really doubt that they'd demand payment for my 'stealing' their songs from the radio.

Hell, they'd probably be touched by the loyalty I'd exhibited to them by listening to their music against my parent's wishes.

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 09:42 PM

Yet every cassette I made lacked those spiffy commercials. For instance, when you sit down to listen to the radio you're getting the opportunity to listen to 'free' music......the way that you get to listen to 'free' music is by sitting through those ads.

Now what I did was remove that nagging little requirement. Sure, I may have listened to the ads once or twice as I waited for a good song to come on, but once my cassette was filled witih good songs I was done.

I could now listen to a few hours of music, commercial free, whenever I wanted to.

I beat the system. I was able to listen to the most popular songs of the day on my time without those annoying ads.

So the music has been paid for but I don't listen to the ads which circumvents their intentions.

They play the top hits to make sure that I stick around to learn about Dog food or travel agencies or SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY.....TRUCK-A-SAUR-US!!!!!

If I record the nation's top twenty I get to skip all of that.

Further, I can make a copy and give to my friend. He makes a copy, gives it to HIS friend and the cycle continues until everybody had most of the music that was being put out in that time frame.

We had a real racket going on, lol, but it was 1987 and there wasn't that much good stuff on the air anyway.
But you DIDN'T beat the system -- because you still heard the ads at least once. And then, once you wanted to make a NEW tape with all the NEW songs that had been released since you made your OLD tape you had to listen to a new round of commercials.

Right now I'm a big fan of Hulu -- it's ad supported internet TV. I have to sit through some commercials (or, more pointedly, I mute them and they usually have a handly little counter which tells me when my show is going to resume) but I understand what is behind this. I don't delude myself that I'm somehow "beating the system". They are FEWER commercials than on broadcast and even some cable channels but there are still commercials and I am still being marketed to. I'm willing to make that TRADE though. I LET them market to me to get the shows I want when I want them. In return the company's ad revenues keep Hulu running so I CAN watch the shows I want to watch when I want to watch them.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 09:51 PM

But you DIDN'T beat the system -- because you still heard the ads at least once. And then, once you wanted to make a NEW tape with all the NEW songs that had been released since you made your OLD tape you had to listen to a new round of commercials.

The thing is though, the way radio works in order to hear the music, for free, one has to listen to those ad sets to get to the good stuff. During a top twenty countdown you'll have dozens of ads strewn throughout......and once the song was over that was it, you would have to wait until it was played again in rotation.

And of course, while you wait you'll have more ads to sift through.

Now I suffered through one, maybe two sets of ads but then it was done. I didn't have to listen to the advertisements to listen to the top twenty, I had them all recorded already.

Right now I'm a big fan of Hulu -- it's ad supported internet TV. I have to sit through some commercials (or, more pointedly, I mute them and they usually have a handly little counter which tells me when my show is going to resume) but I understand what is behind this. I don't delude myself that I'm somehow "beating the system". They are FEWER commercials than on broadcast and even some cable channels but there are still commercials and I am still being marketed to. I'm willing to make that TRADE though. I LET them market to me to get the shows I want when I want them. In return the company's ad revenues keep Hulu running so I CAN watch the shows I want to watch when I want to watch them.

And that's where I go to watch the current season of the office. For older seasons? I go elsewhere.

Interesting note, the creators of the Office? The writers? They were on strike a while back because NBC wasn't compensating them for their work fairly.

When you visit NBC.com you can watch full episodes of the Office online. The creators of the show weren't being paid for those 'views' of the program because NBC decided that when fans were watching the episode online at NBC.com they weren't REALLY watching the episode, what they were doing was watching a 20+ minute advertisement for the show......and as a result they didn't deserve to be compensated.

There's a connection between artist and audience that has been frayed and distorted by the networks and the studios. If anyone is hurting the artist the blame falls squarely on their shoulders, not the consumer.

Village Idiot

05-18-2009, 09:58 PM

This has gotten to 100+ posts already, and it's the same old tired arguments I've seen 2 or 3 times year for the last decade.

"Well, what about if I did this?"
"Well, what about if my friend did this, then gave it to me?"
"Well, what do I care if a corporation goes out of business?"

Same old faux arguments, followed by the same logical counter-arguments, followed by someone saying, "Well, I don't care. I going to continue to do it anyway."

It's theft. If you do it, you have stolen. That makes you a thief.

I claim no high ground here. I, too, have copied songs from the radio, but I was a kid then with a lesser moral compass. I am an adult now.

Crowforge

05-18-2009, 10:00 PM

so go away then

MacQuarrie

05-18-2009, 10:01 PM

Theft.

Because you're missing the point. You're focusing on the retail store.

Yes, the stores sell the stuff and make revenue but the creators get paid based on units sold.
Let's be honest. The artists get a couple of pennies off each sale. Downloading hurts the record labels. The anti-piracy campaign is purely a corporate thing; it's Disney and Warner who are yelling, not the musicians.

Let's take the case of these discs full of comics. How much money from the legitimate sale of those discs will actually go to any of the people who wrote or drew those 40+ years worth of comics? Answer: not one penny. It's all work-for-hire and only Marvel Inc will profit from it. One might even argue that Piracy in this case is stealing stolen goods.

If I had the opportunity to copy those discs, I'd rather send a check to Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby's family, and the other talents who got screwed by Marvel.

Crowforge

05-18-2009, 10:06 PM

If you want to support artists go to live shows.

Karen El

05-18-2009, 10:09 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 10:14 PM

Stressfactor

05-18-2009, 10:23 PM

Let's be honest. The artists get a couple of pennies off each sale. Downloading hurts the record labels. The anti-piracy campaign is purely a corporate thing; it's Disney and Warner who are yelling, not the musicians.

Let's take the case of these discs full of comics. How much money from the legitimate sale of those discs will actually go to any of the people who wrote or drew those 40+ years worth of comics? Answer: not one penny. It's all work-for-hire and only Marvel Inc will profit from it. One might even argue that Piracy in this case is stealing stolen goods.

If I had the opportunity to copy those discs, I'd rather send a check to Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby's family, and the other talents who got screwed by Marvel.While this is no doubt true the problem is that people aren't paying anybody anything and then the creators aren't even getting those pennies on the dollar.

If people WOULD send a check to Ditko or the Siegel and Schuster families it would be great -- but the problem is that people aren't even doing that. They're downloading for free and they're not paying anyone for it and then they're thumbing their nose by BRAGGING about downloading the stuff and getting it for free. And not a single one of them EVER mentions the creators.

There is a future path and, of all people, Joss Whedon showed it with the creation and insane popularity of "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog" -- Done on a shoestring budget, NO studio involvement, direct control by the creators, direct line between creators, product and viewers, creator control the whole way.

The problem is making it work on a long-term practical basis. TV and comic book writer John Rogers had an interesting blog post about the whole thing a while back http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/05/4gm-plausible-premise-and-itunes.html Interesting because he's a TV writer but he's also a tech-head and into the next big wave of the future.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 10:49 PM

CutterMike

05-18-2009, 10:56 PM

(...)
What you've done is pay for something of value, his physical labor.

Something that millions of Americans are compensated for daily.

And when you buy music or a movie, you are paying the performers, writers, etc., (among others) for THEIR labor.

When you do NOT pay for your music, movies, etc., you are NOT paying them for their labor.

Granted, you are also not paying all of those production, transport, salespeople, etc. that I mentioned in my post, whose labor you are NOT using, which is fair, but you are -- pure and simple -- not paying the creatives for their labor, which you ARE using.

Now if he had set up a Youtube video going into great detail about how to fix toilets.....if he had set up this 'how to' video showing anyone with the prerequisite 'leaky toilet' and necessary parts to complete the job.....that would be a far better example.

He may have been paid by someone to create the video, he may have been compensated in some other way, but regardless, I have now benefitted from his knowledge, I'm able to fix my toilet without spending a nickel.

His words, his expertise has been condensed and sent out via the Inter-web to millions of homes who are in desperate need of toilet fixing.

Now, should I compensate him for the advice that he gave out on Youtube? He may not have gotten paid at all but just felt the urge to put up a video showing people how to do it.......so it doesn't cost me a cent.......but just because I'm getting the plumbing lesson for free does that take away from it's value at all?

It does IF IT WAS NOT HIS CHOICE TO PUT IT UP!

When someone sells CDs of their music, they generally do it because: A - they want to get paid for their work, and; B - They think that the result of their work is worth someone paying for if they want it. If they believe that the work and the music is its own reward, or if they believe that giving (some or all of) it away will draw people to buy their other stuff, that's fine; that is their choice.

But NO ONE else has the right to make that choice for them! If the plumber chose to make a video and show people how to fix toilets and give it away, that is his right. If the gave a copy of that video to someone, who then put it online without his permission, that is NOT that poster's right.

When an artist makes an album and has it distributed to the point where I can find a few decent copies online that artist has already been compensated. He's already received recognition and he's already had the 'thesis' turned in as it were.

What we're concerned about here is that point in the process that I've ALREADY been published. When I've already received recognition and payment for my work.

Okay; so it's fifteen years form now, you're teaching at Harvard and doing research at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. You're THE guy that the TV goes to when they're doing a space-science show.

You decide to videotape your lectures and sell them through Harvard, the Smithsonian, and the Learning channel.

After they've been available for a couple of weeks (I'm being generous, here), copies show up on the Torrents.

Is your reaction:
A - Well, Harvard's already paid me for delivering the lectures in the first place, so who needs the money from selling the recordings?;

B - Well, it's not like the lectures themselves are the important part, but I feel terrible that they're missing out on the liner notes, or;

C - Well, there goes my fucking retirement!
The question is, who's getting 'robbed' when we download music (or published papers for instance :smile: ) is it the artist who's already been paid for his work, for the completed product, or is it the record label who has already put the album on the market?

So, are you claiming that there is a limit at which point someone has been paid "enough" for their work, and shouldn't get any more? Who decides when someone has been paid "enough" and what gives them the right?

As to "the artist has already been paid," part; I know that it's already been mentioned that artists generally get an advance against sales, but if that misunderstanding is any indication, it may simply come down to your having a somewhat naive idea of how musicians, writers, actors, etc., make their money. Frequently, they take a smaller (or sometimes non-existent) up-front payment in exchange for a higher percentage later of the money taken in.

No sales, no later money. And, frequently, that money coming in later is what they're living on between gigs.

The difference here, and it's one that everyone is sort of glossing over, is that I'm not buying 'music'. when I buy a CD.

I'm buying a CD, a recording of music.

What I'm spending money on is a perfect copy of the music that I choose to listen to. I'm buying the Record Label's promise that all of the songs contained therein are quality copies and I'm buying the 'frills' that come with the package......the photos, the liner notes, etc.

I'm not buying the music. The music is what the artist(s) come up with on their own. If they're good enough LOTS of people want to hear what they can produce, so CD's are made.

So, when you download a CD, what you're telling the musician is, "Your music isn't actually worth paying for; I'm only willing toy pay for the stuff that the record company adds on."

Nice.

Here's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned: if you feel that an artist's work is worth your listening to it, PAY THE ARTIST. If you don't feel that the artist's work is worth paying for, DON'T LISTEN TO IT.

There's an important difference between 'the music' and 'the recording of the music' that you're not understanding.

No, I understand the difference perfectly, the point that YOU appear to be either missing or ignoring is that when you download music without paying the artist, you are using the artist's labor without paying him for it. And saying, "enough other people have paid him that I shouldn't have to," seems insulting and arrogant.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:32 PM

It does IF IT WAS NOT HIS CHOICE TO PUT IT UP!

When someone sells CDs of their music, they generally do it because: A - they want to get paid for their work, and; B - They think that the result of their work is worth someone paying for if they want it. If they believe that the work and the music is its own reward, or if they believe that giving (some or all of) it away will draw people to buy their other stuff, that's fine; that is their choice.

But NO ONE else has the right to make that choice for them! If the plumber chose to make a video and show people how to fix toilets and give it away, that is his right. If the gave a copy of that video to someone, who then put it online without his permission, that is NOT that poster's right.

But as a viewer of Youtube, as a consumer who is looking for that information how can I tell?

Secondly, if it was put up their against his will and I do view it, what do I owe him, if anything?

Okay; so it's fifteen years form now, you're teaching at Harvard and doing research at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. You're THE guy that the TV goes to when they're doing a space-science show.

You decide to videotape your lectures and sell them through Harvard, the Smithsonian, and the Learning channel.

After they've been available for a couple of weeks (I'm being generous, here), copies show up on the Torrents.

Is your reaction:
A - Well, Harvard's already paid me for delivering the lectures in the first place, so who needs the money from selling the recordings?;

B - Well, it's not like the lectures themselves are the important part, but I feel terrible that they're missing out on the liner notes, or;

C - Well, there goes my fucking retirement!

D- I'm thrilled that my work is being seen by that many more people.

This is my personal preference but I really wouldn't give a fuck. Not a whit.

My life is going to revolve around astrophysics. I have a love for the subject and I am thrilled that I'm lucky enough to be a part of that community once I graduate.

So let's look at this from two perspectives:

1) Astrophysics lectures would never sell. Whoever convinced me that they would sell was lying to me.

2) I create the DVD series. They're on the market, I'm making money from folks going out and buying them, all's good.

So now I turn on Youtube and, voila, there I am. My dvd's online for free.

I wouldn't care. Because this tells me two things:

1) The dvd's have value, value enough for folks to download and bandy about like some sort of Chocolate Rain as read by Richard Feynman

As a future scientist and, hopefully, future teacher, the very fact that my dvds about astrophysics, the subject that I'm passionate about, the subject that I'm building my life around, the fact that my little dvd's have value enough to download? I'd be estatic about that.

2) Things that have value are, ultimately, things that are purchased. People could find every CD and every movie they could ever hope to buy online for free pretty much. Do enough searching, trading, etc, there's not much out there that one couldn't find ready to burn online from some site.

Yet here we are still. FYE's are still at the mall running smoothly, comic shops are still open throughout the land selling books briskly.....the value is still there and folks will spend money on things of value.

So a handful of folks download my lectures for free? Awesome. It's a win/win really.

So, are you claiming that there is a limit at which point someone has been paid "enough" for their work, and shouldn't get any more? Who decides when someone has been paid "enough" and what gives them the right?

As to "the artist has already been paid," part; I know that it's already been mentioned that artists generally get an advance against sales, but if that misunderstanding is any indication, it may simply come down to your having a somewhat naive idea of how musicians, writers, actors, etc., make their money. Frequently, they take a smaller (or sometimes non-existent) up-front payment in exchange for a higher percentage later of the money taken in.

No sales, no later money. And, frequently, that money coming in later is what they're living on between gigs.

So who's to blame for that? The handful of folks who download the artist's songs or the studio who bleeds him dry in exchange for distributing his work?

So, when you download a CD, what you're telling the musician is, "Your music isn't actually worth paying for; I'm only willing toy pay for the stuff that the record company adds on."

Nice.

What 'music' am I paying for?

What I'm actually paying for is a recording of the artist performing the music.

There's not a single customer in the HISTORY of the recording industry who's ever bought 'music'.

You and I and millions of consumers across the globe purchase recordings of the artist's music.

Here's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned: if you feel that an artist's work is worth your listening to it, PAY THE ARTIST. If you don't feel that the artist's work is worth paying for, DON'T LISTEN TO IT.

How?

Consider those delightful Jonas Brothers......I happened to hear one of their songs when I visited my sister over spring break.

I was in her car when she picked me up from the airport and as we drove off she turned on her stereo.

'Oh crap' I said....'You're listenign to the Jonas Brothers? Really?'

'Yeah', she replied, 'those guys are awesome.....'

I rolled my eyes of course as those kids are....theyr'e just bad....but I listened anyway.

I had to. I had to listen to music that I didn't enjoy for a half hour.

Who should I write the check out to? I was forced to listen to the product, the fruit of the Jonas Brothers' labor......since I sat and listened what do I owe them?

No, I understand the difference perfectly, the point that YOU appear to be either missing or ignoring is that when you download music without paying the artist, you are using the artist's labor without paying him for it. And saying, "enough other people have paid him that I shouldn't have to," seems insulting and arrogant.

Well, looking from your earlier paragraph you still don't seem to grasp the difference between music, something you can't buy, and 'recording of music' which you can buy.

And when you get right down to it, only ONE entity suffers from downloading music and it isn't the artist, it's the record labels.

Thadeus Thunderwinkle

05-18-2009, 11:46 PM

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 11:48 PM

And when you get right down to it, only ONE entity suffers from downloading music and it isn't the artist, it's the record labels.

Bullshit.

As I already pointed out, even if the artist doesn't get a direct payment from each copy purchased, the sales WILL make a dfference on thir future earning power. If no one bought Secret Six and everyone just downloaded it, Secret Six would get cancelled and it would hurt Gail's ability to get a high-profile gig in the future.

Sales can greatly impact an artist's future beyond "what am I getting paid right NOW"...a band that doesn't sell records is a band that gets dropped from the label, is a band that doesn't make as much money.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 11:51 PM

One gray area that interests me is video game music. A handful of titles include a soundtrack with the game (most happen to be PS2, so a game and a soundtrack at $30-$50 is an amazing bargain). However, when you get into next-gen consoles like the 360 or PS3, no game to my knowledge offers an additional soundtrack. It irks me that I am expected to pay up to $60 for a video game, but if I want the soundtrack, I am forced to fork over an additional $20+ (more if it is imported). I support rights on every other medium, but clearly some of my $60 had to have gone to the composers of the game, thus putting into perspective if using torrents for game music is right or wrong. I could see a moral issue of sorts if the game isn't purchased and the player decides to download the OST without the intent of buying said item, but when you buy the game, aren't you entitled to it should you want the music?

Well, you're not really buying the game to listen to the music. You're buying it for the experience the game offers. The music, as it is arranged and used in the context of the game, is part of that experience.

It's really no different from movie soundtracks. If a movie uses a Foo Fighters song, buying the movie doesn't mean you bought the Foo Fighters song.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:51 PM

One gray area that interests me is video game music. A handful of titles include a soundtrack with the game (most happen to be PS2, so a game and a soundtrack at $30-$50 is an amazing bargain). However, when you get into next-gen consoles like the 360 or PS3, no game to my knowledge offers an additional soundtrack. It irks me that I am expected to pay up to $60 for a video game, but if I want the soundtrack, I am forced to fork over an additional $20+ (more if it is imported). I support rights on every other medium, but clearly some of my $60 had to have gone to the composers of the game, thus putting into perspective if using torrents for game music is right or wrong. I could see a moral issue of sorts if the game isn't purchased and the player decides to download the OST without the intent of buying said item, but when you buy the game, aren't you entitled to it should you want the music?

Good point. You've purchased the game and listen to the soundtrack throughout, why shouldn't you be able to get a copy of the music?

Another thing to consider, how many current gen games carry ads?

Saw an interesting piece by Morgan Webb on G4 once where she had a mini-rant against the number of product placement we see in games currently.

