How does CAG feel about Pirating?

[quote name='dmaul1114']Just more BS justifications. People deserve to be compensated for their work, end of story.

People bitch about crappy products--but these wouldn't come out if people weren't buying them. And hell, even piracy just shows demand for the products.

There's no more crappy movies, music etc. out there than in the past. Just more variety than every so of course there's more crap one individual doesnt' like and can bitch about.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think there's a demand for crappy products? Crappy/cheap products are vehicles used to entice someone into buying more expensive products and/or to market other products.

And no, piracy does not equal demand that would lead to lost revenue.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']They do...but have you ever thought that they shouldn't be able to live all of their life off of one work? [/quote]

If they can sell enough copies throughout their lifetime to live off of it, absolutely they should have that right.

People should be able to have exclusive rights to sell their creations throughout their lifetimes.

it's a pretty commie idea IMO that we should "force" them to keep working by giving them limited copyrights that expire before they die.

Besides, most creative people keep creating even if they're making tons of money off earlier works, so it's generally a moot point in terms of productivity anyway. People like John Grisham and Stephen King keep churning out books despite still no doubt making tons off of early works that still sell well.

Just no way I can support taking a way a person's right to get royalties on their work as long as it's selling during their lifetime.

Maybe put some stipulations on it so copyright expires when things go out of print for 5 years or more etc. so stuff isn't needlessly being held out of the public domain. But if it's selling, the creator should be getting their cut until they die.


No, it doesn't. It shows the demand for the product...if the product was completely free.

It shows there are people willing to watch/listen etc. I wasn't equating it with lost 100% lost sales.

But that's another reason pirates are pathetic. They waste time on content they don't enjoy enough to pay for. Who wants to spend precious free time on crap you don't enjoy?

If there's a movie I'm not willing to pay theater ticket or rental prices for, I'm not going to bother watching even if it's on TV and costs me nothing. Life's too short to waste time on stuff one's not really interested in.

I can understand the logic behind pirates who are just cheap and don't want to pay for things (or broke and can't). And I get those like you who use it to sample things etc. Lame justifications, but at least they make logical sense.

But I've never got those who say "I only pirate things I would never spend money on." If it's something you don't really want, why spend time pirating it and time consuming it? Just baffles me. I guess some are lucky and have more free time than they know what to do with. *shrugs*
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']If they can sell enough copies throughout their lifetime to live off of it, absolutely they should have that right.

People should be able to have exclusive rights to sell their creations throughout their lifetimes.

it's a pretty commie idea IMO that we should "force" them to keep working by giving them limited copyrights that expire before they die.

Besides, most creative people keep creating even if they're making tons of money off earlier works, so it's generally a moot point in terms of productivity anyway. People like John Grisham and Stephen King keep churning out books despite still no doubt making tons off of early works that still sell well.

Just no way I can support taking a way a person's right to get royalties on their work as long as it's selling during their lifetime.

Maybe put some stipulations on it so copyright expires when things go out of print for 5 years or more etc. so stuff isn't needlessly being held out of the public domain. But if it's selling, the creator should be getting their cut until they die.[/QUOTE]

But you don't really get it.

javeryh was saying what if piracy was mainstream and not frowned upon. What would happen and would the end result really be for the worse?

You said it's bs because artists should be compensated for their work. (which is still kind of funny to me since you support used sales and other legal ways to fuck over the artist)

And I said, well what if the actual artistic work was the promotional tool for live events, special editions or merchandise that can't be replicated so easily like t-shirts, posters, toys, etc. They would be getting compensated, just a different way than they currently are (or the exact same way for most musicians).

Would it matter if Stephen King makes a million dollars off of meet-and-greets/fan patronage/limited edition copies/merchandise/TV and movie rights or a million off of just book sales? He's getting a million dollars regardless and he's able to live off of his work. Of course, he needs to get new product out there if he wants to continue making money but what's wrong with that?

(lol at you seriously using the term commie)

[quote name='dmaul1114']It shows there are people willing to watch/listen etc. I wasn't equating it with lost 100% lost sales.

But that's another reason pirates are pathetic. They waste time on content they don't enjoy enough to pay for. Who wants to spend precious free time on crap you don't enjoy?

If there's a movie I'm not willing to pay theater ticket or rental prices for, I'm not going to bother watching even if it's on TV and costs me nothing. Life's too short to waste time on stuff one's not really interested in.

I can understand the logic behind pirates who are just cheap and don't want to pay for things (or broke and can't). And I get those like you who use it to sample things etc. Lame justifications, but at least they make logical sense.

But I've never got those who say "I only pirate things I would never spend money on." If it's something you don't really want, why spend time pirating it and time consuming it? Just baffles me. I guess some are lucky and have more free time than they know what to do with. *shrugs*[/QUOTE]

Yes, willing to watch/listen/read if there is no cost of entry. Free makes peoples' standards drop way down.

If I open a restaurant and the food is terrible and nobody shows up, if I make the cost free and people show up, that doesn't mean that there is a market for my shitty, horrible food. Just that there are people who go "i'm hungry and this is free so fuck it. good enough"

I would never buy a AC/DC album because it all sounds the same to me but if I download their discography because once in a blue moon, it's decent if it pops up while my player is on random, that doesn't mean that I would have actually spent money on an AC/DC album (or their entire catalog)

Also it doesn't take that much time to download something. Queue up a torrent, go make dinner, come back and it will be there. And it's a good thing if people are more willing to try all different types of art. Who knows, maybe they will like whatever thing they thought they wouldn't and go out and support the artist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that's another reason pirates are pathetic. They waste time on content they don't enjoy enough to pay for. Who wants to spend precious free time on crap you don't enjoy?

If there's a movie I'm not willing to pay theater ticket or rental prices for, I'm not going to bother watching even if it's on TV and costs me nothing. Life's too short to waste time on stuff one's not really interested in.

I can understand the logic behind pirates who are just cheap and don't want to pay for things (or broke and can't). And I get those like you who use it to sample things etc. Lame justifications, but at least they make logical sense.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the time you don't *know* if you'll like something or not. Somebody might download a game that at first they have a passing interest in, but turns out they enjoy it immensely. I can see something like a RTS fan downloading Civ 5 just for the hell of it, and turns out he loves the game and the entire turn-based concept. Conversely, how many times have you paid for something that looked good but turned out seriously disappointing?
 
[quote name='dark2025']Conversely, how many times have you paid for something that looked good but turned out seriously disappointing?[/QUOTE]

I have the best story of this ever because it is so embarrassing.

