We've been debating.

Reading the topic reveals the following posts that take a position against your "manifesto".

Mrs. P thinks that it should be illegal to trade files for profit:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=32800

I think it is theft, and under current law, it is:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=32847

Platypus knows it is illegal, but doesn't know what we can do to stop it:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=32906

Hugo apparently thinks it is theft, too:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=32907

Quarkhead thinks it should be up to the artist:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=35279
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=38467

Amlord thinks it is theft:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...indpost&p=38345

Commence debating.

Mike

Since the RIAA started suing hundreds of file traders yesterday, maybe it's time to add my $.02.

Downloading copyrighted material that you have not already purchased in one form or another, without the copyright owners permission, is theft. Offering copyrighted material on a file sharing system, that you do not hold the copyright to, is theft from the actual copyright holder. It doesn't matter if you are making a profit from it or not.

Let's put this into perspective from the arguments I've heard on this board and others, from those who defend file sharing in this manner.

1. "I wouldn't have bought the album anyway, so the RIAA is not losing any money from me."

If you wouldn't have paid money for it, why do you think you are entitled to it for free?

2. "I only download the most popular cuts from an album. The rest is just "filler crap. If the record companies put out decent stuff, I would buy it."

Look again, friend. It's not the record company that's putting out "filler" on your favorite band's latest album. It's the band. The record company does not dictate what the band writes and performs. If you don't like the filler, complain to your band. The fact of the matter is, you are not entitled to those two songs if you don't pay for them.

3. "But it's not really hurting the artist, because he only makes .05 on each album sold."

Wrong, it does hurt that artist. It may only be .05 an album, but over say, 20,000 albums, that's $1,000. Doesn't sound like a whole lot for 20,000 albums sold in a month, but it would make my mortgage payment, and then some. Now add in the writers fee (.07 per song) etc, and you're hurting more than just the performer. Or hurting him worse, if he was the writer.

4. "The CD is too expensive. It only costs about $1.50 to make."

Only if you are talking about the cost of the blank CD, and the process to duplicate it. Think about the additional costs. Producers (song and video), recording engineers, studio time, record company personnel (like secretaries, accountants, sales and marketing, the folks who go out and look for new talent, etc.), even transportation and shipping. All of this has to be taken into consideration. Are the prices still too high? Probably. How much of a profit they make can be debated, but don't you expect to be paid for your time and creativity?
And don't try to tell me that these costs should be borne, out of pocket by the record companies. No other company in the world works like that, why should they be the exception.

Now, do I download songs? Yes, but only material that I already own on vinyl or cassette, because it's difficult to make digital for my pc. Do I share what I own with file sharing services? No. It's not mine to give away. Like Quarkhead, if I have material that I produce, I don't mind offering it up for free, but it is mine to do with what I want. I own it. But I don't own the latest record company release, and to offer it for free or for profit on my own is illegal.

I think the way the RIAA is handling this is stupid, and may well hurt them even more in the long run. But that's not up to me.

It's time people took responsibility for their actions. All of the above arguments are simply poor justification for you to continue to do something illegal. If you can't deal with the possibility of being targeted for your illegal actions, then change your behavior. It's not hard to do. Uninstall your program of choice and listen to radio streams if you must.

Then again, maybe you are right - today's music does suck. So it shouldn't be hard giving up downloading the songs, now should it? Or if you only want two or three songs, check out Rhapsody (79 cent burns which can then be ripped to your HD), BuyMusic, or PressPlay. There are cheap legal alternatives out there. Not as cheap as "free," but you don't run the risk of getting in trouble with the law.

I think we should step back and look at it in a different way... Are the artists trully doing it for the people who love the music or are they doing it for the money? Most of the bands im sure are totally dedicated to their fans but i dont think i need to give any names of bands who are to blinded by there own record companies. All i know is, ever since file sharing became a huge debate there is a figure floating around somewhere that CD sales have gone up nearly 7%. This could be lower or higher by now but i think we really need to take it back to the roots.....THE MUSIC!!

Edited to remove gratuitous profanity - J

Why does it matter why they are doing it? A songwriter or guitar player may be doing it becausae he loves music. He may also be doing it simply because he has a way with words that can be used in songs, or because he can play the guitar well, and it makes him a decent living. Doesn't mean he has to love what he's doing. There are a lot of people who may be good at something, but they don't really like doing. But, it pays the bills, and they are entitled to be paid for their labors, whether or not they "like" the work.