Product placements exist to offset costs.......yet a copy of one of the more recent Fight Night games which shows numerous ads for Burger King (and even offers, I believe, the King himself as a manager for your fighter) was still priced in the 50-60 dollar range.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-18-2009, 11:55 PM

Game budgets are getting bigger and bigger. The ads are to offset developer costs, not consumer costs.

Rev. Calibos

05-18-2009, 11:57 PM

Bullshit.

As I already pointed out, even if the artist doesn't get a direct payment from each copy purchased, the sales WILL make a dfference on thir future earning power. If no one bought Secret Six and everyone just downloaded it, Secret Six would get cancelled and it would hurt Gail's ability to get a high-profile gig in the future.

Sales can greatly impact an artist's future beyond "what am I getting paid right NOW"...a band that doesn't sell records is a band that gets dropped from the label, is a band that doesn't make as much money.

Yet we can't conclusively show that the 'illegal' downloading of Metallica songs has affected them one way or the other.

Thanks to my one download of one Dimmu Borgir song I found that I enjoyed it enough to warrant purchasing all of their albums.

So from one song 'lost' they sold a copy of each of their releases.

So from my earlier example of Metallica, can we show conclusively how much money Metallica themselves have lost due to folks downloading their music?

And while we're at it, can we then also show how many more albums Metallica has sold thanks to downloading?

Folks like me that found a song someone else shared with them, found that they liked it and then turned around and bought their albums?

Astonishing X-Fan

05-19-2009, 12:06 AM

I'm not talking about people who hear a song then buy the album. I'm talking about people who hear a song and then download the album.

If you want an album, you should buy it.

If you download an album, you ARE hurting the artist. If it's a superstar act like Metallica, you may hurt them very little...so little that they don't even feel it...but you're hurting them the same. The less popular the artist, the more it hurts. Not only do they not make whatever they would have made from the sale, the slaes numbers are brought down. If you can not see how this hurts the artist, you're hopeless.

Just because your download isn't ruining their careers, doesn't mean you are not negatively impacting their income. Even if it's only a tiny fraction of their income, it's still their income you're screwing with.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 12:13 AM

Astonishing X-Fan

05-19-2009, 12:16 AM

Yet as a result of my dowload of that Dimmu Borgir song I've gone out and bought all 9 of their albums, purchases I never would have made without first hearing that one song I downloaded.

Did selling 9 copies of their albums hurt Dimmu Borgir or help Dimmu Borgir?

No, because you BOUGHT THE ALBUMS.

If you had DOWNLOADED THE ALBUMS, you would be hurting them.

Please read all of my post if you're going to respond to it.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 12:21 AM

No, because you BOUGHT THE ALBUMS.

If you had DOWNLOADED THE ALBUMS, you would be hurting them.

Please read all of my post if you're going to respond to it.

Lol, I did!

What I'm saying is that without my initial download of their music, music I didn't pay for, I would never have bought any of their albums.

So did my downloading their music hurt them or help them?

Astonishing X-Fan

05-19-2009, 12:24 AM

Morally, I don't really think sampling a song or two off the net is a big deal.

It's still illegal, though. unless the artist actually offers it.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 12:32 AM

Morally, I don't really think sampling a song or two off the net is a big deal.

It's still illegal, though. unless the artist actually offers it.

And that's the thing, I'm not saying that I'm right for doing it or it's morally ambiguous or anything, I could be completely wrong.

If 'stealing' one of their songs leads me to spend almost $200 on their music are they A)Happy I downloaded their song or B) Pissed that I downloaded their song?

I'll guess A, :smile:

And that's the thing, if we want to consider the folks that download and don't buy the albums as thieves that hurt the artist then we should look at the folks who are only buying the album because of what they've already downloaded as a benefit to the artist.

It hurts them but in a number of ways it can also help them.

Reverend Smooth

05-19-2009, 01:08 AM

Only if you buy it after you download it. If you don't, you're not doing them a favor.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 01:17 AM

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 01:21 AM

As I already pointed out, even if the artist doesn't get a direct payment from each copy purchased, the sales WILL make a dfference on thir future earning power.

No it won't. Not one bit. And Steranko tells you not to do it. That's good enough for me.

As for Gail's stuff? Well hell, of course I want her paid for her work.

I'm also savvy enough to see that DC and Marvel are digging themselves holes in the ground. And I see no reason to continue to put any more money into their corporate pockets than I have to.

The only way they'll change their policy -- if they ever do -- is if they're forced to. And that'll only happen the same ways it has happened to the industry before. When indie creators build a new model and draw business away from them.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 01:26 AM

Only if you buy it after you download it. If you don't, you're not doing them a favor.

Sure.

But I'm not going to buy everything I listen to. When I find someone I like, I go on a tear and buy their stuff like crazy. And there's my entertainment budget blown.

At which point, there's no more money for me to give to Billy Ray Cyrus for the songs of his that, well, let's be honest, I wouldn't download if you paid me, but still,the point stands.

I've spent the money I'm going to spend, on the artists I pick out of all the choices available to support. There's no more money for them to have.

At which point, it would make no difference either way.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 02:01 AM

And when you buy music or a movie, you are paying the performers, writers, etc., (among others) for THEIR labor.

When you do NOT pay for your music, movies, etc., you are NOT paying them for their labor.

Today, I looked at a mural on the wall, I looked at the art in the gallery, I listened to music on WFMU, I read stories on free online newspapers, and I didn't pay any of the creators a dime.

I think I whistled a tune by Dolly Parton, too.

It's absurd to think that the model ought to be pay-for play. All you're doing there is accepting a late capitalist model of art as property -- which is something I'm going to spit on every opportunity I get.

Again, what I want is a system that allows me to pay artists who please me to work, so that they can pay out their support staff.

The system we have pays the support staff, and doesn't much pay the artists at all. It's not very ethical to pay into that, if you ask me.

It does IF IT WAS NOT HIS CHOICE TO PUT IT UP!

You're still thinking of art as property, as a thing, as a commodity.

It isn't. It's a part of speech.

When someone sells CDs of their music, they generally do it because: A - they want to get paid for their work,

Wrong.

They want to make some money without working a day job, and that's one way to do it. Let's not romanticize this.

B - They think that the result of their work is worth someone paying for if they want it.

Nonsense.

They think they can get people to hand over money for it. Then they'll have some drinking money. Again, let's not romanticize this.

If they believe that the work and the music is its own reward,

If they're doing art, they do. If they don't, it's hack work for money, no different from any other hustler. And a hustler is only entitled to the money they can convince other people to fork over.

But NO ONE else has the right to make that choice for them!

Wrong.

Everyone has that right. In the age of digital reproduction, who owns a computer owns the means of production, distribution and exchange. This is a simple fact. It's not about the ethics, it's not about the law, it's about the fact.

It's no use trying to formulate an ethics around an outmoded notion of property that treats a tune as if it's the same thing as a hectare of fertile land. It simply isn't the same thing at all.

Whatever model(s) we devise in the age of digital reproduction to pay artists to do art, we have to be truthful about where we are.

If the plumber chose to make a video and show people how to fix toilets and give it away, that is his right. If the gave a copy of that video to someone, who then put it online without his permission, that is NOT that poster's right.

If you teach me how to fish, you have no right to tell me not to teach someone else how to fish.

Okay; so it's fifteen years form now, you're teaching at Harvard and doing research at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. You're THE guy that the TV goes to when they're doing a space-science show.

You decide to videotape your lectures and sell them through Harvard, the Smithsonian, and the Learning channel.

After they've been available for a couple of weeks (I'm being generous, here), copies show up on the Torrents.

Is your reaction:
A - Well, Harvard's already paid me for delivering the lectures in the first place, so who needs the money from selling the recordings?;

B - Well, it's not like the lectures themselves are the important part, but I feel terrible that they're missing out on the liner notes, or;

C - Well, there goes my fucking retirement!

Do you understand anything about science?

THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE!

People do the work, they get the recognition, then everyone builds off the same knowledge pool!

Which is, of course, exactly how art is done, too.

So, are you claiming that there is a limit at which point someone has been paid "enough" for their work, and shouldn't get any more? Who decides when someone has been paid "enough" and what gives them the right?

Exactly.

Is it the monopolistic record company? Is it Diamond telling you you have no right to distribution? Is it Marvel refusing to pay Steranko?

Or is it the market responding to the fact that, as far as information is concerned, we no longer work in a scarcity economy?

As to "the artist has already been paid," part; I know that it's already been mentioned that artists generally get an advance against sales, but if that misunderstanding is any indication, it may simply come down to your having a somewhat naive idea of how musicians, writers, actors, etc., make their money. Frequently, they take a smaller (or sometimes non-existent) up-front payment in exchange for a higher percentage later of the money taken in.

And now you're being naive.

Artists get ripped off by their record companies, and by their publishers. Musicians find out that stuff they thought they were being paid for came out of their own pocket -- little things like studio time -- while the record company takes all the profit.

Bands wind up in hock for the rest of their lives all the time. Funny, but the same isn't true of their labels.

Change the model.

So, when you download a CD, what you're telling the musician is, "Your music isn't actually worth paying for

No.

You're saying: I'm not willing to use the fruits of my labour to further support your labour.

And that's completely fair. Why on earth should you if you don't want to?

The point isn't to force people to do this -- let alone keep a vast parasitic infrastructure alive -- but to give people a reason to do so. Instead of thinking of this as buying stuff, as if it were furniture or lip gloss, think of it as an act of personal relationship.

I'm thinking the teenage girls get this. But they get ripped off. Let's stop ripping them off.

Here's the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned: if you feel that an artist's work is worth your listening to it, PAY THE ARTIST. If you don't feel that the artist's work is worth paying for, DON'T LISTEN TO IT.

And how do you find that out if you don't download it?

I know I don't want to give Janis Joplin's estate any money, because they play her on the radio all the time. But I don't know who else I'm going to want to support until I've listened to their work.

Your argument is as empty as Garth Brooks's argument that used record sales should be made illegal, because he doesn't make any money from them.

Last I looked, he's still making a hefty living. The used records didn't kill him. The downloading didn't kill him. If someone's listening to his music without paying for it, so what?

No, I understand the difference perfectly, the point that YOU appear to be either missing or ignoring is that when you download music without paying the artist, you are using the artist's labor without paying him for it.
So?

What's with all this moral browbeating? And what's it to you anyway? Culture should be free. I should be able to play Maybelline at a party without having to pay Chuck Berry royalties -- but not if we listen to the bastards from the record companies.

I read the book in the library. I borrow the book from my friend. I buy the book from the used bookstore. The writer makes no money. But for some reason, I'm not feeling all that guilty about it. In fact, I'd feel even better if I found the book on the sidewalk and read it for free.

Culture and art AREN'T PROPERTY. Unscrupulous bastards have parceled this stuff up like the great land enclosure of the 17th Century, but I've got no great reason to respect their actions.

We should listen to and read what we want to; and support the artists that we want to. And there needn't be a correlation between the two, any more than I should feel an ethical obligation to watch the advertising in the middle of a show -- hey look, I'm not paying to watch Friends in syndication!

You're in a cafe. The band is playing. The hat come round.

Whether you put money in the hat or not is up to you.

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 02:21 AM

But as a viewer of Youtube, as a consumer who is looking for that information how can I tell?

Don't act stupid -- If the poster's name is "Barber Floyd" and the Plumber's name is Bob -- bet on the poster NOT being Plumber Bob. If Barber Floyd posts stuff by Plumber Bob, Carpenter Steve, and Avril LaVigne, bet long money that Barber Floyd is NONE of those people!

2) I create the DVD series. They're on the market, I'm making money from folks going out and buying them, all's good.

No. One guy bought them and uploaded them for else.

And here's the thing -- in many of your responses to people's points, your response is "How do I KNOW" that the creator wasn't the one who posted it, "How do we know" that someone who downloaded it didn't go out and buy it later?"

The implication being that, if we can't prove conclusively that an artist loses money from illicit downloads of his output, then we have to assume that downloading is at least neutral., if not actively beneficial. Well, until you can prove, with absolute certainty, that downloaders don't hurt the artists whose work they download, your insistance on absolute certainty from anyone else seems a tad disingenuous.

So who's to blame for that? The handful of folks who download the artist's songs or the studio who bleeds him dry in exchange for distributing his work?

Don't you get it...? THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING WRONG FOR STEALING ANOTHER PERSON'S WORK!!!

It's not a case of "Well, he did it first...!" If it's wrong for the record label to screw over the creator for their own purposes, then it's wrong for a private individual to screw over the creator for his own purposes.

(And this will be the point where, historically, you would post "Well, how do we KNOW that he won't go out and buy the album, and everything else the artist ever did, and give his mother a new washing machine, and a puppy, and a horsie, and...?")

What 'music' am I paying for?

What I'm actually paying for is a recording of the artist performing the music.

There's not a single customer in the HISTORY of the recording industry who's ever bought 'music'.

You and I and millions of consumers across the globe purchase recordings of the artist's music.

Yes... forgive me for using verbal shorthand.

You are buying a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, or you are downloading and not paying for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In either case, you are in possession of a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In one case you have compensated the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and/or performer's labor, and in the other case, you have not.

Are you, in fact, claiming that not compensating the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, is just as fair to that composer and/or performer as paying the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor?

(That would have been SO much more concise if I could have said "is NOT paying the artist for his music as fair as paying him for it? But, based on your "nobody ever paid for 'music' " pettifogging, it gets a bit long.)

How? [/quote}
Send them a few bucks in the mail. Send a note "Hi -- I downloaded your album "****" online. Since I didn't use the record company's distribution, I didn't feel that I should pay for it, but I wanted to make sure the artists got paid, so here's $5. Signed, Anonymous"

[quote]Consider those delightful Jonas Brothers......I happened to hear one of their songs when I visited my sister over spring break.

I was in her car when she picked me up from the airport and as we drove off she turned on her stereo.

'Oh crap' I said....'You're listenign to the Jonas Brothers? Really?'

'Yeah', she replied, 'those guys are awesome.....'

I rolled my eyes of course as those kids are....theyr'e just bad....but I listened anyway.

I had to. I had to listen to music that I didn't enjoy for a half hour.

Who should I write the check out to? I was forced to listen to the product, the fruit of the Jonas Brothers' labor......since I sat and listened what do I owe them?

Just stop.

Either your sister bought the album, in which case they have been paid, or you were listening to JonasBros Radio, in which case the radio station paid them, or your sister had a bootleg copy of the album, in which they DIDN'T get paid for that particular iteration of their recorded work, and your sister should pay them.

So stop with the disingenuous straw man "Who am I supposed to pay if I listened to them" bullshit.

I'll make it real easy for you, since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept:

If you have a downloaded copy of a recording in your possession, and you have not paid the artist for THAT copy of the recording, and you have kept it; A - long enough to know that you like it, and; B - longer than you next trip to Stereo Jack's record shop or wherever you COULD buy a legitimate, fee-paid-to-the-artist copy, then you are stealing the artist's work.

Period.

Well, looking from your earlier paragraph you still don't seem to grasp the difference between music, something you can't buy, and 'recording of music' which you can buy.

If you are not downloading the recording for the music, then what ARE you downloading it for?

As noted above, referring to "the music" rather than "the recording of the music" is verbal shorthand and a way of pointing out that that which you are downloading without paying the creator is not the package, but the content.

Unless you are happy admiring the package (the shiny CD, the liner notes, et al), then the true goal of purchasing a CD is to own a copy of the content -- the audio input that we refer to as "music" which is encoded on the disk.

If you are downloading a copy of a CD, you are not (if you are like most people) doing do to admire the clever encoding in the MP3 wrapper. You are downloading it to hear the contents of that wrapper -- again, the audio input that we refer to as music.

Therefore, unless tou are going to state categorically that you NEVER listen to the content of a downloaded file or a purchased CD, then the hair-splitting of "It's not 'music', it's a 'recording of music'," is bullshit, intended only to try to confuse the issue.

And when you get right down to it, only ONE entity suffers from downloading music and it isn't the artist, it's the record labels.

Prove it.

If you are going to insist on absolute proof of anyone else's arguments, then prove that no artist has ever lost income from downloaded, un-paid-for copies of his work.

Reverend Smooth

05-19-2009, 03:00 AM

Wrong.

They want to make some money without working a day job, and that's one way to do it. Let's not romanticize this.
Art IS my day job, just like it's a lot of people's day jobs.

They think they can get people to hand over money for it. Then they'll have some drinking money. Again, let's not romanticize this.
No, I want money to pay my rent and have food on my table and buy the pills to keep me alive. Most artists are working so they can put food on their tables and have a roof over their heads, what kind of fantasy world are you living in? That's been the case for millenia.

Why are you telling artists that their work is worth less than other kinds of work? You think I don't spend a lot of time, effort, and pain working so my family can pull itself out of poverty? That others don't? In THIS economy?

Waterlily

05-19-2009, 03:08 AM

Tages

05-19-2009, 03:56 AM

Why are you telling artists that their work is worth less than other kinds of work?

I'm positive that exactly no one is saying anything even remotely like that.

Libaax

05-19-2009, 05:33 AM

Cory Doctorow releases everything he writes online for free under a Creative Commons license, and his books still sell. Heck, his latest book was on the New York Times bestseller list for a couple weeks.

It may not be appropriate for all artists in all media, but there does seem to be a market for items that are freely, legally available in other formats

Books are very different. Very few book readers want download books and read them on the comp,e-reader or something.

Books are things people love to have in their hands and read. Thats why books dont have as big problem with piracy as movies,music,comics.

I might download a movie i wouldnt want to pay for in the cinema but there is no way i could read even some trashy book on the comp.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 05:52 AM

As of about a year ago, yes.

Not always the case. Not everywhere the case. And, in the case of internet radio, pricing the best marketing tool artists have out of the market.

Screw that.

Listen to WFMU instead, which plays music from the indies who are glad of the exposure.Paul, as he stated that he was making Cassette tapesoff of the radio back when he was in Junior High I was SPEAKING to the past because that was the era he was talking about.

As for WFMU -- I have no idea what the hell that even is and I doubt I have access to it. There are those of us who live in the less-than-cosmopolitan Midwest of America. We have to make do with what we get.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 05:54 AM

Isn't Chicago part of the Midwest?

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 05:58 AM

Books are very different. Very few book readers want download books and read them on the comp,e-reader or something.

Books are things people love to have in their hands and read. Thats why books dont have as big problem with piracy as movies,music,comics.

I might download a movie i wouldnt want to pay for in the cinema but there is no way i could read even some trashy book on the comp.Actually e-readers are getting better and cheaper.

The thing with books is that they are a LOT more labor intesive to pirate. It's dead easy for someone to rip digital audio of video off of CDs, DVDs, TV etc. A book has to either be scanned in a page at a time or re-typed or else someone has to have access to the original electronic manuscript.

Plus, the technology for most e-readers is proprietary so you can't read something on say a PDA and then transfer it to your Kindle e-reader -- it won't work.

There is actually a BIG future for digital comics on an e-reader it is simply that most current e-readers have black and white screens -- which is fine for reading novels but not so good for your latest copy of Spider-Man. It looks as though Kindle may be going to produce a version with a color screen in a couple of years -- at which time the comic book on e-reader market could really take off.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 06:00 AM

Isn't Chicago part of the Midwest?Those of us who formerly lived downstate would like to disown it.