When I was younger, I use to save up my money and make a monthly pilgrimage, with my sister, to the local Best Buy to get one CD. That was back in the day when I would listen to the radio all the time and watch MTV extremely late night (where they would play kind of obscure music videos) to find new music. Basically nu-metal shit of the time.

Well there was this one song that was getting a ton of airplay and I figured hey that song is ok and I read that the rest of their album is heavier...I'll have to get that album.

What was the song that was getting a ton of airplay and the album I bought that month?

fucking Crazy Town - Butterfly off of the steaming pile of shit The Gift Of Game

We listened to about half of it on the way home before I pulled it out of the CD player and put it back into the case. When I got home, I put it in a drawer and never touched it again until I moved. I was so fucking pissed I wasted my money on that horseshit, it was months before I went back to get another CD.

And the worse part about it was that Butterfly was the best song on the album and that the only good part of that song was sampled from a Red Hot Chili Pepper song.

(And now that I think about it, I found out about Napster a little while after that when MTV did a story on them. I remember being so excited to get Kid Rock's American Bad Ass song for free :lol: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't pirate anymore. It's too much of a hassle and I like to support things I like.

With streaming Internet radio and netflix, there's no need to pirate anymore.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I have the best story of this ever because it is so embarrassing.

When I was younger, I use to save up my money and make a monthly pilgrimage, with my sister, to the local Best Buy to get one CD. That was back in the day when I would listen to the radio all the time and watch MTV extremely late night (where they would play kind of obscure music videos) to find new music. Basically nu-metal shit of the time.

Well there was this one song that was getting a ton of airplay and I figured hey that song is ok and I read that the rest of their album is heavier...I'll have to get that album.

What was the song that was getting a ton of airplay and the album I bought that month?

fucking Crazy Town - Butterfly off of the steaming pile of shit The Gift Of Game

We listened to about half of it on the way home before I pulled it out of the CD player and put it back into the case. When I got home, I put it in a drawer and never touched it again until I moved. I was so fucking pissed I wasted my money on that horseshit, it was months before I went back to get another CD.

And the worse part about it was that Butterfly was the best song on the album and that the only good part of that song was sampled from a Red Hot Chili Pepper song.

(And now that I think about it, I found out about Napster a little while after that when MTV did a story on them. I remember being so excited to get Kid Rock's American Bad Ass song for free :lol: )[/QUOTE]

And just think - as far as people the recording industry has fucked over, you got lucky.

I just don't know why we can't celebrate some for the little guy on this one. The greedy fucks at the top actually got fucked, innovation and technology won, and the consumer's options get better every day. How often does that happen?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
And I said, well what if the actual artistic work was the promotional tool for live events, special editions or merchandise that can't be replicated so easily like t-shirts, posters, toys, etc. They would be getting compensated, just a different way than they currently are (or the exact same way for most musicians).

Would it matter if Stephen King makes a million dollars off of meet-and-greets/fan patronage/limited edition copies/merchandise/TV and movie rights or a million off of just book sales? He's getting a million dollars regardless and he's able to live off of his work. Of course, he needs to get new product out there if he wants to continue making money but what's wrong with that?
[/quote]

The problem with that logic is bands already focus a lot on selling over priced merchandise, and make money on live shows. Authors do tons of book signings etc. etc

So you take away royalties from sales of books, albums etc. then you're just taking a stream of revenue away and not really adding anything.

People aren't going to suddenly start buying more band t-shirts because they get all their albums for free.


Yes, willing to watch/listen/read if there is no cost of entry. Free makes peoples' standards drop way down.

And again I think that's lame. Free time is precious, so I try to stick to the cream of the crop in entertainment options regardless of whether free or not. But hey, if you've got nothing better to do than lower your standards and spend time on crap because you can pirate it, more power to you.


[quote name='dark2025']A lot of the time you don't *know* if you'll like something or not. Somebody might download a game that at first they have a passing interest in, but turns out they enjoy it immensely. I can see something like a RTS fan downloading Civ 5 just for the hell of it, and turns out he loves the game and the entire turn-based concept. Conversely, how many times have you paid for something that looked good but turned out seriously disappointing?[/QUOTE]

I said right in the post you quoted that I get the logic for people who use it to sample things, though I don't condone that.

And I've hardly every paid for something that was a let down. A few movies in the theater, and a ticket is pocket change to me so no biggie.

But I read reviews and pretty much know what I like so I seldom spend money on something I dislike.

And as I said earlier in the thread there is a gazillion ways to legally sample or consume things for no cost today. Get a Netflix account and rent/stream movies for pocket change a month and don't buy anything unseen. Radio, streaming music sites, band sites with songs streaming etc. to check out songs before buying a cd. Libraries to check out books etc. Or get a Kindle or other e-reader where you can get free samples of every book Amazon sells.

So even if you're not big on reviews/good and knowing what you'll like and dislike, there's no reason in today's world to have to buy things totally blind anyway as there are free or very cheap ways to check stuff out before making a purchase. So I just don't buy that justification for piracy as there are plenty of legal ways to try before you buy.
 
This is an interesting discussion. More devil's advocate: What if piracy became OK over time though from a societal standpoint? Is it just the idea of piracy you don't like or is it specifically that there are laws against it (no matter how ill-conceived) and most people don't seem to care?

There are "unfair" things that happen all the time that are perfectly legal and no one gets worked up about it like they do about this issue (thank-you Hollywood and the record labels for spending all that money on public awareness). What if there was a law making it illegal for all of the big box stores that came up in the 90s to exist because of all of the mom and pop stores that had their livelihoods crushed as a result? We just tell mom and pop tough shit it's the way of the world and you are going to have to adjust. God forbid we tell the same thing to people developing our precious movies and music for entertainment!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People aren't going to suddenly start buying more band t-shirts because they get all their albums for free.[/QUOTE]
But more people might end up at their concerts, and they might spread the band name around so more people will appreciate them.

[quote name='dmaul1114']And I've hardly every paid for something that was a let down. A few movies in the theater, and a ticket is pocket change to me so no biggie.

But I read reviews and pretty much know what I like so I seldom spend money on something I dislike.

And as I said earlier in the thread there is a gazillion ways to legally sample or consume things for no cost today. Get a Netflix account and rent/stream movies for pocket change a month and don't buy anything unseen. Radio, streaming music sites, band sites with songs streaming etc. to check out songs before buying a cd. Libraries to check out books etc. Or get a Kindle or other e-reader where you can get free samples of every book Amazon sells.[/QUOTE]
YOU may not have bought anything that was a letdown, but I know for a fact I've bought many DVDs and games throughout the years that were total disappointments.

