[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She smells like information wants to be free, even if the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

Why not? Walmart charges people that steal from their store.

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

The difference, not that I do it, is that stealing from Walmart is depriving them of an item they could sell for income. Downloading a song isn't nessecarally depriving an artist of anything. Take a look at the pathetic royalty scheme for internet radio for example, or things like Spotify. CBC's music site pays artists more than Spotify!

Artists make far more from concerts than they do from CD sales. Radio (free to listen) was the way to promote those concerts and generate income for artists. Until it cost $400 to go to a concert, that is.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't know what kind of fantasy world you have to live in to imagine that ripping off an artist's song works out well for them.

Of course, they'd make more money if they were paid for the song. But you have to look at the whole tradeoff: losing $1M on sales, but getting $20M more on concerts is a more than acceptable trade-off, from the artists' perspective. The loser in the trade-off is the record company. The artist and the music fan both win.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Just pay the $1.99 or whatever it is. It's a toonie. Especially for the new bands.

Why should anyone pay $1.99 when the market price is $0? I just spent $600 on a pair of Eagles tickets. When I fork out $300 for the same concert ticket that would have cost $20 fifteen years ago, there's an implied element to the contract that I get to download as many of their tunes as I want for free.

What should happen is the recording industry should just admit that stopping downloading is impossible. They should just come out and declare that all music is free for downloading instead of fighting a losing battle. They may learn that making the music free might actually end up making them more money in the long-run as new fans are introduced to the artists. In the 1920s, when commercial radio was in its infancy, Major League baseball owners tried to prevent their games from being broadcast. "If we give it away free, no one will buy tickets". How shortsighted. Radio broadcasts created legions of new fans and the radio ended up being the biggest boon to owners' revenues in the history of sport. The same potential exists for the recording industry, if they'd smarten up a little.

[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She smells like information wants to be free, even if the old guard thinks their best business model is to sue the customers they expect to buy their products.

Why not? Walmart charges people that steal from their store.

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

Stealing =/= piracy.

[bootlegga]

It's a shame, it was a great site - and by current laws in Canada, completely legal. Still, this isn't the first time a big US corporation has reached across the border and squashed someone.

I wonder how he is planning on paying that $100 million fine - I doubt the ads on his site made him anywhere near that kind of cash over the past 10 years.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Music sales have been dropping steadily for quite a few years and will continue to do so. Music sales were at 32 billion or so in 2010 and will hit 26-27 next year.

Digital music sales are increasing but the overall industry is dropping.

This wasn't Napster - music had nothing to do with getting Isohunt shutdown.

$1:

MPAA, which represents Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros., originally launched its legal challenge of isoHunt in 2006.

Personally, I find it outrageous that anyone can justify that consumers should have to pay as many as three times for the same product - and then be told what they can and cannot do with it. Because, especially in the case of movies, that is exactly what the studios have been doing for decades (first release in theatres, VHS/DVD sales and finally network broadcasts).

Further, as Lemmy explained exactly who is losing money under the current music industry business model - the big recording labels, not the artists.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Artists deserve compensation. All the theives know. The hilarious part is these pretty facades they put up to justify their actions--"Business model", "technology revolution" "just screwing the Man"

Sure they do - and they get it. The difference is now that instead of getting $1 million from album sales and $10 million from a tour, they get $20 million from the tour and put their songs on Youtube for free (which really just replaced MuchMusic/MTV/radio as a marketing channel).

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Stealing ain't that hard to wrap yer head around, and downloading an artist's siongs without paying is staling.

How do you figure? What's the difference between watching it on Youtube and listening to it on your PC after downloading it?

Because nobody needs BitTorrent for music - you just download the audio track off of Youtube and pop it on your favourite device. Sure, the quality might not be as good as if you downloaded it off iTunes, but for some people (like me), it's good enough.

I also don't see why I should be continually forced to pay for the same product over and over. If I already have it on cassette and/or CD, why should I pay a third time to download it?

Unless I try to make money off of my copy (like say advertising on a radio show or something), where is the harm? This whole argument was used in the 1980s over VCRs and it didn't hold water then and still doesn't.

It's no different than listening to it on the radio IMHO. I listen to a song, the artist gets free exposure, it's win-win.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's no different than listening to it on the radio IMHO. I listen to a song, the artist gets free exposure, it's win-win.

If I like a tune, I'll just find it on Youtube. Free. And sometimes the 'recommendations' I'll click on, and like that too. Free. If I like more than one thing by an artist, I might go to a place that sells it and buy an album.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

This wasn't Napster - music had nothing to do with getting Isohunt shutdown.

$1:

MPAA, which represents Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros., originally launched its legal challenge of isoHunt in 2006.

Let's not be naive here. Big entertainment took down isohunt.

It may have been the big studios that ran the fight, but those same companies own dozens of record labels that have an interest in seeing this shut down just as well.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Of course, they'd make more money if they were paid for the song. But you have to look at the whole tradeoff: losing $1M on sales, but getting $20M more on concerts is a more than acceptable trade-off, from the artists' perspective. The loser in the trade-off is the record company. The artist and the music fan both win.

I don't actually know the numbers. My days in the biz were over before Youtube and Torrentz. I did ptu together, on a lark, three CDs of caving songs (used to be a big spelunker before the kids). You get still get them at famous caves in Canada, England and Australia! Anyways it was all proceeds to the Caving Conservancy of Canada. That was maybe 10 years ago. Made some money the first little while, but now everyone that wants the songs just downloads them. So what's the point of doing another CD?

As for the live shows, it's a way tougher way to make a buck than selling tunes. If pirate downloading has led to a better music scene, that's great. I haven't seen it here but Vancouver, god love it, is a cultural void.