Go to the middle of Kansas or the very southern tip of Illinois and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I go to Wizard World Chicago every year but it's a five hour drive for me -- I don't go there often.

Where I live I don't exactly pull in Chicago radio or TV stations.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 06:04 AM

I'm positive that exactly no one is saying anything even remotely like that.No, no one is saying that -- but I do think Paul is being a bit unnecessarily cynical about the motives of artists of various stripes.

I know a lot of people who are musicians and to them playing is like breathing. They can't NOT do it. They have both passion to share their music and, yes, a desire to make a living doing what they love.

To categorize them as mercenaries who only care about the buck is a bit of a disservice.

I also know people who HAVE day jobs at which they earn their living but they do music in their free time because they have an honest passion about it. They earn some extra money but since they already have a job that pays their bills the extra money is an aside for just doing what they really love to do.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 06:07 AM

Don't act stupid -- If the poster's name is "Barber Floyd" and the Plumber's name is Bob -- bet on the poster NOT being Plumber Bob. If Barber Floyd posts stuff by Plumber Bob, Carpenter Steve, and Avril LaVigne, bet long money that Barber Floyd is NONE of those people!

No. One guy bought them and uploaded them for else.

And here's the thing -- in many of your responses to people's points, your response is "How do I KNOW" that the creator wasn't the one who posted it, "How do we know" that someone who downloaded it didn't go out and buy it later?"

The implication being that, if we can't prove conclusively that an artist loses money from illicit downloads of his output, then we have to assume that downloading is at least neutral., if not actively beneficial. Well, until you can prove, with absolute certainty, that downloaders don't hurt the artists whose work they download, your insistance on absolute certainty from anyone else seems a tad disingenuous.

Don't you get it...? THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING WRONG FOR STEALING ANOTHER PERSON'S WORK!!!

It's not a case of "Well, he did it first...!" If it's wrong for the record label to screw over the creator for their own purposes, then it's wrong for a private individual to screw over the creator for his own purposes.

(And this will be the point where, historically, you would post "Well, how do we KNOW that he won't go out and buy the album, and everything else the artist ever did, and give his mother a new washing machine, and a puppy, and a horsie, and...?")

Yes... forgive me for using verbal shorthand.

You are buying a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, or you are downloading and not paying for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In either case, you are in possession of a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In one case you have compensated the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and/or performer's labor, and in the other case, you have not.

Are you, in fact, claiming that not compensating the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, is just as fair to that composer and/or performer as paying the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor?

(That would have been SO much more concise if I could have said "is NOT paying the artist for his music as fair as paying him for it? But, based on your "nobody ever paid for 'music' " pettifogging, it gets a bit long.)

[quote]How? [/quote}
Send them a few bucks in the mail. Send a note "Hi -- I downloaded your album "****" online. Since I didn't use the record company's distribution, I didn't feel that I should pay for it, but I wanted to make sure the artists got paid, so here's $5. Signed, Anonymous"

Just stop.

Either your sister bought the album, in which case they have been paid, or you were listening to JonasBros Radio, in which case the radio station paid them, or your sister had a bootleg copy of the album, in which they DIDN'T get paid for that particular iteration of their recorded work, and your sister should pay them.

So stop with the disingenuous straw man "Who am I supposed to pay if I listened to them" bullshit.

I'll make it real easy for you, since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept:

If you have a downloaded copy of a recording in your possession, and you have not paid the artist for THAT copy of the recording, and you have kept it; A - long enough to know that you like it, and; B - longer than you next trip to Stereo Jack's record shop or wherever you COULD buy a legitimate, fee-paid-to-the-artist copy, then you are stealing the artist's work.

Period.

If you are not downloading the recording for the music, then what ARE you downloading it for?

As noted above, referring to "the music" rather than "the recording of the music" is verbal shorthand and a way of pointing out that that which you are downloading without paying the creator is not the package, but the content.

Unless you are happy admiring the package (the shiny CD, the liner notes, et al), then the true goal of purchasing a CD is to own a copy of the content -- the audio input that we refer to as "music" which is encoded on the disk.

If you are downloading a copy of a CD, you are not (if you are like most people) doing do to admire the clever encoding in the MP3 wrapper. You are downloading it to hear the contents of that wrapper -- again, the audio input that we refer to as music.

Therefore, unless tou are going to state categorically that you NEVER listen to the content of a downloaded file or a purchased CD, then the hair-splitting of "It's not 'music', it's a 'recording of music'," is bullshit, intended only to try to confuse the issue.

Prove it.

If you are going to insist on absolute proof of anyone else's arguments, then prove that no artist has ever lost income from downloaded, un-paid-for copies of his work.
Just give it up -- that's what I'm doing.

It has become quite obvious that he's not really interested in debate. NOTHING any of us can say is going to change his mind -- he's really already decided.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 06:11 AM

Those of us who formerly lived downstate would like to disown it.

Go to the middle of Kansas or the very southern tip of Illinois and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I go to Wizard World Chicago every year but it's a five hour drive for me -- I don't go there often.
6
Where I live I don't exactly pull in Chicago radio or TV stations.

Yet you have the internet. A quick google search turned up the station and it streams on the internet (that was what was being talked about right?). The rest of Illinois may as well be on the other side of the world for as much as it shows up on my radar.

Libaax

05-19-2009, 06:11 AM

Actually e-readers are getting better and cheaper.

The thing with books is that they are a LOT more labor intesive to pirate. It's dead easy for someone to rip digital audio of video off of CDs, DVDs, TV etc. A book has to either be scanned in a page at a time or re-typed or else someone has to have access to the original electronic manuscript.

Plus, the technology for most e-readers is proprietary so you can't read something on say a PDA and then transfer it to your Kindle e-reader -- it won't work.

There is actually a BIG future for digital comics on an e-reader it is simply that most current e-readers have black and white screens -- which is fine for reading novels but not so good for your latest copy of Spider-Man. It looks as though Kindle may be going to produce a version with a color screen in a couple of years -- at which time the comic book on e-reader market could really take off.

E-reader can become the biggest thing in the world and more people would read the real book. Its something very natural about seeing words on paper,holding a book in your hands.

Yeah the fact that its harder to pirate is a good thing imo.

Downloading comics,reading online is much easier reading wise. Thats what i did with new comics before. Cause a comic is full of colors,so visual art that is easy to read.

E-reader is like having your own island imo something you will never need.
Like they say if it aint broke dont fix it. They only live on because some people are desperate for news ways to make money.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 06:26 AM

Yet you have the internet. A quick google search turned up the station and it streams on the internet (that was what was being talked about right?). The rest of Illinois may as well be on the other side of the world for as much as it shows up on my radar.I don't listen to the internet in my car and that's the only time I have the radio on.

S'okay though -- I get NPR pretty much no matter where I go and I MUCH rather listen to Neil Cohn than Fox News.

As for the "rest of Illinois" -- that's pretty much EXACTLY the reason downstaters hate Chicago. The rest of us got the short end of the stick because most lawmakers can't think any further south than Springfield.

Which is a shame because, while not cosmopolitan, the lower half of the state has some lovely scenery, a growing wine making industry, and some really good fishing. I had uncles who lived on Lake Egypt and every summer we'd go out to visit and spend weeks going boating and having fresh frish for dinner many nights.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 06:27 AM

I don't drink wine.
Who needs to pirate a book when there are public libraries?

Corrina

05-19-2009, 06:45 AM

You're still thinking of art as property, as a thing, as a commodity.

It isn't. It's a part of speech.

And there's where we disagree, Paul, in a nutshell.

What I do has value. I want to get paid.

I can appreciate that the formats are changing, certainly, and things are in flux. But the bottom line is if you want my imagination, pay me.

I'm not so sanguine as the Rev. that somehow, paying me will all work out if I just trust everyone to do what they will.

Corrina

05-19-2009, 06:48 AM

To categorize them as mercenaries who only care about the buck is a bit of a disservice.

Really, anyone who creates has a drive to create. They can't stop.

But some of us want to make money from it, too, the same way that a carpenter makes money from his products, or an architect who imagines a building gets paid for that.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 07:15 AM

Just give it up -- that's what I'm doing.

It has become quite obvious that he's not really interested in debate. NOTHING any of us can say is going to change his mind -- he's really already decided.

Not really.

I was interested in discussing it with you guys and challenging my own views by setting them against those who held a different opinion from mine.

There's nothing to 'decide' and I'm afraid that this isn't the sort of thread that's going to a revelation on either of our parts where we stop and say 'My God....you're RIGHT Calibos/Stressfactor......you've changed my whole perspective.....

That would make for some interesting threads if the end result every time was changing someone's mind but that isn't always the case.

We disagree, that's all. We probably disagree about quite a bit. There's probably some stuff that we're on the same page about.

But the whole purpose of this wasn't to convince anyone of anything or to have a clear cut 'winner', the purpose was just to discuss it.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 07:23 AM

Really, anyone who creates has a drive to create. They can't stop.

But some of us want to make money from it, too, the same way that a carpenter makes money from his products, or an architect who imagines a building gets paid for that.I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I was interpreting Paul's words as sounding like those who create -- writers, musicians, artists, etc. are ONLY chasing the "Almighty Dollar" (as my mom would say). That, in the end, they don't care if what they do is good just so long as it makes money.

I'm sure there ARE people like that out there but I'd also like to think that there are creators out there who will insist that if something is worth doing it is worth doing well and their passion for their craft will cause them to fight to maintain the integrity of what they do.

Corrina

05-19-2009, 07:25 AM

Oh, sorry Stress. I was directing that at Paul. :)

Because I agree with you, I think that's what he's saying.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 07:40 AM

Don't act stupid -- If the poster's name is "Barber Floyd" and the Plumber's name is Bob -- bet on the poster NOT being Plumber Bob. If Barber Floyd posts stuff by Plumber Bob, Carpenter Steve, and Avril LaVigne, bet long money that Barber Floyd is NONE of those people!

We're not talking about established, well known names Mike. We're talking about an individual who makes a youtube video.

How many thousands of smaller, off the radar music acts are you intimately familiar with?

Can you say with all certainty that 'Barber Floyd' couldn't possibly be Bob the Plumber's online handle?

You can't be certain.

The implication being that, if we can't prove conclusively that an artist loses money from illicit downloads of his output, then we have to assume that downloading is at least neutral., if not actively beneficial. Well, until you can prove, with absolute certainty, that downloaders don't hurt the artists whose work they download, your insistance on absolute certainty from anyone else seems a tad disingenuous.

You don't understand.

I can see how downloading music could hurt an artist, but I can also see how it could benefit an artist as well.

If we blame downloading for losing an artist one customer because he downloaded an album then we need to be honest and consider what happens when a customer downloads that album and then turns around and buys every album that artist ever put out.

Because I downloaded one Dimmu Borgir song I became a fan and I went out and I've picked up everything they've done.

Did that hurt them or help them Mike?

Don't you get it...? THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING WRONG FOR STEALING ANOTHER PERSON'S WORK!!!

It's not a case of "Well, he did it first...!" If it's wrong for the record label to screw over the creator for their own purposes, then it's wrong for a private individual to screw over the creator for his own purposes.

(And this will be the point where, historically, you would post "Well, how do we KNOW that he won't go out and buy the album, and everything else the artist ever did, and give his mother a new washing machine, and a puppy, and a horsie, and...?")

Oh wow, historically? Nope.

This is the part where I wonder why you're getting so upset.

It's just a discussion board. Here's a hug.

Yes... forgive me for using verbal shorthand.

You are buying a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, or you are downloading and not paying for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In either case, you are in possession of a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor. In one case you have compensated the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and/or performer's labor, and in the other case, you have not.

Are you, in fact, claiming that not compensating the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor, is just as fair to that composer and/or performer as paying the composer and/or performer for a recording of the music which is the result of the composer's and or performer's labor?

(That would have been SO much more concise if I could have said "is NOT paying the artist for his music as fair as paying him for it? But, based on your "nobody ever paid for 'music' " pettifogging, it gets a bit long.)

Hey, sorry but it's true.

You don't pay for music, you pay for the recording.

The artists work very hard creating the music, working in the studio, getting it just right.....and when they're done they record it and put in on a CD.

That's what you purchase, not their 'music'.

Just stop.

Either your sister bought the album, in which case they have been paid, or you were listening to JonasBros Radio, in which case the radio station paid them, or your sister had a bootleg copy of the album, in which they DIDN'T get paid for that particular iteration of their recorded work, and your sister should pay them.

So stop with the disingenuous straw man "Who am I supposed to pay if I listened to them" bullshit.

It's not a strawman at all I'm afraid.

She paid for that album, not me. I'm 'enjoying' (using that term loosely) the fruits of their labor without paying for it.

You seem to think that just because my sister bought that album they've been fully 'paid' for their efforts, except I haven't paid them anything.

I guess I could send them something through the mail like you suggested......although come to think of it they'd probably take one look at the envelope and say 'Hey, what's this?' 'Somebody sent us some dollar bills...'
'Oh. That's weird. Do they know who we are?' 'Doubtful......here, we have to hand all 'crazy' mail over to security.'

I'll make it real easy for you, since you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept:

Huh. See, this is the part where you start getting upset about this for some reason.

Here. Another hug.

As noted above, referring to "the music" rather than "the recording of the music" is verbal shorthand and a way of pointing out that that which you are downloading without paying the creator is not the package, but the content.

Unless you are happy admiring the package (the shiny CD, the liner notes, et al), then the true goal of purchasing a CD is to own a copy of the content -- the audio input that we refer to as "music" which is encoded on the disk.

If you are downloading a copy of a CD, you are not (if you are like most people) doing do to admire the clever encoding in the MP3 wrapper. You are downloading it to hear the contents of that wrapper -- again, the audio input that we refer to as music.

Therefore, unless tou are going to state categorically that you NEVER listen to the content of a downloaded file or a purchased CD, then the hair-splitting of "It's not 'music', it's a 'recording of music'," is bullshit, intended only to try to confuse the issue.

Again,Mike, if you bought a CD from that stereo shop you mentioned earlier and you found that the interior liner notes were damaged or incomplete,what would you do?

The CD itself works perfectly, you can still listen to the music just fine but the liner notes are damaged and incomplete.

Would you return it to get a new copy or would you just keep it?

If you're like most others then yes, you'd return it for a new copy.

There's an important difference here between what you listen to online (through legitimate or illegitimate sources) and what you actually purchase in the store that you're just not grasping.

Prove it.

If you are going to insist on absolute proof of anyone else's arguments, then prove that no artist has ever lost income from downloaded, un-paid-for copies of his work.

It's not my argument that artists are hurt from downloading their music, it's not my homework.

It's similar to a fundie asking me to prove that God doesn't exist or something.

It's within the realm of reason that an artist could be hurt by downloading his music for free, but we've already established that it can also benefit an artist. Dimmu Borgir benefitted from my downloading their song.

They intially lost one song but they gained a customer who's bought all of their work.

So did that benefit Dimmu Borgir or did that harm Dimmu Borgir?

Corrina

05-19-2009, 07:44 AM

I can see how downloading music could hurt an artist, but I can also see how it could benefit an artist as well.

See, an my point is why do YOU (collective 'you') get to decide what might or might not benefit them instead of the artist who produced the work? What gives you the moral right to take control over the work and decide what's best for it?

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 07:49 AM

See, an my point is why do YOU (collective 'you') get to decide what might or might not benefit them instead of the artist who produced the work? What gives you the moral right to take control over the work and decide what's best for it?

Well, let's say we presented our case to the artist in question and mentioned that in some instances downloading hurt them and in other instances downloading helped them.

I'm not a mindreader but I have to think that most artists would see this as a balanced equation.

Again, don't have any numbers in front of me so I don't know how much the artist is hurt or helped either way, it may not be a balanced equation at all, but for the purpose of the discussion let's just assume that it balances out.

Corrina

05-19-2009, 07:53 AM

Astonishing X-Fan

05-19-2009, 07:56 AM

The large majority of the people I know who download do it because they have no intention of ever paying for it. Out of all the people I know with Ipods, I think I'm the only one who actually paid for the music on mine.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've overheard people in stores seeing a new album or movie and say something like "why buy it when I can just download it for free?"

I'm sure there's people who use downloading to help them decide what to buy, but based on my experience, I highly doubt those people are of the same number as people who just don't want to pay for anything.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 08:01 AM

Yes, but then you ask permission. And then the decision is still in the artist's hand.

I have no problem with that. I've sent around my novels to people who asked me.

I ask again: why do you get to be in charge of what's best for the work instead of the person who created it?

Because I'm the cosumer. I'm the target audience they hope to reach to sell the result of their labor.

We all make determinations like that all the time. In most CD stores they have listening stations set up throughout that enable one to enjoy samplings from a number of albums.

They do this because they don't sell the sound coming through the headphones, the sound is just there to show you what you COULD be listening to when you actually buy the CD.

I can't take that home with me of course and it's only a snippet of the song, but does that make it any less their work?

It's in a controlled environment of the store but it's a public place. I can go in there whenever I want and listen to 10 seconds or so of a Dimmu Borgir song without paying for it.

So in a way they've already established that they want as many people as possible to listen to their music. They do this in the hopes that we'll actually go out and buy the CD.

And keep in mind I'm not saying that I'm right at all. I could be completely,utterly wrong about this (I've been wrong before after all!) but I'm just enjoying reading everyone's input.

Corrina

05-19-2009, 08:08 AM

Because I'm the cosumer. I'm the target audience they hope to reach to sell the result of their labor.

We all make determinations like that all the time. In most CD stores they have listening stations set up throughout that enable one to enjoy samplings from a number of albums.

They do this because they don't sell the sound coming through the headphones, the sound is just there to show you what you COULD be listening to when you actually buy the CD.

I can't take that home with me of course and it's only a snippet of the song, but does that make it any less their work?

It's in a controlled environment of the store but it's a public place. I can go in there whenever I want and listen to 10 seconds or so of a Dimmu Borgir song without paying for it.

So in a way they've already established that they want as many people as possible to listen to their music. They do this in the hopes that we'll actually go out and buy the CD.

And keep in mind I'm not saying that I'm right at all. I could be completely,utterly wrong about this (I've been wrong before after all!) but I'm just enjoying reading everyone's input.

You might be the consumer but to paraphrase what Neil Gaiman said about consumers wanting ownership of the work, I am not your bitch. :)

I get to decide to make the product available, you get to decide whether you wish to purchase it or not. You can hate it, love it, be indifferent to it, write up long blog posts about how much you hate it and wish it never existed.

What you can't do it take it away from me without my permission.

In the example you cite, of sampling songs in the music store, the creator has already consented to their work being used in just such an environment. It's all morally and legally proper.

Now, if you somehow could hack that work and download the whole album from those listening stations or even pick up the CD and put it in your pocket and walk out without paying, well, that removes the permission, doesn't it?