You can't trust reviews. They're words and opinions of just some individuals. They might write something appealing and you think 'yeah, that's my kind of game, I'm buying it!' But you don't end up enjoying it because your personal preferences are different. One example I can think of is when I tried FFVII. I love RPGs, and having finished Planescape: Torment, I wanted something else with a great story and characters. Everywhere I went to, people seemed to love FFVII because of precisely those points. When I played it myself however, I stopped about an hour in. Why? I found the dialogue to be juvenile and the characters pretty unmemorable.

The reverse can also be true. If you bought only games that score 80% or higher on Metacritic you might be missing a lot of hidden gems.

Jumping through all those hoops to get free legal samples when you can get it easier and faster through other means (if you are able to) isn't worth the trouble. Even through these samples (game demos, song singles, etc.) you can't really know if it'll be something worth your money, just like how a good movie trailer does not mean a good movie.

[quote name='javeryh']This is an interesting discussion. More devil's advocate: What if piracy became OK over time though from a societal standpoint? Is it just the idea of piracy you don't like or is it specifically that there are laws against it (no matter how ill-conceived) and most people don't seem to care?[/QUOTE]
Say your friend lends you a game that you would have bought otherwise. It's not piracy, but I bet you're not going to say 'no way, keep that away from me!' Or what if you're over at a friend's house to watch one of his DVDs? You didn't pay for it, those movie studios aren't getting their money, but it's okay because you're not breaking any laws... right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Sporadic']I have the best story of this ever because it is so embarrassing.

When I was younger, I use to save up my money and make a monthly pilgrimage, with my sister, to the local Best Buy to get one CD. That was back in the day when I would listen to the radio all the time and watch MTV extremely late night (where they would play kind of obscure music videos) to find new music. Basically nu-metal shit of the time.

Well there was this one song that was getting a ton of airplay and I figured hey that song is ok and I read that the rest of their album is heavier...I'll have to get that album.

What was the song that was getting a ton of airplay and the album I bought that month?

fucking Crazy Town - Butterfly off of the steaming pile of shit The Gift Of Game

We listened to about half of it on the way home before I pulled it out of the CD player and put it back into the case. When I got home, I put it in a drawer and never touched it again until I moved. I was so fucking pissed I wasted my money on that horseshit, it was months before I went back to get another CD.

And the worse part about it was that Butterfly was the best song on the album and that the only good part of that song was sampled from a Red Hot Chili Pepper song.

(And now that I think about it, I found out about Napster a little while after that when MTV did a story on them. I remember being so excited to get Kid Rock's American Bad Ass song for free :lol: )[/QUOTE]
That Metallica/Napster dustup is why I still refuse to listen to or buy any of Metallica's stuff.
 
[quote name='javeryh']This is an interesting discussion. More devil's advocate: What if piracy became OK over time though from a societal standpoint? Is it just the idea of piracy you don't like or is it specifically that there are laws against it (no matter how ill-conceived) and most people don't seem to care?
[/QUOTE]

It's wrong to take something that is for sell without paying for it. The legality is secondary.

[quote name='dark2025']
YOU may not have bought anything that was a letdown, but I know for a fact I've bought many DVDs and games throughout the years that were total disappointments.

You can't trust reviews.[/quote]

Again, there's a gazillion ways to sample before buying, especially with movies with $9 a month rental accounts, $1 Redbox rentals etc.

So most of the time it's one's own fault if they buy something site unseen rather than giving it rental, or streaming some songs online etc. first and making an informed purchase.

Jumping through all those hoops to get free legal samples when you can get it easier and faster through other means (if you are able to) isn't worth the trouble.

Saying your convenience is more importance than morals tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.

Say your friend lends you a game that you would have bought otherwise. It's not piracy, but I bet you're not going to say 'no way, keep that away from me!' Or what if you're over at a friend's house to watch one of his DVDs? You didn't pay for it, those movie studios aren't getting their money, but it's okay because you're not breaking any laws... right?


I've covered this numerous fucking times in the thread already on why piracy is wrong and buying used, borrowing from friends isn't (though is still morally inferior to buying new).

1. Pirating condones the act, and encourages the losers who upload and distribute illegal copies.

2. Once someting is illegally copied it can spread to an unlimited number of people. Only one person can have a legit copy of something at at time. Be it borrowing it, selling/trading it to some one etc.

3. It just comes down to property rights. If someone buys a product, they own that property and should be able to do anything with it beyond make copies to give or sell to others (as it's not their intellectual property to give away). So there's no moral wrong in selling or trading or lending something that you own as it's your property. Just don't give people copies, or make yourself a copy and give away the original.
 
[quote name='javeryh']This is an interesting discussion. More devil's advocate: What if piracy became OK over time though from a societal standpoint? Is it just the idea of piracy you don't like or is it specifically that there are laws against it (no matter how ill-conceived) and most people don't seem to care?[/QUOTE]

Don't we have that already? External to the legal argument is the social perception aspect - which doesn't always match well with the law (see also: speeding). Speeding is normative, it's accepted - just try driving the speed limit on the interstate and see how pissed off people get. Why are they mad? You're obeying the law!

But as for the social argument, we're there already, aren't we? Some argue that it i unacceptable, but it's pervasive enough that it certainly isn't frowned upon by people (though there's certainly an age-effect in effect - ha - as I suspect you'll find a larger proportion of young adults and teenagers who approve of it, or fail to condemn it, compared to older age groups - the kind who need their children's help in signing onto AOL, heh).

Anyone ever delve into the early piracy suits? Like the one(s) surrounding Player Pianos around the turn of the 20th century?

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/209US1.htm

Fascinating stuff.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't we have that already? External to the legal argument is the social perception aspect - which doesn't always match well with the law (see also: speeding). Speeding is normative, it's accepted - just try driving the speed limit on the interstate and see how pissed off people get. Why are they mad? You're obeying the law!

But as for the social argument, we're there already, aren't we? Some argue that it i unacceptable, but it's pervasive enough that it certainly isn't frowned upon by people (though there's certainly an age-effect in effect - ha - as I suspect you'll find a larger proportion of young adults and teenagers who approve of it, or fail to condemn it, compared to older age groups - the kind who need their children's help in signing onto AOL, heh).

Anyone ever delve into the early piracy suits? Like the one(s) surrounding Player Pianos around the turn of the 20th century?

http://digital-law-online.info/cases/209US1.htm

Fascinating stuff.[/QUOTE]

That is a good read. Great proof of the law never being in sync with technology. Just like no one thought of digital media 25 years ago, no one thought of player pianos 125 years ago! I like the betamax case from the 80s - it essentially lays the ground work for allowing file sharing sites to legally exist!

