Watch out IRMAs about - IRMA about to knock on 23 doors

Dick Darlington

Trent Reznor -

"As the climate grows more and more desperate for record labels, their answer to their mostly self-inflicted wounds seems to be to screw the consumer over even more. A couple of examples that quickly come to mind:



* The ABSURD retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia. Shame on you, UMG. Year Zero is selling for $34.99 Australian dollars ($29.10 US). No wonder people steal music. Avril Lavigne's record in the same store was $21.99 ($18.21 US). By the way, when I asked a label rep about this his response was: "It's because we know you have a real core audience that will pay whatever it costs when you put something out - you know, true fans. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy."


So... I guess as a reward for being a "true fan" you get ripped off."

Dick Darlington

also JEFF TWEEDY ---

WN: What was your reaction when copies of A Ghost Is Born started showing up online this year, before the official release?

Tweedy: Something interesting happened. We were contacted by fans who were excited about the fact that they found it on P2P networks, but wanted to give something back in good faith. They wanted to send money to express solidarity with the fact that we'd embraced the downloading community. We couldn't take the money ourselves, so they asked if we could pick a charity instead -- we pointed them to Doctors Without Borders, and they ended up receiving about $15,000.

WN: What are your thoughts on the RIAA's ongoing lawsuits against individual file sharers?

Tweedy: We live in a connected world now. Some find that frightening. If people are downloading our music, they're listening to it. The internet is like radio for us.

WN: You don't agree with the argument that file sharing hurts musicians' ability to earn a living?

Tweedy: I don't believe every download is a lost sale.

WN: What if the efforts to stop unauthorized music file sharing are successful? How would that change culture?

Tweedy: If they succeed, it will damage the culture and industry they say they're trying to save.
What if there was a movement to shut down libraries because book publishers and authors were up in arms over the idea that people are reading books for free? It would send a message that books are only for the elite who can afford them.
Stop trying to treat music like it's a tennis shoe, something to be branded. If the music industry wants to save money, they should take a look at some of their six-figure executive expense accounts. All those lawsuits can't be cheap, either.

WN: How do you feel about efforts to control how music flows through the online world with digital rights management technologies?

Tweedy: A piece of art is not a loaf of bread. When someone steals a loaf of bread from the store, that's it. The loaf of bread is gone. When someone downloads a piece of music, it's just data until the listener puts that music back together with their own ears, their mind, their subjective experience. How they perceive your work changes your work. Treating your audience like thieves is absurd

dub45

event wrote:

sorry you're right

online stores dont have transports costs, support staff, rent of the warehouse, insurance, tax and stuff like paying wages. how silly of me

oh for gods sake :rolleyes:

i was comparing it to stuff in the same sort of medium, like DVD's and games. They will be usually a lot more reduced in price in relation to CD's are after a year.

but this has gone really OT, so im leaving it now.

Of course these on line companies have costs but not in the same order at all as retail outlets. Thats why they are able to offer stuff at the prices they do.

I know a guy who is trying to keep a small 'record' store going in Dublin - his bill for insurance alone last year was nearly 7,000 euros.

Funnily enough your actual post read 'any other industry'!

Publishers dont reduce their paperback titles as the years go on and they are broadly in the same industry no? Something that sells regularly like 'Catch 22' is not reduced because it is 'old'.

There are loads and loads of albums reduced to mid price if you really want to go out and 'really' look.

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

should we stop prosecuting offenders because previous prosecutions in the particular area (murder, drunken driving etc havent worked)? And your point about facing facts? What exactly does that mean? Accept that the means to steal music exist and ignore it?

Trying to put file sharing in the same league as murder and drunken driving is just stupid. We as a society want those crimes prosecuted. The only one's who care about file sharing is the recording industry. Not because they feel that stealing is immoral, but because it's killing their profits. Prosecuting people isn't going to stop file sharing and in the end they will lose.

dub45

Cabaal wrote:

Hang on, mid priced range and budget priced stuff ain't new music, your saying music is cheaper then it ever was but are you comparing new albums now with new albums say 8-9 years ago?

Yes to both questions.

dub45

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

Trying to put file sharing in the same league as murder and drunken driving is just stupid. We as a society want those crimes prosecuted. The only one's who care about file sharing is the recording industry. Not because they feel that stealing is immoral, but because it's killing their profits. Prosecuting people isn't going to stop file sharing and in the end they will lose.

I wasn't putting file sharing in the same category as murder or drunken driving. I was pointing out that because prosecuting people for such crimes has not stopped them it was not a reason to stop the prosecutions and no sane person would argue that prosecutions should be stopped because they hadnt worked.

What's wrong with companies attempting to safeguard their profits - we live in a capitalist society which depends on continued profits for its survival?

uncle_sam_ie

dub45 wrote:

What's wrong with companies attempting to safeguard their profits - we live in a capitalist society which depends on continued profits for its survival?