And, no, I'm not yelling at you.<g> I'm frustrated at the idea that what a creator produces somehow entitles everyone who wants it to have it, any more than an employer can insist you work hours at a job without getting paid.

I am not your bitch. :)

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 08:50 AM

You might be the consumer but to paraphrase what Neil Gaiman said about consumers wanting ownership of the work, I am not your bitch. :)

I get to decide to make the product available, you get to decide whether you wish to purchase it or not. You can hate it, love it, be indifferent to it, write up long blog posts about how much you hate it and wish it never existed.

What you can't do it take it away from me without my permission.

In the example you cite, of sampling songs in the music store, the creator has already consented to their work being used in just such an environment. It's all morally and legally proper.

Now, if you somehow could hack that work and download the whole album from those listening stations or even pick up the CD and put it in your pocket and walk out without paying, well, that removes the permission, doesn't it?

And, no, I'm not yelling at you.<g> I'm frustrated at the idea that what a creator produces somehow entitles everyone who wants it to have it, any more than an employer can insist you work hours at a job without getting paid.

I am not your bitch. :)

Lol, this is true, you're not my bitch.

It's a difficult question for me as I can see legitimate points made on both sides of the issue.

There isn't going to be a simple solution but I apprectiate the chance to get some opposing input,it's given me a lot to consider.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 09:35 AM

Forgive me if this has been brought up before but If you want to sample music, they are sites on the internet where you can legally do so. Rhapsody comes to mind and many small bands have samples of their music on FaceSpace. Or you could also go the old-fashioned route and listen to the radio.

I really don't see the need to get music via torrents.

Rhapsody doesn't cost much, but it does cost something. And it doesn't have everything. But that's a fair point.

OTOH, as the Buggins points out to me, that means she never has to buy an album. So, not much better for the artist.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 09:40 AM

Paul, as he stated that he was making Cassette tapesoff of the radio back when he was in Junior High I was SPEAKING to the past because that was the era he was talking about.

I don't believe American radio stations were subject to needle time payments the same way European ones were at that time.

As for WFMU -- I have no idea what the hell that even is and I doubt I have access to it. There are those of us who live in the less-than-cosmopolitan Midwest of America. We have to make do with what we get.
Seems to me you have an internet connection.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 09:43 AM

And there's where we disagree, Paul, in a nutshell.

What I do has value. I want to get paid. .

So?

What a plumber does has value. Doesn't make his labour a commodity.

A painting is a commodity, because it has scarcity value.

Anything that can be digitally reproduced immediately ceases to be a commodity.

And whether or not something is a commodity has no bearing on whether you get paid for your labour.

Aspield

05-19-2009, 09:58 AM

Internet piracy is stealing. There are restrictions against it and most companies have clearly made the product available in that medium for a price.

But if you're ok with that, then coolio.

bfrank

05-19-2009, 10:00 AM

Internet piracy is as big a crime as jay walking.....

Agent Helix

05-19-2009, 10:06 AM

Thanks for comparing artists to plumbers and saying what we do has no value, Paul.

Really fucking appreciated.

Stressfactor

05-19-2009, 10:08 AM

I don't believe American radio stations were subject to needle time payments the same way European ones were at that time.

Seems to me you have an internet connection.I'm not sure what you mean by "Needle Time Placements" but I do know that, back in 1989 at least, I happened to notice that one radio station played a certain song at the same time every day while said song was in the top 10.

As for internet, as I said before, I don't have internet in my car and that's when I listen to radio. Nor do I have internet on my cell phone -- yes, I'm a semi-luddite but I'm reasonably happy.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 11:22 AM

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I was interpreting Paul's words as sounding like those who create -- writers, musicians, artists, etc. are ONLY chasing the "Almighty Dollar" (as my mom would say). That, in the end, they don't care if what they do is good just so long as it makes money.

I'm sure there ARE people like that out there but I'd also like to think that there are creators out there who will insist that if something is worth doing it is worth doing well and their passion for their craft will cause them to fight to maintain the integrity of what they do.

Oh, sorry Stress. I was directing that at Paul. :)

Because I agree with you, I think that's what he's saying.

Nonsense. I'm very obviously not saying that.

What I am saying is that Cutter Mike is conflating two completely different ideas.

One is the value of the work in itself -- and bear in mind that work is a verb, not a noun.

One is the value of a commodity as a way of making money.

A band that's selling merch is at that point only interested in getting money. It's not about the value of the work in itself. That's just sentimental armtwisting like the bullshit piracy blah at the front end of a DVD.

Oh, and while we're at it, the prices of DVDs are four times the same as that for VHS, once you take costs into account. Of course there's consumer rebellion! (We might also note that iTunes prices are massively inflated, and four times what emusic charges.)

The real cost, to the consumer, of digital work is zero. That's just a fact. When Cory started with the Creative Commons campaign, it was about recognizing the facts on the ground. Pretend that the facts are otherwise, you'll get a nasty shock.

The change to digital reproduction from mechanical reproduction is as radical as the change from mechanical reproduction from manual reproduction. Manual reproduction meant that individual copies of work were very rare, and thus very costly. Mechanical reproduction meant that copies were very common, and thus very cheap -- except where publishers introduced artificial scarcity (limited editions; $3.99 comics) for the sake of profit margins. Digital reproduction means that copies are universal, and thus free.

There's no point in yelling about theft -- and apparently, the music and film biz has done a good job of recruiting people to be their mouthpiece -- because you can't steal something that's free and universal. You might as well complain about stealing air.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 11:34 AM

I get to decide to make the product available, you get to decide whether you wish to purchase it or not. You can hate it, love it, be indifferent to it, write up long blog posts about how much you hate it and wish it never existed.

That's the point. You don't.

You can assert the moral right to restrict reproduction, but you can't actually restrict reproduction, any more than you can stop someone loaning your book to someone else.

Let's again split the issue into its three constituent elements.

One is that you work, and you want people to read the product of your work. Digital reproduction means you have access to six billion eyes without having to deal with the mediation of publishers, book buyers, etc. So the fruit of your brain gets to walk out in the world and be appreciated. That's a plus.

The other is that you want to be compensated for your labour. Of course, this is true for the vast majority of artists, most of whom never will be. Poets never make any money. They still work for the sake of working. Digital reproduction offers opportunities for payment either in status or cash that were previously unavailable to almost everybody.

The third is that we want the good artists to be paid enough to quit their day jobs, so they can work on what they want to. Given that we're past the point of pretending that art is a commodity (except in the form of rare objects) -- and that illusion was only fostered by printers for the last 800 years anyway -- we now have to form new model whereby people pay artists just to work on their art.

Effectively, it's that I do the work the artist doesn't have time for -- pick crops, build house, keep economy running, etc. -- and the artist does work I can't do (the art itself). It seems straightforward enough to me that there's a simple exchange possible here.

But if people insist on playing the commodity game, art producers will only fall into further disfavour. People don't want to pay inflated prices for entertainment which is, let's face it, discretionary spending in a time when we're all broke.

In absolutely every medium, publishers have massively inflated prices to get the maximum profit from the minimum audience.

This is stupid.

Especially when the technology exists to go precisely in the opposite direction.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 11:44 AM

I know a lot of people who are musicians and to them playing is like breathing. They can't NOT do it. They have both passion to share their music and, yes, a desire to make a living doing what they love.

In my time, I've known a lot of folk musicians. For the most part, they played for no money at all, down the pub, with their mates.

That's the bottom line. Getting paid to play music is the unusual situation. Selling music as a commodity is something that's only existed for the blip of 100 years. And now that's over.

Commodified books lasted 800 years. And now that's over too. That's just the reality.

To categorize them as mercenaries who only care about the buck is a bit of a disservice.

Which, of course, I didn't do.

Here's an inside story for you. Professional writers, when they get together, don't discuss the tricks of their trade. They discuss how they can get publishers to give them money. Because writers don't want to do day jobs. "No one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money", as Doctor Johnson said. And a great many writers only get out of bed for rent.

So yeah, art for art's sake, money for god's sake, as a professional musician I've had drinks with wrote.

Let's not romanticize the money-making side of creativity. And let's not commercialize the artistic side. Different things.

FeminineMystique

05-19-2009, 11:52 AM

The music industry doesn't care if you hear something what they care about is you being able to keep something or listen to something over and over again without paying for it. And you will note that companies have been cracking down on YouTube -- deleting accounts when people put stuff up that is copyrighted. Even people who are taking songs and making their own music videos have been finding YouTube hitting their accounts based on copyright claims against the music.

That's more or less the equivalent of the old man trying to hold back the sea, isn't it? Youtube can try, certainly, but I think they have about as much chance of success as George Bush does of becoming a Mastermind champion.

Corrina

05-19-2009, 12:38 PM

Here's an inside story for you. Professional writers, when they get together, don't discuss the tricks of their trade. They discuss how they can get publishers to give them money. Because writers don't want to do day jobs. "No one but a blockhead ever wrote except for money", as Doctor Johnson said. And a great many writers only get out of bed for rent.

Maybe not the professional writers you know but there are plenty of professional writers that I know who constantly talk about craft with each other.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 01:07 PM

That's more or less the equivalent of the old man trying to hold back the sea, isn't it? Youtube can try, certainly, but I think they have about as much chance of success as George Bush does of becoming a Mastermind champion.

Are you saying the music biz are a bunch of cnuts?

FeminineMystique

05-19-2009, 01:39 PM

Are you saying the music biz are a bunch of cnuts?

Are you attempting an anagram darling or is cnut some phrase I'm not fammiliar with?

And I'm just saying that at the end of the day Youtube stand as much chance of stopping people uploading AMV's as I do of going to an AA meeting.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 02:06 PM

Are you attempting an anagram darling or is cnut some phrase I'm not fammiliar with?

And I'm just saying that at the end of the day Youtube stand as much chance of stopping people uploading AMV's as I do of going to an AA meeting.

King Cnut.

And of course you're right.

MbedIt

05-19-2009, 02:15 PM

Maybe this was brought up, But I really didn't have the stamina to read pages 2-10 as they seemed to all be going the same way...

I would think most of the situations and examples Rev. Calibos brings up are covered under the "Fair Use" laws.

Fair use is why you can tape music off a radio station or Record your favorite TV show.

It's why you can make copies for your own use, and it's also extends to certain situations that allow educators to play shows like "Roots" to highschool children w/o paying more royalties.

The question I want to know the answer to is how far Fair Use extends in the digital world.

What many people don't realize is that when you used to purchase a blank Cassette Tape, or a Blank Video tape to record your "Free" music or video, a royalty was paid by the manufactures of those products to distribute to Artists.

So you did pay a license royalty fee... even if you made a copy of your own CD and gave it to your cheap best buddy who didn't want to pay full retail.

Part of the issue now is that there is no royalty attached to most blank media.

Next time your in Best Buy or some electronic store, look for a set of Blank CD's that specifically say they are for recording music. I bet you good money it cost more per disc then most every other product on the shelf. The reason? There is an extra royalty that is collected on that product.

I have no idea if they do the same for Blank DVD's, but I suspect that the 8Gb for sure have a royalty attached.

But Hard drives don't. Lots of digital media doesn't.

I digress. I've been curious about one particular scenario for some time. If you own a cassette or record of some band, and you no longer have the equipment to play it on, what's the thought on downloading an MP3 copy of that album? You purchased the album... does fair use extend to downloading (or re-downloading) something you purchased previously?

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Village Idiot

05-19-2009, 02:34 PM

Okay, over 180 posts now, and the same 2 people seem to be saying they will continue to steal and nobody can do anything about it.

And this is exactly how the argument goes every time someone brings it up. And then somebody says that he was just bringing it up for discussion. He's not. He's bringing it up in the hopes of persuading others to his side of the argument, which is that nobody owns anything except him. It all belongs to him. What a bunch of narcissistic crap. You are entitled to NOTHING in life. Get a job, earn money, and spend that money on things you need or like. But stop stealing and telling the rest of the world they are fools for not also stealing.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 02:47 PM

Okay, over 180 posts now, and the same 2 people seem to be saying they will continue to steal and nobody can do anything about it.

And this is your second post in the thread where you just sort of swoop in, make a few snide remarks and don't add to the discussion.

Never once did I say that I was 'going to continue to steal' Never once did I ever say 'nobody can do anything about it.'

I started this thread to have a rational discussion about the issue. It's an issue that I often debate with my fiancee as she disagrees with me strongly.

And if you really look a lot of folks have contributed, not just 'the same two people'.

And this is exactly how the argument goes every time someone brings it up. And then somebody says that he was just bringing it up for discussion. He's not.

Nope, wrong again.

The whole purpose of the thread was to discuss it.

He's bringing it up in the hopes of persuading others to his side of the argument, which is that nobody owns anything except him.

Nope. I'm not trying to persuade anyone at all. When I discuss things with others the notion of 'persuading' or 'winning' the disussion never comes up. It's a non-issue for me.

I enjoy having a rational discussion about a lot of subjects, with folks that agree with me and even with folks that completely disagree with me.

Ask yourself this, if it was my intent to 'persuade' others to my side of the argument why have I said over and over and over again that 'I may be wrong' and 'I could be mistaken...'?

Is that a clever ruse to trick others to my view of things or is it being honest and accepting that I may be in the wrong here?

I'm here to discuss it, not win anyone over and not to argue with anyone.

It all belongs to him. What a bunch of narcissistic crap. You are entitled to NOTHING in life. Get a job, earn money, and spend that money on things you need or like. But stop stealing and telling the rest of the world they are fools for not also stealing.

Nope, never once implied that anyone is a fool, never once mentioned that I'm entitled to anything at all.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 04:14 PM

Okay, over 180 posts now, and the same 2 people seem to be saying they will continue to steal and nobody can do anything about it..

Learn to read, would you?

Also, calling digital reproduction theft is stupid. Because it simply isn't theft.

If it were, using the library would be theft. Going round your friend's house to watch TV would be theft. Listening to WFMU would be theft -- and most American radio since they don't pay needle time, as I understand it.

And they're not, are they.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 04:16 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 04:23 PM

Not really.

You certainly aren't legally allowed to tape music off the radio. And TV producers have done their damnedest to prevent you from recording TV shows. And having failed to do that, they did their damnedest to force you to watch the advertising. Which also failed.

Here, found this anti piracy ad from the 80's from the BPI warning us of the dangers of recording music from your cassette stereo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png/180px-Home_taping_is_killing_music.png

Thankfully, the BPI was way off base as music survived, the way it always does.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 04:38 PM

Here, found this anti piracy ad from the 80's from the BPI warning us of the dangers of recording music from your cassette stereo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bc/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png/180px-Home_taping_is_killing_music.png

Thankfully, the BPI was way off base as music survived, the way it always does.

They were lying bastards then, they're lying bastards now.

I taped a bunch of stuff back in the day, because I was flat broke, and wanted a musical education.

Since then, I've probably spent so much on music that I'm likely in the top 10% of customers.

But why bother to look at little things like facts when you can get in a moral lather on behalf of companies that lie to you to recruit your outrage.

I also note that, while we're talking about people downloading culture, nobody's talking about the amount of surplus value corporate shareholders and various company apparatchiks take out of the artist's pocket -- which is substantially more, and is much more reasonably called theft.

What with it being real money, and having been actually earned.

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 05:10 PM

Paul, I never thought that you would be saying that a worker shouldn't be paid for the result of his labor, which is all that I've been saying all along.

Your points seem to be; 1 - that if the result of a worker's labor CAN be replicated by others then the worker should rightly expect to lose all compensation for the work (verb) performed and; 2 - that the current system which already compensates those workers poorly if at all is so corrupt that COMPLETELY stiffing the worker is justifiable in order to bring down the current structure.

Nowhere am I "romanticizing" the artist, musician, whatever. I am a professional illustrator and designer. I work for people who want the use of the results of my labor. They pay me for the result of my labor, unless I say that I will work for them for free. If I need the services of a lawyer, or a doctor, or a therapist, or a plumber, or ANY skilled (or unskilled) worker, I expect to be asked to compensate them for their labor. If they choose to provide their knowledge and labor for free, that should be their choice, as it should be MY choice whether to perform my labor for free or not, as it should be ANY worker's choice whether to perform their labor for free or not.

Expecting to possess a tangible artifact of a worker's labor without in any way compensating the worker for the labor that went into producing it -- simply because you CAN ("Digital reproduction means that copies are universal, and thus free. There's no point in yelling about theft (...) because you can't steal something that's free and universal.") -- is a robber-baron's wet-dream and I am surprised to find you defending it. "(C)opies are universal, and thus free" is only true if you believe that you have a right to stiff the worker who produced the original item -- which apparently has value to YOU, since you want to possess a copy of it -- simply because you CAN; otherwise the operative phrase is "copies CAN BE universal, and thus micropayments become viable compensation for use of a creator's labor."

Generally, the examples that you cited in your response to my previous post (whistling a Dolly Parton tune, et al) are immaterial, since (with the POSSIBLE exception of someone with an eidetic memory -- I don't have one; I wouldn't know) "hearing" a remembered tune and hearing it physically are two different things; the map is not the territory. Seeing a mural...? Listening to streaming music...? Presumably, in either case, the artists agreed to put the result of their work (verb) out for public access for a financial consideration (ranging from -$x on up to $y) that was acceptable to all parties involved in the original transaction. Someone who chooses to retain a tangible iteration of the result of that work (verb) -- e. g., recording streaming web content -- is unilaterally forcing a one-sided transaction on the worker without the worker having any choice in the matter.

For someone who prattles on at length about social justice, I find your acceptance and defense of this rather surprising.

...Or are you saying that WF-whatever does not enter into that sort of arrangement with the musicians whose work it plays, but plays whatever it wants with or without the creator's approval or consent? If it's the latter, then they differ only in degree from Marvel's ripping off of Steranko's labor while, if the former, they are irrelevant to your point, since the worker had the final decision over whether the broadcaster benefitted from the result of their work (verb).

I'm sorry, Paul, but while I agree that the current structure of gatekeepers and controllers must, and likely will, change drastically and soon, you are flat out wrong in assuming that not paying labor for the output of its work (verb) -- if the use of that output has value to you is in any way, shape, or form -- has any ethical legitimacy. And defending it on the basis of "that's just the way the world is -- the result of your labor CAN be copied, so it's acceptable that you lose all right to it," is the 21st-century equivalent of 'Fire the lot of them; we'll find cheaper workers!"

MbedIt

05-19-2009, 05:14 PM

You certainly aren't legally allowed to tape music off the radio. And TV producers have done their damnedest to prevent you from recording TV shows. And having failed to do that, they did their damnedest to force you to watch the advertising. Which also failed.

Yes, you are.... if you're using certain media as I mentioned earlier.

Also, it depends on what you record and what and how you use it, here's (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=87487) an example from just a over a year ago where the courts dismissed a law suite. Albeit it is a talk show and not music. Years ago, radio station records & CD's routinely had a "When you play it Say it" sticker on them. For 2 reasons. 1st advertise it. 2nd talk over the intro so if someone records it, it devalues it's worth from a market perspective, which is a large part of Fair Use.