I don't agree that digital piracy is socially acceptable - yet. It may be in the next 25 years and we are certainly headed there but for now people are definitely divided on the issue. Your speeding analogy is interesting - it is something that everyone most certainly does but there are only "real" penalties in the most egregious cases (like driving 150 down the interstate weaving in and out of traffic). Maybe copyright infringement penalties need to be more in line with the actual act instead of suing grandma for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Maybe copyright infringement penalties need to be more in line with the actual act instead of suing grandma for hundreds of thousands of dollars.[/QUOTE]

That's what I (and Myke and other's) have suggested repeatedly.

Criminalizing it doesn't mean huge fines or prison terms etc.. It means a misdemeanor on the record (which sends a stronger signal of wrongness) and a relatively small fine. I'd go something like MSRP of the content plus a 10-25% penalty.

The huge fines given out in civil court now do no good.

1. They're imposted too infrequently and chances of getting caught and sued are minuscule. And certainty of being caught and punished is consistently found to have more deterrent impacts than the harshness of the penalties. Punishments just need to be enough to outweigh the costs of the crime, nothing more (hence my fines of MSRP plus a small additional penalty).

2. They just raise ire against the media companies as the fines are so absurdly disproportionate to the harm done.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Criminalizing it doesn't mean huge fines or prison terms etc.. It means a misdemeanor on the record (which sends a stronger signal of wrongness) and a relatively small fine. I'd go something like MSRP of the content plus a 10-25% penalty.[/QUOTE]

That's of course assuming it is wrong in the first place which I'm not so sure it is (or it will be in 25 years). To use Myke's analogy, is speeding "wrong"? It's against the law but I do not think it is "wrong" at all in any moral sense of the word.

I thought the goal was to get a to a point where I could just yell out "Computer, Lil Wayne, Lollipop" and that shit would just start playing!

(and yes I did have to wiki to find the name of a Lil Wayne song). :D
 
[quote name='javeryh']That's of course assuming it is wrong in the first place which I'm not so sure it is (or it will be in 25 years).
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but it will never be right.

Anytime someone decides to copyright and sell a creation, it will never be right to obtain an illegal copy of it.

If they aren't giving it away, you have no right to own a copy of it unless you buy it new or buy it used. Otherwise you can borrow it from a friend/library or do without.

It just blows my mind that people think they have some right to get digital products for free when they never expect free copies of physical products.

Yeah, there's a difference in terms of a store not losing a tangible good via shoplifting etc. But otherwise the wrong is the same--either way you own a copy of for sale material that you didn't pay for.
 
It doesn't always have to end the way we all think it will. Sometimes, good product and an engaged creator can make it happen with piracy. And if you want to check out a really crazy number, compare the sales numbers from the Boing Boing review to the piracy episode. Not just bigger, but orders of magnitude so absurd it's worth thinking twice about big.

Maybe the people paid ridiculous sums at publishers of various media should at least give 15 seconds to the market response.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10...r-After-Artist-Engages-4chan-Pirates?from=rss
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem with that logic is bands already focus a lot on selling over priced merchandise, and make money on live shows. Authors do tons of book signings etc. etc

So you take away royalties from sales of books, albums etc. then you're just taking a stream of revenue away and not really adding anything.

People aren't going to suddenly start buying more band t-shirts because they get all their albums for free.[/QUOTE]

(Since there is no real place to put it in the rest of my post, I'll put it here. Why wouldn't the sales of merchandise go up if people didn't have to buy the album? It would be the first money spent and most would go straight to the artist, cutting out the middle man. Not only that but it's money going towards something you can't replicate.)

But you still don't get it. Maybe that revenue stream wasn't suppose to be there in the first place? I mean how long have artists been able to live off of copies of their work. For musicians and artists, it started in the 20th century.

But that isn't horrible thing if it goes away. Now the art can be free promotion for other money making ventures like live events, meet-and-greets, merchandise, etc.

Example, Nine Inch Nails released a full album The Slip for free. He recorded it in his home studio in three months. What a loss for him right? A whole album released for free. He must have gotten nothing out of it! Wrong, it was free promotion for his upcoming tour, 2 million people downloaded it in 2 months and he still sold over 98,000 limited edition copies in store (independently and without any label promotion)

Before that, he released Ghosts I-IV. Another project he spent 10 weeks producing in his home studio. You could download the first part for free, the whole thing for $5 or buy a $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition which was signed and numbered. The $300 edition sold out in one day. The media reported that he made a total of $1.6 million after the first week. http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/turn_it_up/2008/03/reznors-one-wee.html I mean think about that. Everybody who purchased the $300 edition could have downloaded the album for free from torrents or $5 from the site but they felt like the $300 was worth it. Why? Because Trent Reznor teamed up with A+R to come up with a fantastic package and he took a day out of his schedule to sign/number them.

Another example would be Saul Williams.

This was posted about three months after the release of Ni.g.gyTardust (and in case you were wondering, $$$$y was blocked thanks to me and my thread here lol :lol: )

It's a strange time to be an artist in the recording business. It's pretty easy to see what NOT to do
these days, but less obvious to know what's right. As I find myself free from the bloated bureaucracy
of major labels, finally able to do whatever I want... well, what is that? What is the "right" way to
release records, treat your music and your audience with respect and attempt to make a living as
well? I have a number of musician friends who are either in a similar situation or feel they soon
will be, and it's a real source of anxiety and uncertainty.
I'd like to share my experience releasing Saul Williams' "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of
$$$$yTardust" and what I've learned from the process. Perhaps by revealing of all our data - our
"dirty laundry" - we can contribute to a better solution.

A quick history: Saul makes a great record that I produce. We can't find the right home at a major
label. We decide to release it ourselves, digitally. Saul does not have limitless financial resources
so we shop around for a company that can fulfill our needs. We choose Musicane because they are
competent and are willing to adapt to what we want. The results are here: $$$$ytardust.com

We offer the entire record free (as in totally free to the visitor - we pay bandwidth costs) as 192
MP3s, or for $5 you can choose higher fidelity versions and feel good about supporting the artist
directly. We offer all major CCs and PayPal as payment options.
Here's what I was thinking: Fans are interested in music as soon as it's available (that's a good
thing, remember) and usually that's a leak from the label's manufacturing plants. Offering the record
digitally as its first appearance in the marketplace eliminates that problem. I thought if you
offered the whole record free at reasonable quality - no strings attached - and offered a hassle free
way to show support that clearly goes straight to the artists who made it at an unquestionably low
price people would "do the right thing". I know, I know...
Well, now I DO know and you will too.