Or are you suggesting that we only pay somebody if they are not in it for the money? Or that they aren't entitled to be paid for their work?

from what I understand, I can buy a cd and make a copy to share with a friend. who is to say who are my friends?

I feel no remorse for downloading music. I am not paying 15-20 dollars for one or two songs. I only use music I download for my personal use and do not make ANY money of of it (thus, it is not piracy in all technicality) the RIAA's pratices are plain wrong, and screw recording artists of money they should make. I am more willing to pay 50 dollars for concert tickets if I can listen to their music free. the artists makes more on touring anyway. if I like the songs on an album, I will buy it, so I can save my money by not buying CD-Rs. I don't feel it is theft, and I don't feel bad about downloading music and movies (the latter of which are of far lesser quality then DVDs)

You understand wrong. You are entitled to make one backup copy for personal use. If your friends are over when you listen to it, it's legal. But, the second you loan them the copy while maintaining possession of the original, you are breaking the law.



Possession of stolen property. That's what they call that. The moment copyrighted music is made available to a third party it is theft.

Whether or not you're the one doing the stealing does not matter; possession is nine-tenths of the law.



Justify it how you must, but I've read your posts-- you know right from wrong.

Mike

It is interesting how little we seem to value the intellectual property ownership of music-makers.

Is the RIAA comprised of companies that are bloodsucking leeches? That's a generalization, of course, but one with certain merit. But that's almost beside the point. Mike is correct. Just because a musician has another way of making money (performance, for example), does not justify taking away their income in some other arena. Besides, there are plenty of songwriters who do not perform music - they write for other performers. They are being hurt by filesharing.

This is something that should be up to the artist. If you want to write a novel and put it on the web, by all means do so. That does not mean you should be able to download every Tom Clancy novel for free. I do not pilfer my neighbor's garden for vegetables I happen to want. That's called stealing.

The various attitudes on this thread are interesting, to say the least. I think that the people who are proponents of unrestricted filesharing are either uninformed, or just don't care. Here's an idea: if you want free music, there's two things you can do - find musicians willing to give it to you, or make it yourself!

I don't. I'm a cheap person and don't wanna go out and buy a cd for songs when i have Windows Media and Real Player to play them on my computer for free and save them to listen to when i want.

Besides, if the RIAA decides to snoop around my computer because i have downloaded music and decide to sue me for $150,000 a song, i'll countersue for invading my computer and violating my privacy. Maybe the CIA can get away with it, but not some law-toting association who defends the financial well being of some stoned rocker named Marylin Manson or Korn.


Quarkhead:


Yes. And a Senator would agree. I am reading an article from last week's Newsweek that is talking about this legal limbo. Norm Coleman (R-MN) said in the article that he was all for this but then when he found out the fine ($150,000 a song), he said this: "This is overkill. Does the punishment fit the crime?" he also added: "I think the companies want to make an example out of someone." And this is coming from an ex-prosecuter!! At the beginning of this article, a family who's daughter is the reason they are being sued, said that they can not afford the fine, even though both parents work and get high paying wages. The daughter downloaded 1,080 songs...ouch ! They could lose their home because of this.

I, personally, find that downloading music, according to our laws now, is a clear violation of law.

That being said, I will still continue to download music. Much like Goamerica, I am a very cheap person. Before the internet, the music industry was happy charging us $18 dollars for a CD, which probably only had a single good song on it.

I especially loathe how the industry forced music into becoming all about sex and greed (Don't believe me?, Look on MTV!). To them, its not about the music, its about making a quick buck. Somehow, knowing everything about music identifies you with the "in" crowd. People dress up like their favorite artist. Most teenage females are convinced that being a hoe is just another hip lifestyle choice due to a single man in a rap video surronded by 50 women.

If you look at MTV now, your forced to ask "wheres the music?" what with all the "real world" episodes. The music industry, closely allied with MTV, has just become SO superficial its hard to look at any more.

So, I don't feel guilty for having tons of music on my computer.

Exactly what i was thinking too. I bought a CD of Eminem's and the only good song on it is the first one. I paid $23 for the cd. Ridiculous!!