An hour of an analog recorded radio broadcast was not, and still isn't worth as much as a perfectly downloaded digital replica. Fair Use is in new territory where digital media is concerned.

Does that mean the RIAA isn't trying to undo fair use (http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=482)?

Again, there are issues that have yet to play out in court concerning fair use and recording publicly broadcast media for your own use with todays latest and greatest digital media, but fair use allows tape recording of AM & FM Radio, as well as certain types of recording media for TV shows.

This is why you can buy a TiVo.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 05:15 PM

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 05:20 PM

I was only able to get nevermind on bootleg cassette. It unrealistic to expect kids to shell out money they don't have to get into new music. That said we have youtube now.

That's the thing though, because you had that bootleg it gave you the chance to enjoy and become familiar with Nirvana and their music.

Now, once you were a bit older and had some money to spend you could then decide to shell out the money to buy an official copy of the album with top-notch quality and then get rid of your shoddy bootleg copy.

If it's worth it you'll spend the money on the copy that's sold in stores.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 06:17 PM

Paul, I never thought that you would be saying that a worker shouldn't be paid for the result of his labor, which is all that I've been saying all along.

I would have thought that the fact that I keep repeating that a worker should be paid for working would have made it clear that I'm not saying that at all.

It's not property-and-commodity, it's service.

Your points seem to be; 1 - that if the result of a worker's labor CAN be replicated by others then the worker should rightly expect to lose all compensation for the work (verb) performed and; 2 - that the current system which already compensates those workers poorly if at all is so corrupt that COMPLETELY stiffing the worker is justifiable in order to bring down the current structure.

I didn't say anything like that. However, let's address it.

If I leave my stereo on the street, I shouldn't expect to find it there when I get back. That is now, whether you like it or not, the position of every creator of reproducible art. There are no gates to enclose the content. There aren't enough baseball bats to enforce payment. Everyone's work is free for everyone else to simply take.

It's a dead parrot. Get used to it.

Secondly: yes, artists are routinely stiffed by corporations, and the corporations shouldn't be rewarded for it. There are tons of outlets for creators to use that don't involve getting into bed with Satan; Satan just offers a bigger deal (doesn't often deliver, but that's another matter), and if you get caught in the crossfire for being in bed with Satan, well, you made your choice.

Nowhere am I "romanticizing" the artist, musician, whatever. I am a professional illustrator and designer. I work for people who want the use of the results of my labor.

Then I'm sure the current situation is very threatening to you. In which case, appraising yourself of the realities is probably more important than railing against them being different from what you want them to be. Because that's very unattractive to the end-user.

Let's look clearly at it.

Your work has two purposes (other than your own satisfaction);
a) you add value to a project; in which case, you're in a position to negotiate a contract;
b) you add value to the end-user (because that's really what art does); but there is no possible way to negotiate that contract.

That's the problem for creators right now. Do you sell to a vendor -- who themselves may well be going as tits-up as Devil's Due -- or do you create a relationship with the end user that you've just made happier?

The latter is the only long term solution.

Expecting to possess a tangible artifact

And that's part of the big mistake. Tangible artifacts aren't on the table.

("Digital reproduction means that copies are universal, and thus free. There's no point in yelling about theft (...) because you can't steal something that's free and universal.")

That's just reality. You might not like it. You might want to work out a solution to it. But reality it is.

"(C)opies are universal, and thus free" is only true if you believe that you have a right to stiff the worker who produced the original item

Nope.

It's true whether I like it or not.

-- which apparently has value to YOU, since you want to possess a copy of it -- simply because you CAN; otherwise the operative phrase is "copies CAN BE universal, and thus micropayments become viable compensation for use of a creator's labor."

No, it isn't.

Copies ARE universal. That's the huge point I'm trying to get across here. The old property-and-commodity model doesn't apply to digital reproduction.

What's happened is that we've shifted to a transparently Marxian situation where instead of buying property, we're paying for service.

Generally, the examples that you cited in your response to my previous post (whistling a Dolly Parton tune, et al) are immaterial,

They certainly are. That's my point. Information is not, in the property-and-commodity sense, material.

"hearing" a remembered tune and hearing it physically are two different things; the map is not the territory.

Tell that to the music industry 125 years ago, where the entirety of its sales was of sheet music.

Seeing a mural...? Listening to streaming music...? Presumably, in either case, the artists agreed to put the result of their work (verb) out for public access for a financial consideration (ranging from -$x on up to $y) that was acceptable to all parties involved in the original transaction. Someone who chooses to retain a tangible iteration of the result of that work (verb) -- e. g., recording streaming web content -- is unilaterally forcing a one-sided transaction on the worker without the worker having any choice in the matter.

When a muralist accepts a one-time payment (and presumably retains Creative Commons rights), the muralist accepts that passers by will be looking at the work without the artist getting a further red cent out of it.

Once upon a time, the same thought was true of moviemakers, tv show producers, and even, shock horror, the people who made comics. What's changed? Nothing but the expectations of the producers. Which is not so smart, since in a world of digital reproduction, there's no reason to expect that money to roll in at all, is there.

For someone who prattles on at length about social justice, I find your acceptance and defense of this rather surprising.

Then perhaps you might want to go back and read all the stuff I wrote about this in MONDO 2000 -- sorry, hard copies available through eBay only -- when I was talking about digital reproduction liberating the artist from corporations, and liberating culture from the property-and-commodity model.

Property is theft, don't you know.

Which has always been the reason for hacking mp3s or whatever else. In exactly the same way indy labels hacked the system back in 1977, and disrupted the monopoly of the majors; or indeed self-published comics.

Self-published or indy comics couldn't have happened without local comics stores; the ground situation changed, something new could happen. We could say the same about the invention of movable type. Now it's digital. Things have changed again.

There's now massive opportunity for anyone ready to toss property-and-commodity out the window. It won't be the big bucks of the Rolling Stones any more -- that's gone for good -- but it will be sustainable.

Or are you saying that WF-whatever

WFMU. It's only four letters. And known throughout the indy world as the most important station in America.

does not enter into that sort of arrangement with the musicians whose work it plays, but plays whatever it wants with or without the creator's approval or consent? If it's the latter, then they differ only in degree from Marvel's ripping off of Steranko's labor

Holy crap! People are giving up their time for no compensation so they can play you records on the radio, so you might actually feel like you're part of a living culture. Those bastards!

No doubt the utter ripoff nature of this is why Sonic Youth and the Ohcees play benefits for the station.

while, if the former, they are irrelevant to your point, since the worker had the final decision over whether the broadcaster benefitted from the result of their work (verb).

Creators have NEVER had any say about their music being on the radio. And rarely, if ever, been compensated much for it. The current system hands over money to a bunch of racketeers who don't distribute the money properly, and keep most of it.

The same is obviously true of most, if not all, of the work on that Marvel DVD.

I'm sorry, Paul, but while I agree that the current structure of gatekeepers and controllers must, and likely will, change drastically and soon, you are flat out wrong in assuming that not paying labor for the output of its work (verb)

Enough with the lecture already.

Here, in plain English, in all caps.

DIGITALLY REPRODUCED MEDIA HAVE EXACTLY ZERO ECONOMIC VALUE AS COMMODITIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

You can moan about it, you can try to force it, but like a love affair that's gone south, there's no recapturing the magic.

There are only two ways to extract economic value from digital work:

1) Create a sufficiently ethical (and efficient) system that people WANT to pay for the SERVICE.
2) Threaten people with baseball bats.

And threaten people with baseball bats doesn't work.

And defending it on the basis of "that's just the way the world is

It's not "that's the way the world is", it's "that's the economic reality". All property-and-commodity economics depends on scarcity; remove scarcity, and property-and-commodity economics ceases to exist.

-- the result of your labor CAN be copied, so it's acceptable that you lose all right to it," is the 21st-century equivalent of 'Fire the lot of them; we'll find cheaper workers!"

I said nothing about acceptability -- that's all on you.

What I said is:

WAKE UUUUUPPPPP!!!!!

:biggrin:

This is where we're at now. It's the price we pay for liberating the work from late capitalism, and for creating better opportunities for anyone who isn't Shania Twain. And now we have to do a massive bit of dancing.

Already happening in the music world.

Next stop, publishing.

Watch this space.

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 08:22 PM

I would have thought that the fact that I keep repeating that a worker should be paid for working would have made it clear that I'm not saying that at all.

It's not property-and-commodity, it's service.

I didn't say anything like that. However, let's address it.

If I leave my stereo on the street, I shouldn't expect to find it there when I get back. That is now, whether you like it or not, the position of every creator of reproducible art. There are no gates to enclose the content. There aren't enough baseball bats to enforce payment. Everyone's work is free for everyone else to simply take.

It's a dead parrot. Get used to it.

Secondly: yes, artists are routinely stiffed by corporations, and the corporations shouldn't be rewarded for it. There are tons of outlets for creators to use that don't involve getting into bed with Satan; Satan just offers a bigger deal (doesn't often deliver, but that's another matter), and if you get caught in the crossfire for being in bed with Satan, well, you made your choice.

Then I'm sure the current situation is very threatening to you. In which case, appraising yourself of the realities is probably more important than railing against them being different from what you want them to be. Because that's very unattractive to the end-user.

Let's look clearly at it.

Your work has two purposes (other than your own satisfaction);
a) you add value to a project; in which case, you're in a position to negotiate a contract;
b) you add value to the end-user (because that's really what art does); but there is no possible way to negotiate that contract.

That's the problem for creators right now. Do you sell to a vendor -- who themselves may well be going as tits-up as Devil's Due -- or do you create a relationship with the end user that you've just made happier?

The latter is the only long term solution.

And that's part of the big mistake. Tangible artifacts aren't on the table.

("Digital reproduction means that copies are universal, and thus free. There's no point in yelling about theft (...) because you can't steal something that's free and universal.")

That's just reality. You might not like it. You might want to work out a solution to it. But reality it is.

Nope.

It's true whether I like it or not.

No, it isn't.

Copies ARE universal. That's the huge point I'm trying to get across here. The old property-and-commodity model doesn't apply to digital reproduction.

What's happened is that we've shifted to a transparently Marxian situation where instead of buying property, we're paying for service.

They certainly are. That's my point. Information is not, in the property-and-commodity sense, material.

Tell that to the music industry 125 years ago, where the entirety of its sales was of sheet music.

When a muralist accepts a one-time payment (and presumably retains Creative Commons rights), the muralist accepts that passers by will be looking at the work without the artist getting a further red cent out of it.

Once upon a time, the same thought was true of moviemakers, tv show producers, and even, shock horror, the people who made comics. What's changed? Nothing but the expectations of the producers. Which is not so smart, since in a world of digital reproduction, there's no reason to expect that money to roll in at all, is there.

Then perhaps you might want to go back and read all the stuff I wrote about this in MONDO 2000 -- sorry, hard copies available through eBay only -- when I was talking about digital reproduction liberating the artist from corporations, and liberating culture from the property-and-commodity model.

Property is theft, don't you know.

Which has always been the reason for hacking mp3s or whatever else. In exactly the same way indy labels hacked the system back in 1977, and disrupted the monopoly of the majors; or indeed self-published comics.

Self-published or indy comics couldn't have happened without local comics stores; the ground situation changed, something new could happen. We could say the same about the invention of movable type. Now it's digital. Things have changed again.

There's now massive opportunity for anyone ready to toss property-and-commodity out the window. It won't be the big bucks of the Rolling Stones any more -- that's gone for good -- but it will be sustainable.

WFMU. It's only four letters. And known throughout the indy world as the most important station in America.

Holy crap! People are giving up their time for no compensation so they can play you records on the radio, so you might actually feel like you're part of a living culture. Those bastards!

No doubt the utter ripoff nature of this is why Sonic Youth and the Ohcees play benefits for the station.

Creators have NEVER had any say about their music being on the radio. And rarely, if ever, been compensated much for it. The current system hands over money to a bunch of racketeers who don't distribute the money properly, and keep most of it.

The same is obviously true of most, if not all, of the work on that Marvel DVD.

Enough with the lecture already.

Here, in plain English, in all caps.

DIGITALLY REPRODUCED MEDIA HAVE EXACTLY ZERO ECONOMIC VALUE AS COMMODITIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

You can moan about it, you can try to force it, but like a love affair that's gone south, there's no recapturing the magic.

There are only two ways to extract economic value from digital work:

1) Create a sufficiently ethical (and efficient) system that people WANT to pay for the SERVICE.
2) Threaten people with baseball bats.

And threaten people with baseball bats doesn't work.

It's not "that's the way the world is", it's "that's the economic reality". All property-and-commodity economics depends on scarcity; remove scarcity, and property-and-commodity economics ceases to exist.

I said nothing about acceptability -- that's all on you.

What I said is:

WAKE UUUUUPPPPP!!!!!

:biggrin:

This is where we're at now. It's the price we pay for liberating the work from late capitalism, and for creating better opportunities for anyone who isn't Shania Twain. And now we have to do a massive bit of dancing.

Already happening in the music world.

Next stop, publishing.

Watch this space.

© 2009 Michael Moyle

Village Idiot

05-19-2009, 08:24 PM

And this is your second post in the thread where you just sort of swoop in, make a few snide remarks and don't add to the discussion.

Not snide remarks, just frustrated that the same ole tired argument is being made again.

And it's my second (now third) post on the subject because I don't spend all day posting on the internet.

Village Idiot

05-19-2009, 08:26 PM

Also, calling digital reproduction theft is stupid. Because it simply isn't theft.

Yes, it is, if you haven't paid for it.

Tages

05-19-2009, 08:38 PM

Yes, it is, if you haven't paid for it.

Really? Because last I checked, if I steal your car, you're worse off than if I didn't.

Whereas if I download a song you performed for free you're exactly as well off as if I hadn't.

Digital reproduction changes the rules. Scarcity is no longer a factor.

This is the important thing that several people in this discussion have been forgetting.

Tages

05-19-2009, 08:48 PM

Thanks for comparing artists to plumbers and saying what we do has no value, Paul.

Really fucking appreciated.

Wow. I really never expected to see you of all people miss a point by so much.

Let's analyze this, shall we?

So?

What a plumber does has value. Doesn't make his labour a commodity.
A plumber's labor is valuable.

A painting is a commodity, because it has scarcity value.
A painting is also valuable. But it is also necessarily scarce.

Anything that can be digitally reproduced immediately ceases to be a commodity.
Digital reproduction is like the labor of a plumber. But remember that WHAT A PLUMBER DOES HAS VALUE. Therefore, what you do also has value.

And whether or not something is a commodity has no bearing on whether you get paid for your labour.
Self-explanatory.

Rev. Calibos

05-19-2009, 08:55 PM

Really? Because last I checked, if I steal your car, you're worse off than if I didn't.

Whereas if I download a song you performed for free you're exactly as well off as if I hadn't.

Digital reproduction changes the rules. Scarcity is no longer a factor.

This is the important thing that several people in this discussion have been forgetting.

Well said. There's no theft because there's nothing to restore.

I'm not depriving anyone of their property as there was no property to begin with.

A far cry from actual theft which could entail me going to a music store and pocketing a CD. The CD is a physical thing with a definite amount and level of scarcity.

Not the case with digital reproductions.

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 09:29 PM

Wow. I really never expected to see you of all people miss a point by so much.

Let's analyze this, shall we?

A plumber's labor is valuable.

A painting is also valuable. But it is also necessarily scarce.

Digital reproduction is like the labor of a plumber. But remember that WHAT A PLUMBER DOES HAS VALUE. Therefore, what you do also has value.

Self-explanatory.

Actually, we all DO understand.

You are saying that, while you want to own the RESULT of our labor, you feel no need to pay us for the labor that created the thing that you want to own.

You seem to be assuming that you are owning the recording.

If I gave you a recording of static that lasted just as long as the song (to use one example) and consumed the same number of bytes on your music player, would you be as happy with it as with the song?

ONLY if you can honestly say that you see no difference between a song and an equal duration of static can I concede your point. If you would rather have the song, then it is NOT the recording that you value, but the work that the composer, performer, et al put in. Their labor has created that which you value.

Labor for which you apparently feel no need to compensate them.

So any comments about whether visual art, music, or literature is a "commodity" or not is pure smokescreen.

Person X performs labor.

Person Y wants to possess the result of that labor.

Thus the RESULT of Person X's labor has value to Person Y.

Person Y feels no need to compensate Person X for the labor that created the desired value, because Person Z has already made it widely available.

Person X looks at the number of seeds of his song on bittorrent, gives himself a pat on the back for making all of those nice people happy, and tightens his belt another notch.

We actually understand perfectly.

What we're saying is, if you value that which our labor has created, pay us for our labor and use it with our blessings. If you don't value it, don't pay us and don't use it.

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 09:42 PM

Well said. There's no theft because there's nothing to restore.

I'm not depriving anyone of their property as there was no property to begin with.

A far cry from actual theft which could entail me going to a music store and pocketing a CD. The CD is a physical thing with a definite amount and level of scarcity.

Not the case with digital reproductions.

Again -- a person has performed labor, you have received the benefit of that person's labor without compensating him for that labor.

This is called "Theft of Services". Neither the scarcity of the result of that labor -- nor the lack thereof -- enters into the equation.

You have received benefit from someone else's labor and have not compensated him for it.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 10:06 PM

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 10:16 PM

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 10:31 PM

Yes, it is, if you haven't paid for it.

I didn't pay for reading this post.

What a bastard I am.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 10:33 PM

Briareos

05-19-2009, 10:39 PM

It's ok gets to be a bit repetative though:

http://vc.igg.com/main.php

stealthwise

05-19-2009, 10:47 PM

I tend to dl albums and buy merchandise from bands using the cash I saved on the albums.

Downloading music also isn't illegal in Canada (yet/still, far as I'm aware), so from what I can tell, it's not considered theft.

Hell, I just downloaded three albums that I never would have bought otherwise, and I'll be able to at least recommend them to other people I know that actually do pay money for music. I see no conflict here.

Crowforge

05-19-2009, 10:53 PM

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 11:06 PM

Here's a question. Let's say you bought an album and somewhere along the line of your, I mean my friends ten year depression you, I, umm he uses said album as a furniture coaster quite by accident. Is downloading the album still considered theft?

As far as I'm concerned, buying the record is theft.

A mere twenty bucks for the privilege of me playing your very own home? Why, the nerve! I insist on one million dollars per performance!

CutterMike

05-19-2009, 11:15 PM

Congratulations. You now own an unenforcible copyright on work that is economically unexploitable.

Your point?
(...)

My point is that I was tired, cranky, and had low blood sugar, and people seem resolutely unable or unwilling to see my point.

You, yourself, keep harping on the commodity issue -- you pay lip service to the concept of paying for service, but as soon as the conversation swings to paying a worker for service, you slip the "commodity" red herring in there and you're off again.

I am saying that if someone appreciates my service -- whether it's composing music that they want to listen to, drawing pictures that they want to look at, or write words that they want to read, then they should pay for that service.