Saul's previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.

As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.

Of those paying,

3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC

Keep in mind not one cent was spent on marketing this record. The only marketing was Saul and myself
talking as loudly as we could to anybody that would listen.
If 33,897 people went out and bought Saul's last record 3 years ago (when more people bought CDs) and
over 150K - five times as many - sought out this new record, that's great - right?
I have to assume the people knowing about this project must either be primarily Saul or NIN fans, as
there was very little media coverage outside our direct influence. If that assumption is correct -
that most of the people that chose to download Saul's record came from his or my own fan-base - is it
good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that
percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening.
Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list
team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the
record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project.

But...
Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be
touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can.

So - if you're an artist looking to utilize this method of distribution, make of these figures what
you will and hopefully this info is enlightening.

Best,
TR

Now that may sound negative but Saul was very happy with the end result. He went on tour and Nike used one of his songs from the last album in a $20 million ad campaign which enabled him to move overseas.

The public jumped on Trent's use of the word "disheartening." What do you make of it?

Williams: I'm actually extremely optimistic. The only thing that I really have kept in mind is that, one, we're two months into a project. An album is not like a film, so that like, 'Oh, we did it, two months and it's done, now it's going straight to DVD.' The marketing campaign starts this month with the premiere of our video of Sunday Bloody Sunday on MySpace, MTV and all the major networks.

The marketing campaign that we started begins this month as well. We start touring in March starting with South By Southwest and then move across the country and then on to Europe. So the album has gotten a great deal of writes up and had a huge response from people immediately. But that was all from just releasing the album. That was with, like Trent said, with no marketing, no press, nothing spawned from us. It was all people like yourself saying, 'Can I talk to you about this?' But we hadn't paid a publicist as of yet.

I think it's early in the game. I'm not disappointed at all. I think Trent's disappointment probably stems from being in the music business for over 20 years and remembering a time that was very different, when sales reflected something different, when there was no such thing as downloads. Trent is from another school. Even acts that prospered in the '90s, you look at people like the Fugees or Lauren Hill selling 18 million copies. That sort of thing is unheard of today. But Trent comes from that world. So I think his disappointed stems from being heavily invested in the past. For modern times, for modern numbers we're looking great, especially for being just two months into a project.

Experts have told me that the economic lifespan of an album can last as long as two years.

Williams: Exactly, the lifespan from my last album, from touring, which is really how I made my income and everything, lasted for two years. I didn't start touring with that album with Trent until 2005. It came out in 2004.

Here's another article on the one year aftermath of Ni.ggyTardust

http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/11/one-year-later/

[quote name='dmaul1114']And again I think that's lame. Free time is precious, so I try to stick to the cream of the crop in entertainment options regardless of whether free or not. But hey, if you've got nothing better to do than lower your standards and spend time on crap because you can pirate it, more power to you.[/QUOTE]

Trust me, free time is not precious when the majority of time you have is free time.

And if you only stick to cream of the crop in entertainment, you are missing out on some real hidden gems.

[quote name='speedracer']It doesn't always have to end the way we all think it will. Sometimes, good product and an engaged creator can make it happen with piracy. And if you want to check out a really crazy number, compare the sales numbers from the Boing Boing review to the piracy episode. Not just bigger, but orders of magnitude so absurd it's worth thinking twice about big.

Maybe the people paid ridiculous sums at publishers of various media should at least give 15 seconds to the market response.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10...r-After-Artist-Engages-4chan-Pirates?from=rss[/QUOTE]

That's the thing. Real pirates (not just assholes looking for everything free) respond positively when they feel like they are being respected by the artist and negatively when they feel like they are being disrespected (Call Of Duty MW 2)
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Why wouldn't the sales of merchandise go up if people didn't have to buy the album? [/quote]

1. Because most pirates are probably cheap and don't spend money period. I think people like you that make an effort to support artists other ways are the exception to the norm.

2. There's only so many t-shirts etc. a person can buy, and not everyone buys and wears band t-shirts, or buys posters etc.

I just don't see how pirates are anymore likely to buy merchandise etc. than someone who buys the cds legitimately etc.

And then you have other media like movies and games where merchandising isn't nearly as viable and things are 100% dependent on box office, dvd/blu ray sales, rentals and pay per view etc.


But you still don't get it. Maybe that revenue stream wasn't suppose to be there in the first place? I mean how long have artists been able to live off of copies of their work. For musicians and artists, it started in the 20th century.

But that isn't horrible thing if it goes away. Now the art can be free promotion for other money making ventures like live events, meet-and-greets, merchandise, etc.

Again, just morally I think people should have sole right to sell their creations until the die.

And one just isn't going to make the same money off meet and greets etc. than they can selling millions of books.

And that kind of stuff just won't work for movies etc. Make back $200+ million budgets through meet and greet with actors and directors etc.

Example, Nine Inch Nails released a full album The Slip for free. He recorded it in his home studio in three months.

And any artist is 100% free to do that. No one is forcing them to sign with labels and try to sell their material.

That doesn't mean the model should be forced on those who choose to sign contracts and try to sell their material instead of giving it way. Nor does it justify illegally downloading material from artists who do not choose to give it away.

Trust me, free time is not precious when the majority of time you have is free time.

Lucky you. But for those of us working a ton of hours and with busy social/family lives on top of that, free time is a precious commodity.

And if you only stick to cream of the crop in entertainment, you are missing out on some real hidden gems.

Cream of the crop doesn't mean mainstream. Just things that I think are high quality--be it main stream, or hidden gems. I just meant I'm not wasting my time on things I know are mediocre at best. If it's not something I'm willing to spend some money on, then I'm not willing to spend the time on it. I

have plenty of money to cover all my needs, free time is the lacking thing. Like still being in the office at 6:15 on a Friday (got in at 9 am) and still having 3 or 4 hours of work that needs done today before I can think of watching a movie or playing a game etc.


But in any case, it's time to agree to disagree. We're just going in circles and neither of us is going to change our minds one iota and I don't really have anymore to add to the topic anyway that I haven't already posted multiple times.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But in any case, it's time to agree to disagree. We're just going in circles and neither of us is going to change our minds one iota and I don't really have anymore to add to the topic anyway that I haven't already posted multiple times.[/QUOTE]

You ignored/missed/shrugged off a massive part of my post anyways, so I don't plan on responding to anything you post in this thread in the future.

But the time for movies to start scaling back their budgets is going to come up very soon with the theater prices exploding while the theater experience worsens and the price of home theaters and the equipment needed to make movies drop. The day of reckoning for the movie industry is coming. I'll bet within the next twenty years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sorry, but it will never be right.