Universal Music is lowering their prices, hoping that many others will follow and the file sharing will stop.

yeah, I've had that happen a few times.(I can't believe I just agreed with goamerica )

I don't think that lowering prices will stop file sharing. it might curb it a bit, but at this point many that download do so because it is free. what it is more likely to do is, instead of stopping or even significantly slowing file sharing, increase CD sales. people like to try before they buy, so they don't spend money on twenty songs only to like one or two. another option that may work is to open online stores that offer songs from CDs (all of them from a CD) for say 50 cents a piece, and allow people to purchase custom compilation disks.



first, I should state I loath these types of people. it is they that are responsible for drivle like the backstreet boys, *nsync, brittiany speares, and others. these people seem to me to only be looking to get paid, not write music for writing music, if they did, they would at least try to start their own bands. second, they MAY be getting hurt by file-sharing. the RIAA and others seem to forget we are in the middle of a recession, and a major one. most people are more reluctant to spend money on leisure items during recessions. another contributing factor may be people are sick of the drivle that is being produced, or that small stores are no longer selling CDs as they are out of business, or that people the RIAA treats people like dirt. it is likely a mix of all these factors that have led to lower CD sales, not just file sharing.



let's not forget that a year or so ago the RIAA was in trouble for price fixing CDs. it doesn't cost 25-30 bucks to produce a CD and run the company. ANTI-FLAG has their own record label, has signed a few other artists and STILL sells their CDs for 10-12 dollars, and are able to run their company fine. which includes, I'm sure, most of what you listed that contributes to the price)



I'm sure the artists do too. it is a FACT that artists make more frim concerts then they do from CD sales. (ABCNEWS Forget CD Sales — the Real Money for Hot Acts Is in Concert Tours

artists get paid CRAP from (major) record labels, and even sometimes they need to fight for that money! and in recent years, the record companies have tried to screw artist out of their copyrights.


this is just wrong, if copyrights are supposed to belong to the creator of something, then how can the record labels say they (copyrights) belong to them, and not the artists? just another case of record label exploitation of artists.

It's total anarchy that you agree with me ain't it



You make a good and valid point there (must be a disease...you and i are agreeing. ). Some people prefer one song only and you can not find it on a single cd, so you have to pay for a whole CD with 14 tracks when you are just going to listen to 1 song. So yeah it may curb it a bit but not much because people like me will just wnat one song and i can get it cheaper by just stealing it off the net.

OK. So you guys are cheap. Do you also steal your food from the grocery store? Are you driving a stolen car? To you, music may seem inconsequential - or at least a luxury, so you place less value on it than you do on food or shelter. But, as a career musician, I can tell you it is not inconsequential to me!

Goamerica, I agree with you about the RIAA. I am no defender of the recording industry - they tend to screw over artists even worse than they do the general public. The awards they are seeking currently are way over the top. But all of that is really beside the point. The airline businesses are also run badly. I still don't get to fly for free just because I don't like the companies. Obtaining a product (in this case music) without the permission of (or renumeration to, if required) the producer is called theft.

Bill Gates makes so much money anyways, why should I pay for Microsoft software? I'll just download pirated copies! Downloading music is even less justifiable. Musicians, even famous ones, make a lot less money than you probably think - unless they are mega big stars.

Unabomber:


I disagree completely. Even if there are some songwriters just "looking to get paid," so what? Should you only be allowed to work at Taco Bell if you love to make tacos? Besides, there are many great songwriters, including Carol King and Willie Nelson, who have written songs which were made famous by others. What about a songwriter with severe stage fright? Was Robert Hunter lame because he wrote lyrics for the Dead instead of starting his own band? (note for Mike: no, he was lame because his lyrics sucked! ) Going on the road sucks in a lot of ways (I did it for ten plus years, I know) - you don't see your family, you stay in crappy hotels, you play the same songs over and over, etc. I can definitely see the appeal in being able to stay home and just write songs. Also, while personally I agree with your opinion about most pop music being drivel, remember that a whole lot of people really love it.

Back to the subject: it must be up to the producer. Everything else is merely a rationalization for breaking the law. Sure, prices are too high. Sure, the record companies suck. Sure, people can try before they buy. You know what else they can do? They can go to Amazon.com and listen to excerpts from songs before they buy, too.