If they choose to download a torrent of my work, the scarcity or lack thereof does not enter into the equation. By wanting to possess a copy of the result of my labor, they have indicated that my labor has value to them and, thus, they should feel some obligation to compensate me for that labor. If they get pleasure -- receive value -- from giving the results of my labor to others, they should consider compensating me MORE for the added pleasure -- the added value -- that they have received from my labor.

At no time does the the concept of scarcity enter into it.

(...)
That's the problem for creators right now. Do you sell to a vendor -- who themselves may well be going as tits-up as Devil's Due -- or do you create a relationship with the end user that you've just made happier?

The latter is the only long term solution.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude seems to be:
(...)
Digital reproduction is like the labor of a plumber. (...)

Well said. There's no theft because there's nothing to restore.

I'm not depriving anyone of their property as there was no property to begin with.

A far cry from actual theft which could entail me going to a music store and pocketing a CD. The CD is a physical thing with a definite amount and level of scarcity.

Not the case with digital reproductions.

...That the worker's labor is not worth paying for.

In point of fact, the ARTIFACT of the artist's labor is equated with the LABOR of the plumber, when in fact the equations should be:

Artist's labor = Plumber's labor
Digital recording = Working toilet.

In either case, the artifact is the result of the labor, and it is the labor that should be paid for.

However, by framing the discussion as "the artifact has no scarcity value, therefore there is no reason to compensate the creator for his labor because I have taken nothing of value," the value of the labor in creating the desired artifact is, essentially, elided.

I, frankly, see no way to establish a relationship of mutual respect if the beneficiary of my labor sees no reason to value that labor.

Astonishing X-Fan

05-19-2009, 11:21 PM

I didn't pay for reading this post.

What a bastard I am.

His post wasn't created to be sold.

If someone creates a product or performs labor with the intent to sell it, and they do not recieve payment for it, then I would consider it morally wrong.

Paul McEnery

05-19-2009, 11:29 PM

His post wasn't created to be sold.

Nor was mine, but I still get fitty bucks down the corner on a good night.

Tages

05-19-2009, 11:30 PM

Actually, we all DO understand.

You are saying that, while you want to own the RESULT of our labor, you feel no need to pay us for the labor that created the thing that you want to own.

You seem to be assuming that you are owning the recording.

If I gave you a recording of static that lasted just as long as the song (to use one example) and consumed the same number of bytes on your music player, would you be as happy with it as with the song?

ONLY if you can honestly say that you see no difference between a song and an equal duration of static can I concede your point. If you would rather have the song, then it is NOT the recording that you value, but the work that the composer, performer, et al put in. Their labor has created that which you value.

Labor for which you apparently feel no need to compensate them.

So any comments about whether visual art, music, or literature is a "commodity" or not is pure smokescreen.

Person X performs labor.

Person Y wants to possess the result of that labor.

Thus the RESULT of Person X's labor has value to Person Y.

Person Y feels no need to compensate Person X for the labor that created the desired value, because Person Z has already made it widely available.

Person X looks at the number of seeds of his song on bittorrent, gives himself a pat on the back for making all of those nice people happy, and tightens his belt another notch.

We actually understand perfectly.

What we're saying is, if you value that which our labor has created, pay us for our labor and use it with our blessings. If you don't value it, don't pay us and don't use it.

I don't think you do.

I think this is a load of sanctimonious nonsense avoiding real issues for, well, I don't knowfor what reason.

Fact is: scarcity matters. When that metric changes, so does the nature of the issue itself.

Fact is: downloading free shit in and of itself doesn't actually hurt the producer of the art, because it doesn't actually reduce the amount of the item in question, or deprive the artist of anything. Ignoring this rests upon the unsupported assumption that if the downloader didn't make the download the s/he would be spending money, instead of just not using it at all. It's the same sort of logical fallacy as "A vote for the Green Party is a vote for the REPUBLICANS!", it reaches an artificial conclusion by arbitrarily excluding all other possibilities.

Fact is: the way things are, musicians, filmmakers and artists already get only a tiny percentage of the money people spend on their work, so that is massively inflating the price and restricting access to consumers, all to make a very few people at the tippy top rich.

Fact is: technology as it is going, you have absolutely no way to enforce your point of view. Change or die.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 12:47 AM

I don't think you do.

I think this is a load of sanctimonious nonsense avoiding real issues for, well, I don't knowfor what reason.

Fact is: scarcity matters. When that metric changes, so does the nature of the issue itself.

Are you saying that scarcity is the ONLY thing that matters in your calculation of value?

I only ask because you DO appear to eliminate labor as a factor. You appear to only count scarcity and physicality as determinants of value.

If I take equal volumes of ingredients and -- on the one hand -- make ten cherry pies, and -- on the other hand -- make ten blenders-ful of pink mush, I have created two sets of things that are of equal scarcity. If you discount labor and only count the value of the ingredients and their relative scarcity, then a pitcher of pink goo is of value equal to a cherry pie.

If you value the cherry pie over cherry sludge, then you accept that labor is a value-creator and should be paid for.

Fact is: downloading free shit in and of itself doesn't actually hurt the producer of the art, because it doesn't actually reduce the amount of the item in question, or deprive the artist of anything.

Your assumption, again, appears to be that the creator's time and labor have no value -- to him, or to anyone else. You are utilizing the result of his expenditure of time and effort, but see no reason to compensate him for any portion of that time and energy expended.

Ignoring this rests upon the unsupported assumption that if the downloader didn't make the download the s/he would be spending money, instead of just not using it at all.

Actually, it's not.

It is, in fact, ignoring anything else that the downloader would be doing or could be doing.

My point rests on -- and I will repeat it as many times as I can before I give up in disgust -- the simple statement that if one person performs labor and another person gets value from that labor, the the fair and proper thing is for the person who received value to compensate the person who created that value.

Fact is: the way things are, musicians, filmmakers and artists already get only a tiny percentage of the money people spend on their work, so that is massively inflating the price and restricting access to consumers, all to make a very few people at the tippy top rich.

Which is irrelevant to the point that I am stating: The consumer of value should be willing to pay the creator of that value. If you are downloading something, you are explicitly stating that it has value to you. Therefore, you should be willing to pay the creator of that value some amount in exchange for his labor in creating it.

Fact is: technology as it is going, you have absolutely no way to enforce your point of view. Change or die.

And here, I believe, we come to the crux of the argument: "You can't make me!"

And you're right.

I can't force you or anyone to pay me for my labor. The only thing that I can do is explain that that thing that you downloaded is the result of SOMEONE'S labor and that, if YOU would want to be paid for YOUR labor, then simple fairness says that you should be willing to pay someone else for HIS labor, if you value the result and if he asks you to.

And that's really all that it comes down to -- if you want to claim that you are a fair and honest person, you should be willing to pay the creator of something that has value to you for his labor in creating it.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 01:24 AM

Are you saying that scarcity is the ONLY thing that matters in your calculation of value?

I only ask because you DO appear to eliminate labor as a factor. You appear to only count scarcity and physicality as determinants of value.

Nobody's talking about their own personal calculation of value.

We're talking about the actual economic value of what is being claimed to be an object.

And that actual economic value is zero.

If I buy a book, I can sell that book on.

If I download something, it has no resale value whatsoever.

It's economic value is zero.

That's a game changer.

Your assumption, again, appears to be that the creator's time and labor have no value -- to him, or to anyone else. You are utilizing the result of his expenditure of time and effort, but see no reason to compensate him for any portion of that time and energy expended.

You are the only person talking about this, and it has no bearing.

My point rests on -- and I will repeat it as many times as I can before I give up in disgust -- the simple statement that if one person performs labor and another person gets value from that labor, the the fair and proper thing is for the person who received value to compensate the person who created that value.

Why?

And if so, who determines how much?

Take the case of someone busking in the subway. Maybe I like the tune. But there's no obligation on me to throw him some cash.

Take the case of some irritating bastard being a crap act in the subway. He's subtracted value from my day. Should I take money from him?

The point is, there's no actual economic contract between producer and consumer. Not a sausage. Any given producer can shout as loud as they like, but they're still only going to get what consumers feel like paying.

The only real leverage the producer has is to stop producing. And then the consumer will just move on to something else.

Unless, that is, the consumer feels well disposed towards the producer and wants to put some money in the hat.

Which is irrelevant to the point that I am stating: The consumer of value should be willing to pay the creator of that value.

As a producer, you would say that. Every producer says that. Me, I want a million bucks because you read this sentence.

Dang. Looks like I'm out of luck.

If you are downloading something, you are explicitly stating that it has value to you. Therefore, you should be willing to pay the creator of that value some amount in exchange for his labor in creating it.

Are you?

I look at a lot of stuff online out of curiosity. Hey, that video of a cat riding on a turtle is pretty funny. Heh. I just stiffed that guy out of at least five dollars worth of entertainment.

How do we determine the value?

I'd say, the traditional way, if we take the property-and-commodity route is that we pay as little as we have to. In the age of digital reproduction, that amount is zero.

So if we want to get artists paid, we have to come up with a new model.

Me, I've made a living by writing. And your argument makes me feel ashamed for having done so. I feel massively queasy about all these "should"s. Bollocks anyone "should" pay me. They should pay me if they want to. I should pay if I want to.

It's like some psychotic girlfriend yelling "you owe me" at the end of a relationship (boyfriend where applicable).

you should be willing to pay someone else for HIS labor, if you value the result and if he asks you to.

And perhaps even if s/he doesn't.

I value Warren's work. He gets two dollar. I value Grant's work a bit less. He gets one dollar. Neil, he's worth fifty cents to me. Alan -- oh, he sucks. Not a penny.

If that's where I stand on it, who are they to tell me otherwise, when the actual economic value of what I'm supposedly buying is zero?

If I'm getting a plumber round, I'll do the same comparison shop. Why is an artistic service any different from that?

And that's really all that it comes down to -- if you want to claim that you are a fair and honest person, you should be willing to pay the creator of something that has value to you for his labor in creating it.

And exactly who do you think you're arguing against, here?

That is, apart from "if you want to claim that you are a fair and honest person", which is just insulting, and makes me want to go round your house and steal your beer money.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Come the revolution, brother, we won't need to worry about such trifling matters.:evilsmile:

Tages

05-20-2009, 02:32 AM

Are you saying that scarcity is the ONLY thing that matters in your calculation of value?

I think it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that I have said no such thing.

I only ask because you DO appear to eliminate labor as a factor. You appear to only count scarcity and physicality as determinants of value.
There is something called the Labor Theory of Value. It's the idea that an object's true value is proportionate to what labor went into producing it. So if a car takes 20 times the labor as a bike, it's worth 20 times as much.

It also means that if I spend my labor digging a hole in the middle of the desert that the hole has value. Anyone who looks at or falls into it is using my labor and I deserve to be compensated accordingly.

No economist has taken this theory seriously in the last 150 years. It's the economics equivalent of phlogiston.

If I take equal volumes of ingredients and -- on the one hand -- make ten cherry pies, and -- on the other hand -- make ten blenders-ful of pink mush, I have created two sets of things that are of equal scarcity. If you discount labor and only count the value of the ingredients and their relative scarcity, then a pitcher of pink goo is of value equal to a cherry pie.

If you value the cherry pie over cherry sludge, then you accept that labor is a value-creator and should be paid for.
No, that's completely wrong. People are willing to pay more for the pies. That's what makes them more valuable. The same way that a peach picked fresh from the tree is worth more than a peach picked then cooked until charred and stepped on.

Actually, it's not.

It is, in fact, ignoring anything else that the downloader would be doing or could be doing.

My point rests on -- and I will repeat it as many times as I can before I give up in disgust -- the simple statement that if one person performs labor and another person gets value from that labor, the the fair and proper thing is for the person who received value to compensate the person who created that value.
Economists thought so in the Renaissance, too. It's an idea that's been discarded because it is, in fact, completely wrong.

Which is irrelevant to the point that I am stating: The consumer of value should be willing to pay the creator of that value. If you are downloading something, you are explicitly stating that it has value to you. Therefore, you should be willing to pay the creator of that value some amount in exchange for his labor in creating it.
My roommates often create value to me by conversing with me. Maybe they should be demanding money.

And here, I believe, we come to the crux of the argument: "You can't make me!"

And you're right.
Go ahead and ask me how much stuff I've downloaded for free in lieu of paying for it. I think the last thing was some manga a friend sent to me in an e-mail 2 years ago. I ended up buying the DVD of the anime because of it. Otherwise, I would never have known it existed.

I can't force you or anyone to pay me for my labor. The only thing that I can do is explain that that thing that you downloaded is the result of SOMEONE'S labor and that, if YOU would want to be paid for YOUR labor, then simple fairness says that you should be willing to pay someone else for HIS labor, if you value the result and if he asks you to.

And that's really all that it comes down to -- if you want to claim that you are a fair and honest person, you should be willing to pay the creator of something that has value to you for his labor in creating it.
I'll make certain to pay every single street performer I come across from now on then. And buy a copy of every single book I borrow from a friend myself.

What you're saying is ludicrous. And you're being sanctimonious and condescending to boot.

Rev. Calibos

05-20-2009, 04:32 AM

Again -- a person has performed labor, you have received the benefit of that person's labor without compensating him for that labor.

This is called "Theft of Services". Neither the scarcity of the result of that labor -- nor the lack thereof -- enters into the equation.

You have received benefit from someone else's labor and have not compensated him for it.

Alright, let's assume for a moment that I owe the artist something for enjoying the digital reproduction of their work, what do I end up owing them?

The enjoyment derived from that particular output of work is going to be different for each individual ('I Appreciate The Muppets On A Much Deeper Level Than You') and while you might enjoy the performance a little bit, me? I enjoyed it a LOT.

Yet we both paid the same price for the work, let's say it was $20.

You enjoyed it a little bit, you weren't impressed though and you felt like, had you the choice, you probably wouldn't be a regular fan of the artist's output.

Me, on the other hand, I enjoyed the living hell out of it and, when you get down to it, I thought the $20 was a steal really. I would have easily paid much, much more for it so I'm definitely a happy camper.

So in a way you got screwed by the artist and I most definitely shorted him.

His output wasn't worth $20 in your opinion and you feel you overpaid the artist. Me? I would have paid him a lot MORE for his output, so in a way I got much, much more enjoyment out of it than what I actually paid to enjoy.

So how do we fix it? Could we email the artist for you and ask for a partial refund, bring the price down to something that better reflects just how much enjoyment you really got out of it?

In my case, should I write the artist a check to compensate him for the additonal enjoyment I got from his output? $20 was a steal imho and it wouldn't be right to short him like that.

What you'll probably say next is something along the lines of 'well, at least the artist got paid something, which is more than we can say about illegally downloaded music'.

The thing is though, sometimes the value is 0. Sometimes the actual worth is going to be $0.00.

And sometimes the actual value is going to be far more than what the work is being priced at.

So how do we fix this? Do we continue overpaying/shafting the artist by keeping a fixed price or do we really come up with a system where they can be fairly compensated for their work based on how much it's actually worth?

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 04:18 PM

Nobody's talking about their own personal calculation of value.

We're talking about the actual economic value of what is being claimed to be an object.

I guess I fail to see how a personal calculation of value can be avoided. If we accept the concept of "actual economic value" without considering what personal value we put on things, then it appears to me that there can be no basis for negotiation of any sort. For instance, further down, you say:

If I'm getting a plumber round, I'll do the same comparison shop. Why is an artistic service any different from that?

If there is an "actual economic value" for getting a toilet fixed, then it seems to me that there could BE no comparison shopping, since a toilet fixed is a toilet fixed and you and all of the plumbers would know that the value of a working toilet is "X". If comparison shopping is possible, then it seems to me that you are looking for someone whose personal valuation of his work matches yours. Once those personal valuations are in synch, then an arrangement can be made.

Your two stances SEEM contradictory. What am I missing?

If I buy a book, I can sell that book on.

Yup.

If I download something, it has no resale value whatsoever.

True, true

It's economic value is zero.

That's a game changer.

Only if your only definition of "value" is "economic value". If something has entertained you, informed you, or altered your world-view, has it provided "value" for you?

And if so, who determines how much?

Ideally, the worker and the viewer have some common perception of what each would feel comfortable earning/paying (We might call this the "actual economic value" of their transaction :biggrin: ). In reality, in a world where the creator has no ability to control the distribution/use of the result of his labor except by withholding it from public view altogether, the final decision on compensation for his labor rests with the consumer's inclination to pay him or not.

I DO understand that this is the reality

Take the case of someone busking in the subway. Maybe I like the tune. But there's no obligation on me to throw him some cash.

Nope. But it would be nice.

Take the case of some irritating bastard being a crap act in the subway. He's subtracted value from my day. Should I take money from him?

Should you unilaterally take cash out of the till if a restaurant serves you a lousy meal?

Alternatively, you could think: "I got nothing from his labor; he got no payment from me. We're even."

(...And I had a girlfriend who used the "(It's) ruined my whole day" ploy when she was upset, so that argument is going to cut no mustard with me. I've been immunized! :wink: )

The point is, there's no actual economic contract between producer and consumer. Not a sausage. Any given producer can shout as loud as they like, but they're still only going to get what consumers feel like paying.

Understood.

Unless, that is, the consumer feels well disposed towards the producer and wants to put some money in the hat.

Again, understood.

The point that I have been unable to understand is that, if the result of someone's labor is of sufficient value to another person that they want to possess it (i.e. download an instance of a song/movie/picture/poem/FillInTheBlank and keep it resident for their use) why they feel no desire or inclination to reimburse the person who created that item.

The only reason -- it seems to me -- for that attitude that people have posted here is because they can't make ECONOMIC re-use of their download -- that it has no (Please forgive me!) "sell-on-ability" (I'm so sorry!), and that, since the producer has not lost a physical object, the has lost nothing.

But my perception is that this point of view is only possible if you start from the idea that the worker's labor has no value and that while the downloaded file has sufficient value to be desired, the creation of it has none.

Value has been created out of nothing.

Does economics refute the laws of thermodynamics? If my reading of the attitude of the non-paying downloader is correct, it would appear so.

As I said earlier: it seems clear (to me, at least) that that labor has SOME value to the consumer, since they chose to acquire an instance of it and keep it available for their use and/or distribution. If it has no resale value, then at least they apparently put some value on the pleasure that they (presumably) get in using that other person's creation. At the very least, it seems to me that if they considered the possession of that iteration of the result of someone else's labor* to be of NO value to them, that they would clear that hard-drive space for something that they DID consider had value to them (that they derived more pleasure from).

(* Damn! You people have made so may complaints about my terminology that it takes nearly forever to phrase what I want to say. Paul doesn't like "work" as a noun, Cal doesn't download "music" he downloads "files"... *grumblegrumblemuttermutter*)

As a producer, you would say that. Every producer says that. Me, I want a million bucks because you read this sentence.

Dang. Looks like I'm out of luck.

Yup.

Give me what I consider a million dollars' worth of entertainment or information and we've got a deal. You might have given me a dollar's worth of thought; do you want me to send you a dollar?

(OTOH, I would like to think that we've both put roughly equal amounts of labor into this thread, so does that make us equal?)

How do we determine the value?

I'd say, the traditional way, if we take the property-and-commodity route is that we pay as little as we have to. In the age of digital reproduction, that amount is zero.