There is nothing wrong wanting to safeguard their profits, but the way there going about it to save them is flawed.

paulm17781

dub45 wrote:

What's wrong with companies attempting to safeguard their profits - we live in a capitalist society which depends on continued profits for its survival?

I don't disagree, don't use the "The artists are suffering line" though. They aren't record companies are.

Dick Darling's examples high light this more that anything. Have a look it http://supporter.neubauten.org/ I would love if more bands did things like this, at least then I would know that the CDs I was buying was supporting the artists and not a group of companies whose use is becoming more and more redundant. That particular band recommended stealing some of their older albums from shops as their record labels had never paid them a penny for any sales. These are the same record labels who claim their artists lively hood is being affected by file sharing. :rolleyes:

Mutant_Fruit

uncle_sam_ie wrote:

Trying to put file sharing in the same league as murder and drunken driving is just stupid. We as a society want those crimes prosecuted. The only one's who care about file sharing is the recording industry.

Funnily enough, if i went up to your house, murdered you in cold blood, chopped you up into little pieces and wore the bits as a kind jumper and was imprisioned for the maximum sentence, i'd get out of jail before Joe Bloggs did if Joe Bloggs was arrested for filesharing and imprisoned for the max sentence.

Or something along the lines of that. The above my be slightly inaccurate, i can't find my link now, but there was a push in america to give a massive amount of jailtime for people who were caught infringing copyright.

Note, there is no theft going on. There is no stealing either. There is only Copyright Infringement. Theft != Copyright Infringement. For all the people claiming songs are being "stolen", if you can't understand that difference, you shouldn't take part in this conversation. There is a *very* distinct difference.

The bite that downloading has taken out of CD sales is well known -- the compact disc market fell about 25 percent between 1999 and 2005, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade organization. What that precipitous drop indicated by the figures doesn't reveal is that this trend is turning many record stores into haunts for the gray-ponytail set. This is especially true of big-city stores that stock a wider range of music than the blockbuster acts.

While that may be true, it's completely irrelevant. By any chance did you cross reference the figures for DVD sales? For HD-DVD sales? The sales on PS2's, PS3's, Xbox's and all those? What about books?

Funnily enough, people have limited amounts of time on their hands. They can't listen to music all the time, or else how would they play their gameboy? If they're not listening to music so much, they won't feel the need to buy as much.

EDIT: Interesting reading:
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2007/03/music_cd_im_jus.html
http://nin.com/tr/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070418-despite-revenue-slump-riaa-still-not-getting-the-big-picture.html
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html <--- especially interesting

So attempting to infringe is just as bad as actually infringing. So, whats to stop the RIAA (or whoever) putting up fake files with artists names on them and then imprisoning everyone who downloads those fake files? It's not entrapment, so it should be legit for them to do it.

Kernel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg

That settles the whole debate tbh.

Peanut

As mutant_fruit pointed out, "stealing" is record industry propaganda and has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Also, the record companies constant extrapolation of "number of copies made=number of sales lost" would insult the intelligence of a 5 year old.

towel401

true. i pity the fool who actually buys the whole 'downloading == stealing' bollox.

and that song must be the worst song weird al ever made. the ebay one is much better. go look at the ebay one though theres no real video for it

the paid-for music industry has pretty much had its day. always remember its only illegal because they wanted it to be illegal. copyright wasn't listed on the 10 commandments or handed down from any other superior being. when it was invented in the 1800's or so it might have been a good idea and possibly still is but it has been extended and modified so many times that it is just plain stupid. they want to control how, and when you listen to their songs for the next 100 years.

daraghc

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

So, whats to stop the RIAA (or whoever) putting up fake files with artists names on them and then imprisoning everyone who downloads those fake files? It's not entrapment, so it should be legit for them to do it.

Fake files are uploaded and downloaders traced

Mutant_Fruit

daraghc wrote:

Fake files are uploaded and downloaders traced

Ya see, that's where things get very tricky. From my own personal understanding, i can name my files whatever the hell i like and upload them to anyone i like without fear of being sued. I can name it "Britney Speares - Hit Me Baby One More Time.mp3" even if it's my CV. Nothing illegal there. If anyone downloaded it, fair enough, they have my CV. Thats not illegal.

Conversely, if a record company puts up a fake file with a name like the above, that's not illegal. If someone were to download it, fair enough. It's not copyrighted material, so there's no problem.

Some people want to push through new laws which *would* make that illegal. Thats a ridiculous idea. It's like imprisoning people for thinking about robbing a bank. I've thought about it before, i've even planned it out in my head thinking how i'd manage it. Of course, that was after seeing a film about a bank heist, but i don't think i should be arrested for just thinking.

Of course, you also have to bear in mind that napster, limewire and all those were sued because they've (i've forgotten the actual word used) "incited" people to download tracks illegally by making it so simple that a 10 year old can do it. So, if limewire can be sued for "incitement" then surely if a record company does the same trick *they* can be sued for incitement.

