Filesharing?

Davey · #1 09-08-2006, 11:51 AM

Ok, keep it CLEAN guys... this could be a pretty good topic for a poll.

I've got to say, filesharing has done it again for me. I've downloaded the Guthrie Govan album Erotic Cakes and have decided I'm going to go and search out the rest of his work to buy because it's really impressed me. Same happened with Paul Gilbert, I downloaded some of his stuff and now I have bought all of his DVD's, albums and almost all of the PGM models.

On the other side of things, artists are getting screwed financially left, right and centre because of "Pirates" (not the 'arr matey kind.)

So what gives?

What should happen to filesharing? Is it a good or bad thing?

**jemsite** · #2 09-08-2006, 12:01 PM

get rid of the RIAA/MPAA - and it's endless supply of lawyers - then we can talk about file sharing in a manner that would actually benefit artists. they don't want that obviously. i personally don't believe file sharing diminishes sales any more than a shop-lifter diminishes "sales" at walmart (pirates were never going to pay to begin with)

but.... i do believe a "pay for music download" model can be created, without DRM, that compensates ARTISTS not just lawyers and studio execs. iTunes Music Store is not that model unfortunately (it continues the same poor business relationships going back decades)... glen

Planeflux · #3 09-08-2006, 12:05 PM

Filesharing is simply a side-effect of the Internet. Nothing short of cutting people's 'Net access will stop it. As you mentioned, it definitely has positive sides, such as using it to listen to an album before buying it, etc. However, it cannot be denied that most of the time it's used for mass-piracy.

Personally, and while I don't want to encourage it, I see nothing wrong in downloading music that you wouldn't purchase anyway. Also, just how much do artists make on music sales? 2%? 5%? More? In either case, it's obvious to me that the labels are the big bad guys who just use bands as money-making puppets.

Jeroenn · #4 09-08-2006, 06:24 PM

Very much against it.

Most people who download don't care about big bad record companies or poor artists. They just want the music and they want it now. Instant gratification.

All the arguments about previewing music or the fight against record companies or even the good old 'the artist is bloody rich already anyway' don't hold up and don't cover up the piracy crime.

To say it's ok because you weren't going to buy it anyway is completely laughable. Just walk into a 7-11 and grab some stuff; say to the arresting officer that it was ok, you weren't going to buy it otherwise anyway.

J

**jemsite** · #5 09-08-2006, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeroenn

you weren't going to buy it anyway is completely laughable. Just walk into a 7-11 and grab some stuff; say to the arresting officer that it was ok, you weren't going to buy it otherwise anyway. J

I don't agree with either of you here... the 7-11 analogy is especially bad however because the "stuff" is physical merchandise and had real costs attached to the product (packaging, material, shipping) and the vendor purchased it himself (to resell) which is a loss. factoring fixed cost bandwidth, downloading has no physical or monetary loss (to vendor or property owner) aside from the theoretical "lost sale" which is where i differentiate a pirate as a thief who was never going to be a customer anyways so move on and get the lawyers back in their cage.

all this "download" discussion is a dog & pony act to keep our minds focused elsewhere... glen

Mr.WizardNeck · #6 09-08-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeroenn

Very much against it.

Most people who download don't care about big bad record companies or poor artists. They just want the music and they want it now. Instant gratification.

All the arguments about previewing music or the fight against record companies or even the good old 'the artist is bloody rich already anyway' don't hold up and don't cover up the piracy crime.

To say it's ok because you weren't going to buy it anyway is completely laughable. Just walk into a 7-11 and grab some stuff; say to the arresting officer that it was ok, you weren't going to buy it otherwise anyway.

J

That's completely different. That's a physical object that's manufactured. This is something that no one loses anything on if its "stolen". The digital world is far different from the physical. Do I download music? You bet. Do I buy cds when I can? Oh yeah.

Planeflux · #7 09-08-2006, 06:45 PM

I completely agree with glen. Stealing implies ownership, and ownership doesn't make much sense in the world of bits and bytes.

Mr.WizardNeck · #8 09-08-2006, 06:46 PM

Have you ever seen those "This man is about to steal something" commercials? It turns out to be cable or something. I found that ever so retarded and always laughed at it.

Distantshore · #9 09-08-2006, 06:52 PM

I have downloaded in the past, and I don't see anything wrong with it.
The same people who put me down for it. Had cassete tapes they had copied from a friend. VCR tapes with movies they recorded. Copies of a CD or DVD they rented or checked out of the library, and how about people who use a DVR? Its being recorded on a hard drive. and according to the RIAA thats illegal.

Jeroenn · #10 09-08-2006, 06:56 PM

Ok, so if it's not something tangeble, let's not worry about intelectual property either. Let's forget about patents too.

This is why it is stealing: In order to _normally_ enjoy the music, you should have bought it (which is income for the artist, record company and everything in between). Now you download it; you still have the benefit and now you have the profit, since you saved money that was supposed to go elsewhere.

That music you download is a product, and there's a lot of hard work behind it before you can rip it. Not just a starving or hellishly rich artist, not just the indy label or a monopolist record company, but a whole myrad of people. People who are trying to make a living of that product called music.

Ownership makes a lot of sense in the digital world, it's called intellectual property. It's the same right Glen calls upon when his Jem Pictures are blatantly stolen for **** auctions etc.

J

j.arledge · #11 09-08-2006, 07:01 PM

I would have never found out or at least not as soon about guys like steve vai and joe satriani. Hell if it wouldn't have been for finding vai at the time i did i probably would have dropped the guitar and never ended up where i am now . I am not super tallented or anything but i am a hell of a lot better then i was 4 years ago .

music should be about music , not money.

Jeroenn · #12 09-08-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j.arledge

I would have never found out or at least not as soon about guys like steve vai and joe satriani. Hell if it wouldn't have been for finding vai at the time i did i probably would have dropped the guitar and never ended up where i am now . I am not super tallented or anything but i am a hell of a lot better then i was 4 years ago .

music should be about music , not money.

Vai or Satch wouldn't be able to make the music if they didn't had the resources to do so. They have to make a living too, you know..

J

**jemsite** · #13 09-08-2006, 07:17 PM

it's stealing, but i'd like to clarify it is also a "cost of doing business" and is irrelevant. In this case the cost of loss is ZILCH whereas in the case of 7-11 or a retail store it can be substantial loss to the merchant. it's also irrelevant to artist revenue by most accounts and expert opinion (ie. not people paid by the RIAA/MPAA to say otherwise)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeroenn

This is why it is stealing: In order to _normally_ enjoy the music, you should have bought it

That is not why it's stealing

People have trouble wrapping their minds around the "stealing" angle because you can listen to the radio (free) or get music on your cable/dish (free with subscription). You can certainly listen without stealing. Now fair use (in the US anyways) allows copying, DVR, backup of that programming also. Most LIBRARIES have free, unlimited use music and movie libraries.

But it is technically ILLEGAL to file share audio/video programming via download/upload (songs, movies, tv shows - yes even free over the air shows).

So legally speaking you can listen/view, record and a SONG/SHOW from the radio and loan it to a friend, but you can NOT download it. Something has to give folks... glen

Davey · #14 09-08-2006, 07:18 PM

@ Jeroenn

Do you not think that the downloading I did helped to put PG's pocket? money that wouldn't of been there if I didn't know that I liked his stuff?