Well, since you are speaking here as a consumer, you would say that, wouldn't you?

On the other hand, if we are speaking of a physically intangible value received (momentary or long-term pleasure) for a physically intangible product (the result of a creator's labor) then why does the recipient NOT feel that the scales are unbalanced?

If it is impudent of me to expect that people SHOULD feel a need to balance the value given for value received equation, then I am only left to wonder why people feel that that imbalance is acceptable?

Is it simply because that imbalance is in their favor and "you can't make me" make some effort to balance it is reason enough?

Do they SEE no imbalance?

I value Warren's work. He gets two dollar. I value Grant's work a bit less. He gets one dollar. Neil, he's worth fifty cents to me. Alan -- oh, he sucks. Not a penny.

Fine. If you get that amount of pleasure from them and they receive that amount of compensation from you, then you have balanced the value scale. (Although, if you don't feel that you receive value from Alan's labor, I would hope that you no longer choose to partake of that work. If you continue to partake, even if only to say with satisfaction, "Yep; still sucks!" that you would send off that penny to cover that small satisfaction.) The only option that keeps the scale unbalanced, as I see it, is taking pleasure from someone's labor and actively choosing to stiff them for it.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Doesn't that axiom imply that the one "should" provide to the one who needs? You seemed to object earlier to the idea that anyone "should" do anything based on another's need.

...But let's assume that you were serious:

If I have the ability to entertain you and you need (cannot forgo -- can we assume that if you can choose to forgo something that it is not a "need"?) the entertainment that I provide, then I "should" provide that entertainment.

OTOH, if I have the need to eat and pay rent and you have the ability to partially ameliorate those needs by shuffling a buck or two my way, then you "should" do so.

Nye' tovarisch...?

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 05:26 PM

(...)
There is something called the Labor Theory of Value. It's the idea that an object's true value is proportionate to what labor went into producing it. So if a car takes 20 times the labor as a bike, it's worth 20 times as much.

It also means that if I spend my labor digging a hole in the middle of the desert that the hole has value. Anyone who looks at or falls into it is using my labor and I deserve to be compensated accordingly.

No economist has taken this theory seriously in the last 150 years. It's the economics equivalent of phlogiston.

No; in your example, your labor only has value to someone else if that person wants or needs a hole of that size in that place at that time.

Dig THAT hole and you have actively provided a service (created value). Dig any other, which does not give value (satisfaction) to someone who needs a hole which meets those specifications and you have provided no service to that person.

No, that's completely wrong. People are willing to pay more for the pies. That's what makes them more valuable. The same way that a peach picked fresh from the tree is worth more than a peach picked then cooked until charred and stepped on.

But there is no quantitative difference between the cherry pies and the cherry sludge. They have precisely the same mass of ingredients. they have exactly the same nutritive value. The ONLY difference that I can see is that labor has been added into making one set into something qualitatively "better" that people will want. If labor is "phlogiston" and is not the factor that differentiates the organization of the ingredients into pies (desirable) or sludge (undesirable), then what is?

Oh, and "People are willing to pay more for the pies. That's what makes them more valuable," Which is why people are willing to pay more for the pies. Which is what makes them more valuable. Which is why people are willing to pay more for the pies. Which is what makes them more valuable. Which...

... is as circular as saying "People drive fast. That's why they speed."

My roommates often create value to me by conversing with me. Maybe they should be demanding money.

Have the conversations been of value to you? E.g.: have you derived pleasure from them, been entertained by them, or acquired new information or insights from their conversations? If so, then possibly:
They felt that there was a sufficient exchange of value (see above) that the scales balance;

They felt that it was worth their while to set you straight (based on their opinion of what, if anything, they thought you needed to be set straight on), or;

They didn't care one way or another.

...Did you ever ask them?

Go ahead and ask me how much stuff I've downloaded for free in lieu of paying for it. I think the last thing was some manga a friend sent to me in an e-mail 2 years ago. I ended up buying the DVD of the anime because of it. Otherwise, I would never have known it existed.

Fine.

I'm not being snotty here; I'm seriously curious -- Why haven't you?

I'll make certain to pay every single street performer I come across from now on then. And buy a copy of every single book I borrow from a friend myself.

Good for you.

However, I have tried to specify that the case that I'm referring to is the one where you actively choose to acquire the instance of a creator's labor which allows you to utilize it repeatedly and keep it available for your use/pleasure/reference at will, not a memory of it.

The example that I referred to was Paul's mention of whistling a Dolly Parton song. What I said then was:

Generally, the examples that you cited in your response to my previous post (whistling a Dolly Parton tune, et al) are immaterial, since (with the POSSIBLE exception of someone with an eidetic memory -- I don't have one; I wouldn't know) "hearing" a remembered tune and hearing it physically are two different things; the map is not the territory.

But, if you insist on bringing up something that I believe I have said in previous posts that I'm NOT referring to -- transient exposure to the output of someone's labor, as opposed to possession; in passing a street musician, unless you actively enjoyed the performance and felt that his labor provided value (again, as defined above) to you, then you have received nothing and paid nothing and the scales balance. OTOH, if you DID feel that you received value and have provided no value in return then there exists an imbalance between value received and value returned, the scales are unbalanced and -- apparently I am only allowed to suggest that I (and probably the performer) believe that it would be a very nice thing if they WERE set into some sort of balance.

So, really, it seems to me that the deciding factor is whether -- as supplier or consumer of labor -- you feel that a transaction should achieve some sort of balance between what each brings to the transaction and what each receives from the transaction.

Clearly no one can FORCE balance, but I would claim that a transaction where the provider of a desired object receives nothing in return only benefits the receiving party and that a transaction which only benefits one party is a bad transaction.

And since, in the case of downloaded materials, the producer has no way to attempt to achieve a balanced transaction, then the ball is in the receiving party's court as to whether to try to balance that transaction or not.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 05:33 PM

Give me what I consider a million dollars' worth of entertainment or information and we've got a deal.

Hmm. Does that mean that the point has finally gotten across?

Well, since you are speaking here as a consumer, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Hey now!

As an editor, I reckon I've probably commisioned and paid for more work than you're likely to have personally produced.

So the self-righteous bit has been getting right on my tits.

On the other hand, if we are speaking of a physically intangible value received (momentary or long-term pleasure) for a physically intangible product (the result of a creator's labor) then why does the recipient NOT feel that the scales are unbalanced?

You're assuming that the recipient should feel obliged to repay the labour with cash, and towards that particular artist.

I don't see that that's necessarily the case. They might feel obliged to repay the labour by creating something of their own. Or by rewarding some other artist. Or by smiling at someone on the street. Or not kicking the cat today.

The whole issue of financial recompense is entirely artificial. And, as I say, discretionary.

If it is impudent of me to expect that people SHOULD feel a need to balance the value given for value received equation, then I am only left to wonder why people feel that that imbalance is acceptable?

Wonder away. Someone might like my conversation enough to float me a free coffee. Someone might like my work enough to bake me a pie. A lot of writers make bugger all for their work, and live off the freebies they get from the PR people.

There's nothing inevitable about financial compensation.

Fine. If you get that amount of pleasure from them and they receive that amount of compensation from you, then you have balanced the value scale. (Although, if you don't feel that you receive value from Alan's labor, I would hope that you no longer choose to partake of that work. If you continue to partake, even if only to say with satisfaction, "Yep; still sucks!" that you would send off that penny to cover that small satisfaction.) The only option that keeps the scale unbalanced, as I see it, is taking pleasure from someone's labor and actively choosing to stiff them for it.

Well, think about the system as it currently stands. You buy a book. You read the book. The writer gets one (1) dollar. You sell the book to a used store. The write gets no (0) dollar. Same goes on for a long chain of buying and selling. The only people making a living off this are the middle men providing the service.

That's absolutely bog standard. Digital reproduction offers the opportunity for the creator to cut out the middle men and maybe make a couple three dollars from someone who deals with them direct. One person then equals ten people in the market as it stands. All you have to do is convince people to do that.

Of course, the system will still have freeloaders -- but they'll also have more cash in hand, because they won't be having to fund the secondary market. (Bad luck for middlemen, though.) So ultimately more cash will be floating in the paying market for creative services, and it all balances out.

At least, that's the theory.

Doesn't that axiom imply that the one "should" provide to the one who needs? You seemed to object earlier to the idea that anyone "should" do anything based on another's need.

...But let's assume that you were serious:

I am. I'm suggesting an anarcho-socialist support system for real world infrastructure, and an anarcho-capitalist support system for the cultural superstructure (with further socialist support for important but bloody expensive cultural institutions).

The reason I got the bug for massive amounts of culture is the socialist institution of the BBC, from which I got mad amounts of free-to-me information; the socialist institution of the library system -- mad amounts of free-to-me information; free tickets to the Symphony when I was unemployed, and so on.

As a consequence, I spend more on culture than the average person by a significant amount. Creative artists have to speculate to accumulate, as they used to say; and a society has to do the same thing.

I mean, I get that this runs counter to an individualist capitalist perspective, but then, so does the social model of the future.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 06:15 PM

Alright, let's assume for a moment that I owe the artist something for enjoying the digital reproduction of their work, what do I end up owing them?

The enjoyment derived from that particular output of work is going to be different for each individual ('I Appreciate The Muppets On A Much Deeper Level Than You') and while you might enjoy the performance a little bit, me? I enjoyed it a LOT.

Yet we both paid the same price for the work, let's say it was $20.

And there is where we're not talking about the same thing.

The start of the thread was about freely downloading media files, not purchasing retail packages.

If we both purchased a retail package for $20 we both have paid (some pittance) to the people whose labor produced the item that we desired. There is some semblance of balance -- we all received some value from our exchange.

However, in the case that started the thread, the creator has provided labor which produced something that you desired -- the experience of utilizing the result of that labor when, where, and how you wish -- but that creator has received no equivalent value from you.

Now, in THAT case -- as I've mentioned previously -- the full retail price of the package is immaterial, since you are not utilizing the services of packers, drivers, etc., nor are you paying to support a bunch of corporate drones and thugs, so any further comments on whether one of us felt that that was a fair price and the other doesn't is immaterial and will be ignored.

HOWEVER, if we had each downloaded that Muppet album and you feel that you enjoyed listening to it as much as you say, then paying the artists the whole $20 would be a really nice gesture. I might only appreciate the value $5s' worth. But that's just me.

The point is that, if BOTH parties to a transaction (supplier/recipient) find sufficient value (compensation/enjoyment) then the transaction is a (reasonably) balanced one. If one party feels that the exchange is unbalanced then that party will be less inclined to engage in a transaction with the other party in future.

The problem, as I see it, comes when one party forces what the other party considers an inequitable deal and refuses to allow the other NOT to participate in it.

This is the classic "offer that you cannot refuse."

This, IMO, is the case when someone downloads a file that the creator has not intentionally made available for free downloading. That person effectively says "I want the use of the result of your labor under any conditions I choose, you will receive no compensation for that use and you have no option but to accept it or never do business again."

Barring the lack of broken kneecaps, this smacks of a Vito Corleone deal, to me.

Now, some may say that they are not setting those conditions, but let's break it up into its parts and maybe you can tell me where I'm misunderstanding.
"I want the use of the result of your labor under any conditions I choose,"
If you download a file that contains an instance of the result of someone's creative labor and retain it on your computer, music player, ebook reader, whatever -- do you have use of the output of that person's work present and available for your use or redistribution at your convenience?

I think that the obvious answer is yes; that person's labor is now represented, at least in part, by the instance that you have available do do whatever you want with, for as long as you want it.
"...you will receive no compensation for that use..."
Well, if you have not paid the creator for the download that you have of his work, then it seems that -- pretty much by definition -- he has received no compensation from you. And promises of "but I might be able to turn somebody else on to your work," is functionally equivalent to "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today," just without even the promise of payment on Tuesday, but only of possible recompense of some sort, someday, maybe.
"...and you have no option but to accept it or never do business again."
Well, the only options that creators appear to have in the current environment are:
Accept that they will be giving the result of their labor away for free, since they have no control over what people do with it once it leaves the vault in their studio;

Hope that enough users will decide that the creator's labor provides them sufficient value (as defined in previous posts -- enjoyment, appreciation, etc.) that they will choose to pay some amount for their use of that labor or will buy physical manifestations of that labor (CDs, DVDs, books, etc.) at a later date -- in which latter case, unless the creator is copying, packaging and shipping his own merchandise, he's heading back in the general direction of the media conglomerate environment that we already agreed was a less than perfect arrangement for him, or;

He never produces anything for public consumption again, since ANY public release of his output puts him back in the situations noted above.

To me, and to the person whose labor produced something that you apparently feel had sufficient value to you that you would not accept NOT having it, this seems like a pretty shitty transaction.

So how do we fix it? Could we email the artist for you and ask for a partial refund, bring the price down to something that better reflects just how much enjoyment you really got out of it?

In my case, should I write the artist a check to compensate him for the additonal enjoyment I got from his output? $20 was a steal imho and it wouldn't be right to short him like that.

What you'll probably say next is something along the lines of 'well, at least the artist got paid something, which is more than we can say about illegally downloaded music'.

The thing is though, sometimes the value is 0. Sometimes the actual worth is going to be $0.00.

And sometimes the actual value is going to be far more than what the work is being priced at.

So how do we fix this? Do we continue overpaying/shafting the artist by keeping a fixed price or do we really come up with a system where they can be fairly compensated for their work based on how much it's actually worth?

(I know that I said that I was going to ignore the 'retail package" issue that you used in your post, but I'm too tired/lazy to edit down the text, so lets just pretend that you're talking about downloaded music.)

This is what I've been saying all along -- if you download something that has emotional/entertainment/whatever value to YOU sufficient that you want to keep it around for you use -- Yeah... send the guy a check for what it's worth TO YOU, or PayPal™ him if he's set up for it (although I hear that THAT's something of a rip-off, too...) but compensate him SOMETHING until you feel that the scales are balanced.

If enough people do that, the creator can afford the time and energy to produce more work and a viable exchange cycle is established. If not enough people do that, the guy goes off to find a way to pay his bills and the users never see any more of the stuff that they claim to like.

...and several years later, somebody starts a thread asking "What ever happened to 'X'? Funny that he never put out a second album...!"*

If you don't feel that the downloaded item has any value to you, then hit that "Delete" key and owe nothing. You are not obligated to pay for something that has no value to you, but if it has sufficient value TO YOU that you want to keep it around, then it seems to me that the polite thing -- and, in the long run, the thing that works to YOUR advantage, because it encourages the creator that you already know you like to make more stuff -- is to participate in an exchange of value with the person who created it.

__________
* I'm sorry -- I seem to recall being accused of "guilt-tripping" or some such on this thread, but if we are going to admit that all of the options for seeing that the creator of value is compensated for his work lie with the consumer, and that many of those consumers don't believe that they have any reason to compensate that creator (while enjoying the benefits of his labor), then we really have to accept that the result of those two facts is likely to be the disappearance of all but the most mainstream acts. This is not "guilt-tripping"; this is a likely extrapolation of current facts.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 06:17 PM

So, let's break this down to a few simple principles for clarity's sake:

1) Digital reproduction fatally breaks the property-and-commodity model
2) Any digital copy has zero real exchange value
3) (Though digital copies do earn in by faking commodity value; but that can't be more than a transitional model)
4) This leaves us with two models for monetary transactions:

The gift economy
The service economy
5) In the gift economy (say, Something Positive), the artist gives the work for free, then provides the opportunity for fans to give something back. This works well enough that Randy doesn't have to work for a living.
6) In the service economy (say, iTunes), if you can provide a sufficient convenience, at a modest enough price, you can get people to pay to step through your gate.
7) Or a combination of the two, like the MySpace + SNOCAP model, which allows artists to avoid iTunes and create their own perhaps more profitable gate.

That's the biz. Here's the ethics:

1) Under digital reproduction, entertainment spending is wholly discretionary.
2) There is NO ethical compulsion to enter a transactionary relationship with a producer.
3) Ethical compulsions only make people want to be transgressive anyway.
4) Enlightened self-interest tells us that paying the artist is the only way to get the artist to do more work.
5) It stands to reason that there's a great many more mouths to feed that money to spend.
6) Each of us can direct our discretionary entertainment budget towards those artists we want to support.
7) But there's no reason we shouldn't also have access to all the other work that exceeds our entertainment budget; we can download, go to the libarary, read it in the store, only buy used, or borrow from a friend instead. Only one of these practices gets moralistic nonsense thrown at it, even though it's exactly the same as the others.

Given these two sets of objective truth, it's obvious that there's only one real issue on the table:

How does the performer connect with the audience in such a way that the audience wants to support the performer?

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 06:20 PM

Hey now!

As an editor, I reckon I've probably commisioned and paid for more work than you're likely to have personally produced.

So the self-righteous bit has been getting right on my tits.

Oh, for pity's sake, Paul... If you can use the same construction three lines above, or some such, can't I have a bit of fun tweaking you with it in return?:confused:

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 06:27 PM

Oh, for pity's sake, Paul... If you can use the same construction three lines above, or some such, can't I have a bit of fun tweaking you with it in return?:confused:

Not really, no. Not while I've still got my back up from being repeatedly insulted, misconstrued, and accused of crimes, frequently by people who've never created anything more interesting than an all-beef patty in special sauce.

Especially when your whole argument has been based on the self-righteousness of being a producer.

Shockingly, you're not the only one.

In fact, the entire human race is a producer of culture, come to think of it.

My mate the street artist has the ability to leverage his production by hustling. My mate the homeless guy has the ability to leverage his charm. The girl who wants to bum a smoke has the ability to leverage her looks -- and later will be using that ability for a bigger sucker to hand over beer or dinner.

Nobody's entitled to stuff. Nobody's entitled to be paid for stuff. It's all a hustle.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 06:57 PM

Hmm. Does that mean that the point has finally gotten across?

Paul, I understood that control of one's work goes away. The thing is that it seems to me that 1,000,000 small thefts of a creator's labor (uncompensated downloads) are just about as bad for him as one large one (corporate ownership).

In either case, as I said elsewhere, it seems that Don Corleone wins.

You're assuming that the recipient should feel obliged to repay the labour with cash, and towards that particular artist.

I don't see that that's necessarily the case. They might feel obliged to repay the labour by creating something of their own. Or by rewarding some other artist. Or by smiling at someone on the street. Or not kicking the cat today.

The whole issue of financial recompense is entirely artificial. And, as I say, discretionary.

Well, all monetary transactions are artificial, but I know what you meant.

And, yes, unless someone intentionally puts his work out as "smileware" or "postcardware" then having enough money coming in to do the work that he's being "rewarded" for will probably be a top priority for him.

If he is wondering how to buy groceries, hearing that someone "paid" him by being nice to someone else is likely to be seen as being as effective as me trying to reward MY do by petting the NEIGHBORS' dog.

But I could be wrong.

I mean, yeah; it's the payer's choice, but -- to paraphrase the Mikado: "My purpose most berserk, is to make the reward suit the work; The reward should suit the work."