Or you could try argue that since the record company put the song up, and the record company own the copyright, therefore they *wanted* it to be shared. Therefore no infringing occurred.

To be honest, if ever a case actually made it to court, the house of cards the companies are standing on will probably fall to the ground in a big heap. They're on very unstable ground.

EDIT: The really funny thing is that america *refused* for decades to recognise european copyright law and so stole copyrighted ideas off many european inventors and paid them not one penny. Of course, as soon as they started making good ideas they were all for copyright protection and whatnot.

watty

But for their copyright / IP. Not neccessarily someone elses.

You can easily make an MP3 though that plays properly but has "water mark" in it to indicate where it came from.

iTunes (not MP3 I know), does this with DRM-free and DRM tracks.
I'd rather buy the CDs.

I have no sympathy for Record labels (compare with production pressing costs and content cost of DVD) as they need to 1/2 the price in shop at least and charging full whack for CDs that they made money out of as LPs 30 years ago is a rip off.

But I have no sympathy for people that download films, books, CDs, games, programs still in the shop. It *IS* theft.

Downloading material that no publisher now exists for is IMO a light grey area. Downloading material that publisher could publish and won't is dark grey.

Copyright should automatically be cancelled on material not published retail for more than 5 years (or whatever).

Patents should be cancelled on IP not exploited within 10 years.

Copyright & Patents not originally meant to give a long life royalty / protection. If you build a recording studio you don't get paid every time it is resold or a royalty from each record. The idea was a reasonable return on original creative idea people income commesurate with other fields of endevour.

Not to give a Marketing Corporation 50 years of income.


However the law is the law. We are in a Democracy so we can compian to modify laws.

Peanut

watty wrote:

But I have no sympathy for people that download films, books, CDs, games, programs still in the shop. It *IS* theft.

Theft implies material loss, not hypothetical loss.

I'm sure your argument is that it's morally equivalent, but in my opinion that is too simple an interpretation, and tends to stop people thinking about alternative models of distribution/consumption/payment.

towel401

watty wrote:

However the law is the law. We are in a Democracy so we can compian to modify laws.

except the law is 'handed down' from the EU, crap like the EUCD gets thought up by those who aren't even elected. its only the final phase that it can actually get voted down by elected mp's. and with all the lobbying that goes on from douchebags like the IRMA it is unlikely they will ever get changed

philstar

without going too techy...in laymans language ..how do they trace illegal downloads??

my pc is second-hand, so if i downloaded copyrighted material would the original owner be blamed??

towel401

actually they contract out some other company like BayTSP to do this for them

they get the list of IP addresses from a bittorrent tracker, then they contact the ISP. anyone can get these addresses really. usually when you download a torrent you use this list for peers to connect to, but they just after the list itself

for regular p2p programs, they see you sharing a file, they download it. they can see your IP also in the list of search results because they modify an open source client.

then they take the list of IP addresses and timestamps to the ISP and start sending them letters to hand over the contact details

Prisoner6409

I think the record companies have handled this whole issue very badly. Who is going to take any real notice of the likes of Bono cribbing about losses in revenues due to file sharing. Maybe if the multi millionaire pop stars and the record lables gave a flying puck about the smaller guy(musicians/bands) and dividied up the pie a bit more equitability ppl might actually feel more inclined to give a damm.

Mutant_Fruit

watty wrote:

But I have no sympathy for people that download films, books, CDs, games, programs still in the shop. It *IS* theft.

No it's not. Plain and simple, it's not. It's copyright infringement. One is a criminal charge, one is a civil charge which is completely different.

Peanut

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

EDIT: Interesting reading:
...http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html <--- especially interesting

"Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement"

...and just a quick glance at the profile of this guy gives you all the information you need...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales#Controversies

watty

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

No it's not. Plain and simple, it's not. It's copyright infringement. One is a criminal charge, one is a civil charge which is completely different.

Most Copyright infringement is civil. which is as it should be. However Ireland has made certain types of copyright infringement to be criminal.

I agree the balance has swung too far in favour of the "rights holders" who are rarely the creative artists.

techguy

What way are these 23 people sharing the music? Is it via p2p services like kazaa,limewire,bittorrent etc??

They can hardly monitor rapidshare uploads and downloads as rs.com is a private company in a different country..

Do you guys think that they monitor rapidshare?

yoyo

techguy wrote: »

What way are these 23 people sharing the music? Is it via p2p services like kazaa,limewire,bittorrent etc??

They can hardly monitor rapidshare uploads and downloads as rs.com is a private company in a different country..

Do you guys think that they monitor rapidshare?

These people were "distributers" ie uploaders of a large quantity of music, this could have been using limewire, torrents etc... With rapidshare you just download and as its not p2p your not sharing with anyone (unless you choose to) and your only connecting to rapidshares server, not individuals hosting a file, as a result rapidshare should not be affected by such things and even if using p2p and disabling uploading completely you should be safe enough aswell

Nick

Cabaal

this thread is over 12 months old, let it die!
thread locked