Anytime someone decides to copyright and sell a creation, it will never be right to obtain an illegal copy of it.[/QUOTE]

But what if it was legal? You are equating right/wrong and legal/illegal and there is an important distinction there.

Also, copyrights come into existence the moment the expression or embodiment of an idea comes into being whether someone decides to sell it or not. If you write a one line poem that you just thought of right now, it has a copyright. Unlike a patent there is no paperwork that the artist has to file to create a copyright (although obviously it helps to secure your rights to put the world on notice). Having a copyright gives the owner the right to prevent others from doing certain things with the work in question, one of which is copying such work (reproduce, distribute, perform, display and create derivative works are what the copyright holder can prevent others from doing if I remember correctly). It has nothing to do with the ability to sell something - copyright holders can make money because they have the right to prevent others from copying the work so in theory if they are the only ones allowed to make copies then supply/demand comes into play and they can usually sell the work for money.

I was just playing devil's advocate because I find it interesting that you have such a black and white stance on the issue yet there are all sorts of fair use exceptions that you are OK with. This suggests to me that you just want to follow the letter of the law (which is fine). I think others are looking for an arguably better way to reward a copyright holder and advance society's wishes of "free" content instead of just trying to punish everyone.
 
The idea of people buying more merchandise/going to more concerts is interesting - but it would require a complete change-up in the way the entire music industry works.

Face it - for the large majority of music, you first hear it via radio play, advertising, etc. - which is all arranged (and funded) by the label. The albums are generally funded up front by the record labels. The tours themselves are often times set up/funded by the label. Suddenly, you remove the label's source of income (album sales) and all of this is virtually pulled out from under the artist. This is why most musicians sign with major labels... they don't have the talent to pull together major ad campaigns, the legal experience for licensing music for commercial airplay, the funding to pay for the recording, editing, and distribution of their music...

[quote name='dark2025']Jumping through all those hoops to get free legal samples when you can get it easier and faster through other means (if you are able to) isn't worth the trouble.[/QUOTE]

What was it about pirates being lazy?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The idea of people buying more merchandise/going to more concerts is interesting - but it would require a complete change-up in the way the entire music industry works.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and in this way it's MORE beneficial to the artists themselves because they get more money from concerts and merchandise than from album sales (most of the album profits go to the labels). Of course music labels need to adapt in this new world where access to information is becoming easier by the minute.

[quote name='UncleBob']What was it about pirates being lazy?[/QUOTE]
Hey, it's not lazy... it's called being efficient. Get it right will ya :p?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The idea of people buying more merchandise/going to more concerts is interesting - but it would require a complete change-up in the way the entire music industry works.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[quote name='UncleBob']Face it - for the large majority of music, you first hear it via radio play, advertising, etc. - which is all arranged (and funded) by the label. The albums are generally funded up front by the record labels. The tours themselves are often times set up/funded by the label. Suddenly, you remove the label's source of income (album sales) and all of this is virtually pulled out from under the artist. This is why most musicians sign with major labels... they don't have the talent to pull together major ad campaigns, the legal experience for licensing music for commercial airplay, the funding to pay for the recording, editing, and distribution of their music...[/QUOTE]

Not for me. The majority of the music I listen to now is discovered either through acts I love or through word of mouth.

There are alot of artists that no longer need the record labels. They record/mix at home since the price of recording has gone way down, they plan their own tours or open for friends or play individual shows when they want to, arrange all of the merchandise through third party companies to sell at live events or through their website. I'm not saying it is the norm but it is possible and being utilized by a growing number of artist.

[quote name='UncleBob']What was it about pirates being lazy?[/QUOTE]

Jumping through hoops is work. Of course it is legal for me to jump on to YouTube and try to find songs from an artist that either fans or the label uploaded...but I have to wait for an ad I don't care about to finish or deal with the chance of what I clicked on is low quality or incomplete.

Or I could go the illegal route, go to my favorite private torrent site and get the whole album in high quality MP3 in (being completely serious if the swarm maxes out my bandwidth speed) about two to three minutes.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']There are alot of artists that no longer need the record labels. They record/mix at home since the price of recording has gone way down, they plan their own tours or open for friends or play individual shows when they want to, arrange all of the merchandise through third party companies to sell at live events or through their website. I'm not saying it is the norm but it is possible and being utilized by a growing number of artist.[/quote]

You are correct - it's not the norm.. but the fact that they do it proves that it can be done. Which means, when people (either pirates are artists themselves) whine about how the evil, evil record labels are abusing the talent, all I can do is roll my eyes.

Jumping through hoops is work.
Yes, yes it is. ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You are correct - it's not the norm.. but the fact that they do it proves that it can be done. Which means, when people (either pirates are artists themselves) whine about how the evil, evil record labels are abusing the talent, all I can do is roll my eyes.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's like saying "Hey, that guy is using all cash so anybody complaining about predatory lending is a dummy. Maybe they should be like him if they don't want to be taken advantage of."

You have to remember that home recording is really in it's infancy and alot of people still believe that the only way to be successful is the whole "sign to a label -> make a record -> get promotion/tour -> success" plan of the past.

And the labels absolutely fuck over certain people.

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/

warnerstmtdetail539x461.jpg


I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of…

$62.47

What the fuck?

I mean, we all know that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s about to seem like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually owe us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance the musicians when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he said. “But, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.

--------------

* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.


I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Sporadic']You have to remember that home recording is really in it's infancy and alot of people still believe that the only way to be successful is the whole "sign to a label -> make a record -> get promotion/tour -> success" plan of the past.[/QUOTE]

In it's infancy? Tell that to my re-release of Lisa Loeb's Purple Tape from 1992. And you're right - many people believe that signing to a label is a "get rich quick" scheme. And to them, I say, I know this Nigerian Prince that has a lot of money he wants to get into the US and you're his only living relative I've been able to track down.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']In it's infancy? Tell that to my re-release of Lisa Loeb's Purple Tape from 1992.[/QUOTE]

I would say yes. Home recording has been around for awhile but we have just crossed into the realm of a cheap (or you can replace cheap with accessible) home recording being on par with the work out of real studio.

----------

And on that note, let me plug BigBlackDelta while I think about it. If you scroll down, he has the complete first EP up for free (either streaming or download) and if you want to contribute, you can buy a quality signed poster (which comes with FLAC audio) or t-shirt.

http://bigblackdelta.com/

Or there is SONOIO http://sonoio.org/ he has the first four tracks up for free (streaming or download) and teamed up with The Harvestman to come up with a portable synthesizer (first run limited to 200, sold out)
 
[quote name='javeryh']But what if it was legal? You are equating right/wrong and legal/illegal and there is an important distinction there.