(And THAT is why I don't write operettas. Well, that and a tin ear...)

That's absolutely bog standard. Digital reproduction offers the opportunity for the creator to cut out the middle men and maybe make a couple three dollars from someone who deals with them direct. One person then equals ten people in the market as it stands. All you have to do is convince people to do that.

Of course, the system will still have freeloaders -- but they'll also have more cash in hand, because they won't be having to fund the secondary market. (Bad luck for middlemen, though.) So ultimately more cash will be floating in the paying market for creative services, and it all balances out.

At least, that's the theory.

I suspect that the theory is neglecting to take into account the sheer cussedness of the average human being and is making overly optimistic assumptions and that we're all heading toward a world where YouTube and Wikipedia -- as they stand today -- will be the sine qua non of arts and letters.

I would DEARLY like to be wrong, but reports that I'm reading seem to indicate that the "Long Tail" phenomenon just isn't happening the way its proponents predicted.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 07:10 PM

Not really, no. Not while I've still got my back up from being repeatedly insulted, misconstrued, and accused of crimes,

If I did any of those things, Paul, it was unintentional and I apologize.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 07:39 PM

If I did any of those things, Paul, it was unintentional and I apologize.

No problem. You've got good reason to be emotional about this.

But all fear ever does is to reinforce dead patterns of thinking.

And it's not just the issue of that massive oxymoron "intellectual property" that needs to be de-and-reconstructed, it's the whole culture of late capitalism. And that's got its hooks deep into people's minds, and it's going to fight hard for its dominance.

Attacking the property-and-commodity model for culture is just the start.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 07:52 PM

Paul, I understood that control of one's work goes away. The thing is that it seems to me that 1,000,000 small thefts of a creator's labor (uncompensated downloads) are just about as bad for him as one large one (corporate ownership).

In either case, as I said elsewhere, it seems that Don Corleone wins.

Breaking Don Corleone's power means we wind up with a voluntarist system. Returning to a non-voluntarist system hands us over to Don Corleone.

Unless you can see some meaningful middle-ground here, them's the choices.

If he is wondering how to buy groceries, hearing that someone "paid" him by being nice to someone else is likely to be seen as being as effective as me trying to reward MY do by petting the NEIGHBORS' dog.

And that's why nearly ever artist in the world has a day job. It's very rare for anyone to be able to make a living just from their art. And even then, they have to conform to the gatekeeper's censorship.

There's now more opportunity, not less.

I mean, yeah; it's the payer's choice, but -- to paraphrase the Mikado: "My purpose most berserk, is to make the reward suit the work; The reward should suit the work."

As you recall, the end result of the Mikado is that everyone goes free.

I suspect that the theory is neglecting to take into account the sheer cussedness of the average human being and is making overly optimistic assumptions and that we're all heading toward a world where YouTube and Wikipedia -- as they stand today -- will be the sine qua non of arts and letters.

So what if they do?

I'm not sure we're better off having a professional class. In primitive life, the shaman and the leaders also hunt, the musician and the storyteller also farm. What's wrong with that?

The real issue isn't fair compensation, it's the unnatural commoditization of creativity, where we think of it as a way of setting people apart.

Like I say, everything's a hustle. Money is just reified labour -- time was, it was no more than a receipt for the grain you'd brought it, which you could exchange for someone's skilled labour. Life is a helluva lot easier now, so we've got more discretionary income, so we can give it to artists if we want to.

Mind, to really lay hands on the cash, we need to first break the system where more than half of what we earn goes upstairs to the ruling classes, either through the 30% that pays the shareholders, the 30% that gets taxed, or the fat chunk of the rest that goes to property or mortgage owners.

Which strikes me as a greater drain on any artist's creativity than some kid in Idaho getting his first taste for culture by downloading for free.

Reverend Smooth

05-20-2009, 08:28 PM

The great masters were compensated for their work. Many of them advanced not only art, but science. That was their day jobs. Many artists, for hundreds if not thousands of years, did nothing but produce art. Marble sculptures, paintings, woodblock prints, engravings, scientific watercolors, all of those were made by artists for profit. Telling them to 'get a day job' would have robbed the world of these achievements.

Art takes a big investment in time, skill, and effort. It's pretty rare to be able to achieve a pro level of competence by devoting an amateur's time to it. Not to mention that the tools of the trade are pretty damn expensive. Do you understand how much recording equipment, musical instruments, computers and computer programs, even paint and canvas, cost?

I've noticed a serious tendency to devalue artists' work, though, by some of the folks in this topic (and therefore plenty of others) who are intent on consuming it. 'Get a real job' is the attitude I've gotten from a lot of jerks, though, because of course doing something like retail or office work is somehow more inherently legit?

What about the folks who can't get a day job besides art? Why do folks treat art differently, anyway? Manufacturing chewing gum serves no purpose other than to create some ephemeral experience (you don't get anything out of the end product but feeling good), but we don't say those laborers don't deserve to be paid.

There are a lot of creators on this board. I wonder how they feel about it. Way to slag your fellow posters.

Village Idiot

05-20-2009, 08:36 PM

I didn't pay for reading this post.

What a bastard I am.

For the record, I didn't say that.

Village Idiot

05-20-2009, 08:37 PM

As far as I'm concerned, buying the record is theft.

A mere twenty bucks for the privilege of me playing your very own home? Why, the nerve! I insist on one million dollars per performance!

Now you're just being absurd.

Village Idiot

05-20-2009, 08:40 PM

My point is that I was tired, cranky, and had low blood sugar, and people seem resolutely unable or unwilling to see my point.

They are resolute in NOT getting your point. Or...they know the point, but just want to cause you to waste your time arguing.

Again, this is how this argument always goes.

Corrina

05-20-2009, 08:46 PM

I didn't pay for reading this post.

What a bastard I am.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative, Paul, because you're drawing an analogy that you know is false.

This message board operates on an free exchange of ideas through mutual agreement by the posters. *agreement* is the key word, there. We choose to make our words available for free. *Choose* would be a key word as well.

Village Idiot

05-20-2009, 08:47 PM

I've noticed a serious tendency to devalue artists' work, though, by some of the folks in this topic (and therefore plenty of others) who are intent on consuming it.

I value art because I can't do it. Oh, I can make a rough imitation of what lies in front of me. Or I can construct an essay. But I can't create art or writing from my mind.

I postulate that some of the un-imaginative are so angry about their incapabilities that their only way to dispel that anger is to denigrate those who can create. And the best way to denigrate those creative types is to tell them their work has no value.

Quite similar to mentally abusing a spouse or child.

Reverend Smooth

05-20-2009, 08:52 PM

At the very least, their understanding of the sheer work (and training and skill) involved in producing comics or music is minimal at best.

I suspect that if they actually had to train to do it and then do it -- for free, because hey, it's not a real job -- they'd probably change their minds.

I'm not making a direct comparison with anyone here to him, but people are shocked about Olney's actions, when there are folks in this very topic devaluing artists' hard work? Our fellow longtime posters, even?

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 09:19 PM

And it's not just the issue of that massive oxymoron "intellectual property" that needs to be de-and-reconstructed...

Which is why I stayed well away from that particular minefield and tried to keep my comments to the realm of "compensation for labor/services rendered".

While, yes, I take a certain amount of pride in the things that I claim to be fairly competent at -- I'm a solid journeyman worker, but not an Artist -- I honestly believe that I treat what I do as providing a service; not really different from a competent bag boy at the grocery store, a cab driver and, yes, that ubiquitous plumber*. And I THINK that my ranting has just been to try to get the idea across that labor is labor -- straight across the board** -- and that if that labor produces a result that a consumer values -- a bag of groceries that doesn't split halfway home, a cleared drain or an electric-rock Mass -- it is not unreasonable for that worker to expect some sort of exchange of value for value.

It just aggravates me no end that the person who would never think of stiffing the plumber or the pizza delivery guy, will decide that while the work that I do (and here, I'm speaking generally to the subject of scribblers and plunkers as a group "I") is worth acquiring and keeping. it's not worth dropping a buck into the hat for.

And then, to be told that they're somehow doing me/us a favor...!

...Makes me start to reach for my clue-by-four...!

* I honestly believe that I believe that... if you see what I mean... You seemed to get some sense of entitlement or superiority from what I posted -- I think "self-righteous" was the term you used -- and if it came across that way, it may be a blind spot and I'll have to look into it, but that is my belief.

...about... my belief...

** See first sentence above.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 09:31 PM

It is not unreasonable for that worker to expect some sort of exchange of value for value.

At this point, "expect" is probably the wrong word for art.

Not, of course, for adding value to a project, in which case any worker should expect a piece of the action. And actually, I think that's the same for the artist, too.

What Creative Commons does is say that the artist and their agents are the only people entitled to economically exploit the work. And I think anyone -- editors, iTunes, a publishing house, SNOCAP, etc. -- is now exactly that. That's the point of the digital revolution.

At which point it's then the artist's responsibility to hustle money out of the punters -- or find an agent to do it for hir.

Merch, paypal, vendors, a button on your MySpace page -- all of these are the hustle. Hell, the MySpace page itself is part of the hustle. The live performance is the hustle. ComicCon is the hustle. Doing a signing at Isotope is the hustle. Going on Oprah is the hustle. Playing benefits for WFMU is the hustle. Shameless self-promotion is all about putting a human face on the work so people feel bad if they don't support you, feel good if they do.

Digital artists have been liberated. Freedom is scary and dangerous. And costs a lot of frigging time and energy. But there you go.

Meanwhile, the punter is now also liberated -- just as the public library liberated the punter. It's just that the scale is now universal. But so is the customer base.

And it should never be forgotten that people love to buy things.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 09:34 PM

And it should never be forgotten that people love to buy things.

Yeah, but they like to get them for free even more!

Reverend Smooth

05-20-2009, 09:37 PM

I'm not sure we're better off having a professional class. In primitive life, the shaman and the leaders also hunt, the musician and the storyteller also farm. What's wrong with that?

The real issue isn't fair compensation, it's the unnatural commoditization of creativity,

So, basically, Gail (or anyone else) should quit making comics her day job and go back to hairdressing, and just make comics for shits and giggles, amirite? Because you'd rather get her stuff for free? Since art's speech, not actual work.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 09:39 PM

Now you're just being absurd.

If you know what you were talking about, you'd know that people actually did say something like that at the beginning of the recording age.

And at the beginning of video players.

People always say that. Because they're stuck in the mud, and would rather hurl insults than deal.

Many artists hated being recorded because it would cut into their earnings from live performances; sheet music providers were mad as hell about the food being taken off their table -- rightly so, as it happens; piano and pianola manufacturers weren't too happy either.

CDs put vinyl manufacturers out of business. mp3's will put CD manufacturers out of business. Cheap digital storage will put blank CD and DVD manufacturers out of business. Movable type put the monks out of business. The web is putting printers out of business. One technology succeeds another, and changes how we do business. Duh!

But perhaps you'd prefer if we just scrawled things in the mud.

Paul McEnery

05-20-2009, 09:52 PM

So, basically, Gail (or anyone else) should quit making comics her day job and go back to hairdressing, and just make comics for shits and giggles, amirite? Because you'd rather get her stuff for free? Since art's speech, not actual work.

1) Who said speech wasn't work?
2) Who said people won't be paid for their work?

Haven't you noticed? There are people giving their stuff away online who are still making a living off it.

That ought to tell you something.

The real issue here -- and not with you, obviously; you've got skin in the game -- is a lot of fans who dream of making Springsteen bucks with their imaginary projects.

Well, Springsteen bucks are probably as over as making a million from sub-prime mortgages.

The entire economy is shifting from the logic of late capitalism to... well, something else. I'm not dumb enough to pull a Fukuyama on it. But something's happening, and it's up to us to make a go of it.

And we'd better, because Marvel and DC could easily be out of business soon, because LCS's will be out of business soon, just like small bookstores. There will still be a market for unique art objects like limited editions, but everyone will be going digital soon enough.

And the issue of people sharing files isn't going to go away any time soon either; in fact, ever. And why should it? That's how every kid in the world has gotten their musical education since the invention of the cassette player. And the sky didn't fall then, either.

So what I'm saying is, if we want the audience to put its money where its greedy little mouth is, the carrot is going to be better than the stick.

But at the end of the day, where I really want us to be going -- and partially as a consequence of this -- is moving to a more equitable society that isn't based around the almighty dollar, where people in your situation don't have to be so scared of not bringing in the case.

It's hard to see getting there from here, but not impossible.

kingdom2000

05-20-2009, 09:53 PM

Yeah, but they like to get them for free even more!

Oh god please don't tell me you buy the 1:1 argument of the MPAA and RIAA. You really believe that people that are ok with a crappy camera copy of a movie would have dropped $10 plus to the movies if it had not been available? Or that all those billions of songs bought from iTunes isn't proof that the right price and easy distrubution will trump "free" anytime? Of notes is that the $1.29 the music studios demanded (and not giving to the all important artist) has caused those sales to drop. Hell, even artists are joining the pirate bandwagon because they recognize that distriubtion = sales. No not CD sales. Concert sales. T-Shirt sales. Their music used in commericals and in movies. The money for the artist is no longer made from the sale of a song (or other media), its made from the sales that popularity makes in other means. The reason for all this piracy talk is because the digital age is making the corporate middleman no longer necessary. The artist goes straight to the people and directly benefits from it without having to take whatever leftovers the studio system decides to grant them.

Funny though that piracy is so bad and pervasis that online music purchasing is increasing, movies sales increasing, DVD sales and rentals increasing. Things are so bad...that people are buying more of it (probably because of the ease in sampling those purchases due to hulu, amazon, itunes, bittorrent, etc). It is no longer necessary to spend money in the dark and hope what you get is worth it. Now people get to know in advance, buy it if they choose...and then use forums, twitter, facebook, etc to tell their friends why they should too.

kingdom2000

05-20-2009, 09:59 PM

So, basically, Gail (or anyone else) should quit making comics her day job and go back to hairdressing, and just make comics for shits and giggles, amirite? Because you'd rather get her stuff for free? Since art's speech, not actual work.

Wow exaggerate much? But it does show that consumers are demanding a different distribution model beyond paying to "borrow" a comic electronically and at a reasonable price. Rather then fight the system with lawyers, maybe they should try to compete with it in a meaningful way beyond just lip service. Funny how everyone loves the free market system until something comes along that might actually require them to figure out a new way to compete.

But hey keep fighting to mantain the current status quo. It worked so well for newspapers, VHS, cassettes, radio, the list could get large. Fighting piracy with current tools is simply a bottomless money pit and avoid trying to attempt a better alternative. People will pay for content (iTunes proved that), they just expect certain demands to be met and right now the content owners don't want to meet them (as in most cases their own jobs would become obsolete in a digital distribution model).

Reverend Smooth

05-20-2009, 10:02 PM

My basic issue is twofold. (And I requote):

So, basically, Gail (or anyone else) should quit making comics her day job and go back to hairdressing, and just make comics for shits and giggles, amirite? Because you'd rather get her stuff for free? Since art's speech, not actual work.

In response to this attitude:

I'm not sure we're better off having a professional class. In primitive life, the shaman and the leaders also hunt, the musician and the storyteller also farm. What's wrong with that?

And the attitude that folks who download don't feel that they should compensate the artist if they torrent it.

I can understand if someone, say, wants to read Hollow but is broke, so they torrent it and then later, when they've got money, send us something. That means that we can keep making the book. Otherwise, we can't, because few sales = our publisher drops us.

I believe Colleen Doran (in her blog) has mentioned folks who have actually experienced a drop in sales due to the attitude of, 'well, it's just a drop in the bucket, so why bother sending in my dime?'

Several folks here have said they don't feel they should send money along to the creators after downloading their stuff. That's a really lousy attitude and that kind of attitude does harm creators, especially indie creators, who are usually either operating at a loss or at a very thin profit margin and who have a hard enough time getting deals and finding work as it is.

Edit: 'Well, hustle!' seems to be the response. Well, you're also saying, 'Get a day job!'

Sorry, most people don't have the privilege of taking extended vacations from their day jobs in order to travel cross-country. Most folks can't afford it. Not to mention that's suddenly forcing the creator to work two jobs to subsidize one... so some douche can feel self-righteous about not compensating them for their work.

Reverend Smooth

05-20-2009, 10:04 PM

Wow exaggerate much?
Exaggerate what? He literally said:

I'm not sure we're better off having a professional class. In primitive life, the shaman and the leaders also hunt, the musician and the storyteller also farm. What's wrong with that?

The real issue isn't fair compensation, it's the unnatural commoditization of creativity,

Astonishing X-Fan

05-20-2009, 10:23 PM

Now you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative, Paul, because you're drawing an analogy that you know is false.

This message board operates on an free exchange of ideas through mutual agreement by the posters. *agreement* is the key word, there. We choose to make our words available for free. *Choose* would be a key word as well.

QFT.

If someone provides a product or service under the pretense that they want to be paid for it, then taking the product or service and then not paying for it is a big slap in the face.

CutterMike

05-20-2009, 10:47 PM

Oh god please don't tell me you buy the 1:1 argument of the MPAA and RIAA. You really believe that people that are ok with a crappy camera copy of a movie would have dropped $10 plus to the movies if it had not been available? Or that all those billions of songs bought from iTunes isn't proof that the right price and easy distrubution will trump "free" anytime? (...)

I've been accused in this thread of being condescending and/or self righteous, so I'm simply going to start off by asking if you've actually read anything of this thread but the last page?

Because it started out with statements like this:

Let's say I were to download the contents of a CD, a CD sold by FYE for $20.

What have I stolen? I haven't stolen a CD because a CD is a physical object.

What I'm spending $20 at FYE isn't just music....I'm buying the CD case, the liner notes, the artwork. I'm buying a perfect copy of the music, something I can't guarantee with a download.

(...)

Not so with a download. I'm getting something for free, nothing I can hold and nothing I can return.

What I'm downloading is not the product that's being sold in stores anywhere, so how can it be stealing?

Which I read to say: "downloading isn't theft because the only thing being downloaded is the artist's work, which isn't a physical object, so I'm not stealing anything."

And the discussion and acrimony and statements like "artists shouldn't expect to be paid" went on from there.

Okay. Now, I'm likely to get into the "condescending" part:

The point is that there ARE people who would rather get something for free than pay for it (and wouldn't we all, really? Do you NEVER pick up one of the "Buy 1 get 1 FREE!" items at the store? Isn't that better than paying for two items?), so all of your "don't tell me you're buying into blah blah blah" is refuted on the VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD. and is factually incorrect on the face of it.

Unfortunately, iTunes doesn't release numbers relating to how often a particular song, album, movie, etc. has been downloaded, so actually getting a reliable ratio of iTunes sales to torrent downloads (to mention one vector) is actually impossible.

Yes; legal downloads exist and people use them.

Illegal downloads exist and people use them.

People have said in this thread that artists shouldn't expect to be paid for their labor.

And to answer your question: No, I have NOT "bought into" the claims of the RIAA, et al.

My statement that "people like to get things for free, even better," was based on observation of the way the world works and actually reading the thread!