Goamerica:


The problem with moving the market towards the single is that you may see a decrease in the overall quality of music. If the basic unit of trade becomes the single song, people will be writing to the lowest common denominator far more often. You've brought up examples where there were a few good songs, then a bunch of filler. That happens. But on the flip side, some of the best songs are not single-friendly. Who hasn't discovered a gem on an album, a song that never saw the light of radio-play, but totally kicks butt? It works both ways, and to bring the music business to a single-oriented market you will lose some good along with the bad.

Don't get me wrong - it is my personal philosophy that music should be shared freely - and I have always allowed my music to be downloaded. Heck, you can probably still find some of my music on the filesharing services - just type in "baaba seth" for a search, and download to your heart's content.

no, I am dirt poor, and live with my mom, who gives me nothing as far as money goes (nor should she)



I have stolen food in order to eat a few times. I don't own a car, and ride a bike that was given to me by someone else.



I assume by producer you mean the person that made the music. only problem is it isn't up to them, the record companies have hijacked the copyrights. they don't even have the choice.



first, it is excerpts of only a few songs, not the entire album. and besides, you know what, I have no money to buy anything, much less 25 dollars for a CD.

I can afford to use free P2P programs, and listen to the music on my computer. when I have money, I will go see people I like in concert (and am more then willing to pay 50-100 for a ticket if Ican listen to their music free) I can't afford to pay 20-30 bucks for a CD that may only have a single good song, the money I do get is precious.


Edited to removed gratuitous profanity - Jaime

I, fortunately, have never been in situation where I couldn't afford a C.D. that I wanted. I subscribe to several music publications which give me CD sampler's on a monthly basis. Many of the bands and artists that I listen to occasionally offer free music on their website to download, and their are several websites that offer live shows (my favorite is www.Archive.org, which I've used several times..look under their audio archives...) from various artist WITH their permission.

When I did use Napster or similar services, I was always looking for rarities, not album tracks....


I believe that the music industry is indeed abusing the consumer... do I think it's right to download music without the artists consent: yup. However, I think the industry needs to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, in order to maintain profitability.

Would I condemn those who do...no, I do not....Fight The Power!

Which was exactly my point (or at least, part of it) in my earlier post.

Not every song is gold, but I daresay that the music scene would have missed out on a lot of great music over the years if people dismiss non-performing songwriters. Now this isn't a comprehensive list, and some of the names did become performers, eventually, but nearly all started strictly as songwiters, not performers. By the way, it probably shows my age by the names here, but these are the ones I recall readily:

Neil Diamond
Jim Croce
John Denver
Gerry Goffin & Carol King
Billy Joel
Barry Mann & Cynthia Weil
Neil sedaka
Mort Shuman
Carly Simon
Barry Manilow
Randy Newman
Bernie Taupin
Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller
Eddie Rabbit
Kris Kristofferson
Gordon Lightfoot

Somebody sure as heck thought that what they were writing was worth it, including the producers artists and music fans of their day.



True enough. I can honestly say that I have found a couple of songs on just about every album or cd I purchased that came as a pleasant surprise, and not just the released singles.

Amazing the amount of justification that goes on here for screwing sombody out of their rightfully hard earned labor. As long as they aren't the ones getting screwed, of course.

artists make more in one summer (three mnths) from concerts and merchandise sales, (of which the record companies get NOTHING.) then they do in 1 year of record sales. who is screwing whom? seems to me the RIAA and the major labels are the ones doing the jacking. I should note that indie artists make more of 100,000 record sales the an RIAA artist would (an RIAA artist selling only 100,000 copies would likely be dropped) indie artists a get more of the money from sales then label artists (and indie music is usually better anyway) I will pay for an indie album without listening to it before I do an RIAA album. (RIAA = big five record labels)

I will pay to see live performances, nothing can replace LIVE performances, NOTHING. (besides artists make more in three months of touring then on one year of record sales) I am more willing to pay 50 dollars for one ticket to see jay z or whoever if I had the chance to here all his music free.

Justification 1: The artists make more in concert than they do in record sales.
Reply: And paying for a concert ticket gives you the right to steal their latest cd from a file-sharing service? Because you already paid to see them live? Paying for a concert ticket does not give you the right to cut money out from under them that they are entitled to through cd sales.