$1:

Why should anyone pay $1.99 when the market price is $0? I just spent $600 on a pair of Eagles tickets. When I fork out $300 for the same concert ticket that would have cost $20 fifteen years ago, there's an implied element to the contract that I get to download as many of their tunes as I want for free.

Why? Because just because you can steal dosn't mean you should steal. Why should we arrest someone who is hungry and steals bread, or addicted and is compelled to steal, and yet if you steal $5000 worth of tunes and movies, you're doing the world a favour? Not buying it.

$1:

What should happen is the recording industry should just admit that stopping downloading is impossible. They should just come out and declare that all music is free for downloading instead of fighting a losing battle. They may learn that making the music free might actually end up making them more money in the long-run as new fans are introduced to the artists. In the 1920s, when commercial radio was in its infancy, Major League baseball owners tried to prevent their games from being broadcast. "If we give it away free, no one will buy tickets". How shortsighted. Radio broadcasts created legions of new fans and the radio ended up being the biggest boon to owners' revenues in the history of sport. The same potential exists for the recording industry, if they'd smarten up a little.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. It's my belief that the situation will solve itself organically over time, and probably leave the record companies behind. It might be an economic or technological innovation of some kind. Or theivery over the internet will become so ubiquitous that the government will regulate traffic (they're already monitoring it) . Who knows? My son tells me that there are kids in their teens making a decent living just posting YouTube videos. I don't know how they make money doing that, but they've figured it out.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

Stealing =/= piracy.

Yeah, it's stealing. Making a facetious differentiation between real and intellectual property doesn't change things. As far as the law is concerned, it's theft.

It's not that I'm completely morally outraged by the whole thing. What bugs me more is people trying to ascribe some kind of sanctimonious ideal to explain their behaviour. Although I don't know why that should surprise me. People always use sanctimonious ideals when they are doing something they know is wrong.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why should anyone pay $1.99 when the market price is $0?

Why? Because just because you can steal dosn't mean you should steal. Why should we arrest someone who is hungry and steals bread, or addicted and is compelled to steal, and yet if you steal $5000 worth of tunes and movies, you're doing the world a favour? Not buying it.

The problem, from an economics perspective, is that technology has driven the market price of a recorded song to $0. When a hungry person steals bread, they're stealing something that has market value. A song no longer does. That's a paradigm shift in the market that's out of the control either the producer or the consumer. If record companies continue to supply to the market knowing full-well that the market price of their product is zero, well, that's foolishness on the record companies' part. Given that fact (price =$0), the rational producer must alter their production decision. But if they make the choice to continue to supply, they must accept that their expected returns are $0. So if the recording industry wants to stay in business, they must find another revenue source.

I appreciate your moral position (and I largely agree with it in principle). But your position is ignoring the economic reality (P=$0) of this particular market. But there's another moral dilemma at play here too: is it theft to steal from those who've stolen from you? The recording industry, for fifty years, ripped off both artists and consumers. They were able to exercise significant market power through collusion and labour (artist) exploitation. Well, now the other shoe has dropped. Technology has eroded the industry's ability to exploit its market power. It's little different from Gutenberg's impact on the church's ability to control the supply of knowledge in Renaissance Europe or the internet's current impact on Islam's ability to do the same in the third world. Some changes in the world are tidal. Horse-drawn carriage makers surely bemoaned the invention of the automobile. And I'm certain that the last horse-drawn carriage manufacturer made one hell of a good carriage. But whether the tide is welcomed or not has little effect on its reality. So my advice to the recording industry, as an economist, is: "Price your wares according to the realities of the market or suffer whatever consequences failure to do so brings. There's demand for music. Find other avenues (where price > $0) to exploit that demand." When it comes to selling prerecorded music, in the words of John Lennon, "This bird has flown."

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Some changes in the world are tidal. Horse-drawn carriage makers surely bemoaned the invention of the automobile. And I'm certain that the last horse-drawn carriage manufacturer made one hell of a good carriage.

"Makes". Present tense. You can still buy a good hand made carriage or wagon, but the market is very small. Just like the market for typewriter repairmen, but there are still some around. Some things are just good at what they do, and don't die out entirely.

One day, I hope there are Recording Industry types that exploit artists and screw consumers working out of a garage in an alley somewhere.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Makes". Present tense. You can still buy a good hand made carriage or wagon, but the market is very small. Just like the market for typewriter repairmen, but there are still some around. Some things are just good at what they do, and don't die out entirely.

Of course. I live in the heart of the Mennonite community in Ontario. There's still plenty of horse & buggy users around here. But the impact of the automobile on the demand for carriages, economy-wide, was very nearly total.

BTW, what do Mennonite girls and puppy dogs have in common?





They both lick their pa(w)s.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

One day, I hope there are Recording Industry types that exploit artists and screw consumers working out of a garage in an alley somewhere.

I loved that episode of the Sopranos where the black gangsters tried to get Hesh to make reparations to the soul artists he'd exploited.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The problem, from an economics perspective, is that technology has driven the market price of a recorded song to $0.

The market price of a song is $0.50-$1.29 in Canada.

If market value for a song was $0, we wouldn't see the massive growth of digital music sales.

[Lemmy]

One supplier's asking price is not the market price. The overwhelming number of digital music transactions are made at an exchange price of $0. Yes, some songs are being exchanged at a higher price than that. But the prevailing market price is $0. You don't declare the market price of gasoline to be $2.50/l because one gas station in Moosonee, ON is charging that price, ignoring that most sales in the province are occurring at a price of $1.20.

The majority of songs are traded at $0. When you include those songs going for $0.50 - $1.29, it doesn't drag the average up much. Maybe it's $0.01, but I bet you'd have to round up to even get that for an average.