Also, copyrights come into existence the moment the expression or embodiment of an idea comes into being whether someone decides to sell it or not. If you write a one line poem that you just thought of right now, it has a copyright. Unlike a patent there is no paperwork that the artist has to file to create a copyright (although obviously it helps to secure your rights to put the world on notice). Having a copyright gives the owner the right to prevent others from doing certain things with the work in question, one of which is copying such work (reproduce, distribute, perform, display and create derivative works are what the copyright holder can prevent others from doing if I remember correctly). It has nothing to do with the ability to sell something - copyright holders can make money because they have the right to prevent others from copying the work so in theory if they are the only ones allowed to make copies then supply/demand comes into play and they can usually sell the work for money.

I was just playing devil's advocate because I find it interesting that you have such a black and white stance on the issue yet there are all sorts of fair use exceptions that you are OK with. This suggests to me that you just want to follow the letter of the law (which is fine). I think others are looking for an arguably better way to reward a copyright holder and advance society's wishes of "free" content instead of just trying to punish everyone.[/QUOTE]


One last response to this.

I'm just not sure what you mean by "if it was legal." Do you mean copyright laws stay as they are and somehow they rule that they don't matter and people can copy and distribute albums, movies, games, books etc. as much as they want with no penalties?

1. That's not going to happen. 2. It would be a huge moral wrong by the government to pretty much take away sole rights to sell your copyrighted material.

The moral issue is just that--having sole right to profit off your creation if you choose to sell it. That's not a legal issues. Legal or not, creators should have sole right to sell their creations, and not make them freely available, during their lifetimes. And I'll never waver an inch on that.

And yes I know copyright is instant. But the copyright holder doesn't have to choose to sell their creation. They can make it freely available and give permission to distribute it--i.e. bands like Dave Matthews Band that allow fans to tape and trade live shows.

Or they can decide to sell it, and in that case is is morally wrong to copy and distribute it or download illegal copies others have distributed.

As for the other fair use stuff. I've beat that into the ground. The issue is property ownership. It's hard to come up with a good legal or moral reason why someone is not allowed to trade or sell a product they bought (and thus own). At least for physical goods. As we get to totally digital products, I personally have little problems with them basically being non-transferable licenses, rather than owning a physical product, like we've had for years with computer software.

So I'm fine with an all digital future where it's buy new, or rent streaming access etc. with no second hand market. But for physical products one buys and owns, I just again can't see any legal or moral reasons to be against the 2nd hand market on those. I buy the vast majority of things new as I prefer to support the companies and people who entertain me. But I see nothing wrong with people getting most things used.

Libraries--another fair use thing I support--is just for the common good. Basically a way to give the society access to a ton of info few individuals could ever afford amass on their own. So that's one concession I think is reasonable for content creators to make for the common good.

Allowing anyone who feels like it to steal their content online with no repercussions is asking FAR too much. If they want to go the NIN or Radiohead route and give stuff away and make money other ways, more power to them. If they want to go the traditional route and only want paying customers to own their creations, then consumers should respect that and either buy or do without it.


In any case, again, agree to disagree time. But hopefully that at least made clear that it's not just a legal issue for me. But a deeply engrained belief that content creators should have sole control over their art for their lifetimes.

Anyway, that's my last post in this thread for real this time. ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Libraries--another fair use thing I support--is just for the common good. Basically a way to give the society access to a ton of info few individuals could ever afford amass on their own. So that's one concession I think is reasonable for content creators to make for the common good.[/QUOTE]

Heh, that sounds exactly like something I'm thinking of. Can't remember the name but I think it rhymes with Biracy :whistle2:\"
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']In any case, again, agree to disagree time. But hopefully that at least made clear that it's not just a legal issue for me. But a deeply engrained belief that content creators should have sole control over their art for their lifetimes. [/QUOTE]
You do seem very entrenched in your opinions. That's fine. I think there can be good in piracy, but it is very easily exploitable, obviously. All I know is piracy isn't going anywhere, and instead of using flawed methods that don't work to try and deter pirates (while pissing off everyone else in the process), companies should start adapting to this changing world by offering incentives for people to buy.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Well, that's like saying "Hey, that guy is using all cash so anybody complaining about predatory lending is a dummy. Maybe they should be like him if they don't want to be taken advantage of."

You have to remember that home recording is really in it's infancy and alot of people still believe that the only way to be successful is the whole "sign to a label -> make a record -> get promotion/tour -> success" plan of the past.

And the labels absolutely fuck over certain people.

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/

warnerstmtdetail539x461.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Great, great post.

Kids, I can't endorse your pirating. But I do encourage you to never,ever buy something from a major label, and instead support the bands you like directly.

Better yet, go out and see a live band.
 
I was reading TorrentFreak and they were talking about Pirate Verbatim which tracks what music artists say about piracy in interviews.

And I was surprised to see this little blurb of text which is kind of like what I was talking about earlier.

[quote name='Mick Jagger']It’s all changed in the last couple of years. . . I am quite relaxed about it. But, you know, it is a massive change and it does alter the fact that people don’t make as much money out of records. But I have a take on that – people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone! Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now that period has gone. So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the time they didn’t.[/QUOTE]

http://pirateverbatim.com/
 
Here's a question for ya'll and I'm not baiting.

What about any of the Ez2DJ arcade games? Two things here. I want the full versions of some of the songs just for listening to. The only way I can do this is getting ahold of either the arcade version commercially and ripping all the songs off the HDD included or finding some place, IF I'm lucky, to download it.
Also if I want to play it myself for home use why should I pay for a commercial license which is what buying the arcade kit entails.
The kit isn't cheap either, it's $500 for Platinum unless they changed the price. Chances are, if they priced that or any of the others, it would be under $100. It was done mostly in house, with a few artist exceptions or that might just be Ez2Dancer.
I really wish that DJ Max had bought the rights for it and released song packs and cd's of the tracks accordingly.
Ahhh "Southwest Cadillac", "Stay", "The Rhythm", "We Luv Music", etc.
 
RIAA just won big for the third time against that poor lady who downloaded some songs off of Kazaa. This time, $1.5 million for 24 songs or $62,500 per song. Kind of entertaining because if they went after a big fish or even a person like me, the damages would be in billions.

Also it's nice to know that the artists will get none of that cash despite the RIAA fighting for them.

Once again a Minneapolis jury has decided in favor of the RIAA, handing out a hefty fine for 24 songs shared back in 2006. The verdict is the third milestone win for the RIAA in this case.

It all started in 2007 when a jury hit Jammie Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 verdict in her case against the RIAA. Thomas-Rasset later appealed and in 2008 a mistrial was declared, with the judge ruling that the fines were “disproportionate to the damages suffered.”

The case went up for re-trial before a new jury last year and again a guilty verdict was reached with even harsher fines than first time around. Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $80,000 per infringement mounting up to a total of $1.92 million in fines.

Fast forward a few months and this jury-awarded fine was reduced significantly to $54,000 at the beginning of this year, as the excessive damages were ruled to be unconstitutional.

Then this week, the appeal of the retrial was heard and once again the RIAA/Capitol Records came out as the big winner. The jury decided that Thomas-Rasset has to pay a $62,500 fine per shared song which adds up to a total of $1.5 million (compare that to Germany [sporadic edit - a 16 year old kid was charged with a $41 fee after trading two songs 5 years ago]).

A massive win for the RIAA again, but not one that will benefit any musicians.

Previously, the RIAA told TorrentFreak that if they manage to recoup any of the damages, it will not go to the artists but will instead be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” RIAA’s Jonathan Lamy said.

The RIAA sees these cases not as a means to recoup money, but as a good way to communicate their anti-piracy message to the public. These cases create awareness about the consequences illicit file-sharing may have, the group argues. That they lose money on them by paying millions in lawyer fees is a calculated decision.

Even after this third jury verdict the RIAA is set to get even more exposure, as this re-retrial is probably not the end of the road. Thomas-Rasset’s legal team has already announced that they will file a new appeal.

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-wins-big-against-file-sharer-15m-for-24-songs-101104/
 
According to Consumerist (yeah...), the RIAA offered to settle for much less at one point...
http://consumerist.com/2010/11/jury-slaps-file-sharer-with-15-million-penalty-over-24-songs.html

Earlier this year, the judge in the second trial had reduced the "monstrous and shocking" original $1.92 million judgment to only $54,000, with the RIAA willing to cut that to $25,000. Thomas-Rassett, however, rejected the offer and opted for a new trial.

Is $1,000 per (known) song a lot? Yeah. But, taking into account legal fees and all the things associated with it, $25,000 doesn't go very far. I'd believe it if the RIAA said the $25,000 didn't even cover the pay for the lawyers through all this.

As for the $1.5 Million Dollar verdict... well, he knew what he did was wrong and he had a chance to settle out of court for a lot less. I'm not a fan of the verdict, but he made his bed.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As for the $1.5 Million Dollar verdict... well, he knew what he did was wrong and he had a chance to settle out of court for a lot less. I'm not a fan of the verdict, but he made his bed.[/QUOTE]

I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore - but I find it humorous you know so little that you don't even know the gender of the defendant, much less her current living conditions.

As a single mother living below the poverty line, 25 grand might as well be 25 billion - you can garnish her wages all you like, it ain't never going to get paid off. That's why I think she keeps going for broke - what does she have to lose?
 
[quote name='camoor']I said I wasn't going to reply to you anymore - but I find it humorous you know so little that you don't even know the gender of the defendant, much less her current living conditions. [/quote]

You are correct - I did not notice the first name of the defendant in the Consumerist article (which, admittedly, is the only one I've read). Just pointing out to those crying about the $1.5 Million dollar verdict and how evil the RIAA is for expecting that much that the RIAA offered to settle for a hell of a lot less.

I'm not sure why you think her current living conditions should make any bit of a difference in how the courts treat her, however. I mean, sure, if she had stolen a loaf of bread to feed her starving children, okay, that would make some sense.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You are correct - I did not notice the first name of the defendant in the Consumerist article (which, admittedly, is the only one I've read). Just pointing out to those crying about the $1.5 Million dollar verdict and how evil the RIAA is for expecting that much that the RIAA offered to settle for a hell of a lot less.

I'm not sure why you think her current living conditions should make any bit of a difference in how the courts treat her, however. I mean, sure, if she had stolen a loaf of bread to feed her starving children, okay, that would make some sense.[/QUOTE]

She downloaded 24 songs, worth a grand total value of $24. How in the fuck is $25,000 a "fair settlement"? I don't know about you but $25,000 is a lot of money to most people. And the fact this group can go "pay us thousands of dollars or we will sue you for millions of dollars
but the artist you stole from doesn't get shit, we are going to keep all of the money
", how is that legal? Isn't that the definition of extortion?

- edit [quote name='camoor']As a single mother living below the poverty line, 25 grand might as well be 25 billion - you can garnish her wages all you like, it ain't never going to get paid off. That's why I think she keeps going for broke - what does she have to lose?[/QUOTE]

Exactly.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']she didn't just download it, she also uploaded (shared) it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's the way it works with Kazaa and most people didn't even realize they were doing it. It's not like you make a conscious decision to upload like a person creating and uploading a .torrent file to a torrent site.

- edit And how does that change things? It's not like they know how many people, if any besides themselves, downloaded the file from that lady.
 
It doesn't matter because the government is in the pocket of the media groups. They'd decided to make examples of people like this woman, and it doesn't matter if it's reasonable or not, they're going to scare people into not filesharing.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']She downloaded 24 songs, worth a grand total value of $24. How in the fuck is $25,000 a "fair settlement"? I don't know about you but $25,000 is a lot of money to most people. And the fact this group can go "pay us thousands of dollars or we will sue you for millions of dollars
but the artist you stole from doesn't get shit, we are going to keep all of the money
", how is that legal? Isn't that the definition of extortion?[/QUOTE]

How much are the legal fees, travel expenses, etc., etc for the RIAA and their legal team for the multiple court cases this woman has forced? More or less than $25,000?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Yes, that's the way it works with Kazaa and most people didn't even realize they were doing it. It's not like you make a conscious decision to upload like a person creating and uploading a .torrent file to a torrent site.

- edit And how does that change things? It's not like they know how many people, if any besides themselves, downloaded the file from that lady.[/QUOTE]

So she was smart enough to download kazaa, install kazaa, find the songs to download, download them, and then not know how to stop them from being uploaded by everyone else that has kazaa?

And how does that change things? It doesn't really. She still broke the law, and now has to pay the consequences for her actions. Breaking the law is breaking the law, ignorance on her part doesn't change anything.
 
Again, that's a big reason why to make it a misdemeanor offense and not a civil. Put a penalty of MSRP of the content and an added penalty of 25%.

So for 24 songs that I assume can be bought on itunes for a buck a piece your looking at a fine of $30 (24x $1.25), plus whatever court fees ($100-200 or whatever it is in that jurisdiction).
 
bread's done
Back
Top