By the way, the record label may not make any money from the concerts, but who do you suppose fronts the band the money for special staging, lights, sound equipment, printing for concert books, t-shirts, hats, keyring fobs and the like? That's right, the label does.


Justification 2: The RIAA is all about ripping off the artist
Reply: The artists in question apparently thought they were getting something in return for their signing, or they wouldn't have done so. After all, with all of the "indie" labels around, why sign with someone who is offering a substandard deal?

Unless of course, there is something of value there, that maybe you don't see. Nobody put a gun to these guy's heads, and made them sign on the dotted line. If you're that concerned with the lousy deals that the RIAA is "forcing" these artists to sign, why don't you offer to negotiate their next contract?


Justification 3: RIAA sponsored music sucks, anyway, so I'll buy from an "indie" label, but not from the RIAA.
Reply: So, if the RIAA produced stuff sucks, why do you want to continue to download it? Could it be that maybe there is stuff there you want to have, you just don't feel like paying for it, because stealing it has been so easy up 'til now?

By the way, the RIAA is not just "the big 5". They actually comprise almost 1,000 different labels. Here's a list of RIAA labels: RIAA Member Labels
I'm willing to bet that a lot of labels you thought were "indie" are actually affilliated with the RIAA.


No doubt about it, every performance (with the exception of one) I have seen live, has been better than just listening to their cd. But again, why are you more willing to see someone based on your ability to take all of his cd stuff for free, in the form of downloads?

Part of the concert experience for me has been hearing something different in the way the songs are arranged or performed live, or hearing a cut or two from an album soon to be released.

I go to see them originally, because of the stuff I heard on the radio, and/or the cd's I purchased after hearing them on the radio or seeing them on TV. It absolutely never was based on whether or not I could obtain and listen to every thing they ever produced first, because I might not like a half dozen songs. Hey, nobody likes absolutely everything that anyone has ever done. If you're not gonna go because of that, you're missing out.

[quote=NiteGuy,Sep 24 2003, 09:27 AM] [quote]indie artists a get more of the money from sales then label artists (and indie music is usually better anyway) I will pay for an indie album without listening to it before I do an RIAA album. (RIAA = big five record labels)[/quote]
Justification 3: RIAA sponsored music sucks, anyway, so I'll buy from an "indie" label, but not from the RIAA.
Reply: So, if the RIAA produced stuff sucks, why do you want to continue to download it?

[/quote]
did I ever say their music sucked? no I did not. I like rage against the machine, who was signed by sony, I like system of a down and I'm pretty sure they were signed by an RIAA company, I like sarah mclaughlin, jewel, dido, etc, etc...

don't put words into my mouth, please.

[quote]
I'm willing to bet that a lot of labels you thought were "indie" are actually affilliated with the RIAA.[/quote]

A-F records is not. other then them, I don't know the names of indie labels. (except mob hitz, my cousins)

[quote]Could it be that maybe there is stuff there you want to have, you just don't feel like paying for it.
[/quote]

it isn't that I don't feel like paying for an album (if the artist is any good I will buy their album.) more like I CAN'T buy their albums. I have NO job and I live at home, (this computer belongs to my mom) I ride a bike that was given to me, my TV was given to me by my dad (which he got from my grandparents) my radio was bought at a pawn shop as a christmas present. my mom give me no money, can't afford to, and I don't expect her to.

[quote], because stealing it has been so easy up 'til now?[/quote] I have NEVER downloaded an entire album I didn't already own. I use Grokster to make compilation "albums" that I listen to on this computer. I almost never burn CDs. the only full albums I have ever downloaded were RATM's self titled album, and battle of los angeles (besides, RATM had no problem with Napster.)

[quote]The artists in question apparently thought they were getting something in return for their signing, or they wouldn't have done so[/quote]

I have seen an interview on YAHOO launch with radiohead (signed to major label, I'm sure) in which they said "if the recording industry goes down, bye-bye, good riddance." I bet most artist think they have a decent deal, and many probably do. but perhaps they don't realize they could make more, and are getting ripped off. after all if I made 5 bucks/hour then got signed for a four album contract promising 20 million, I wouldn't care (and no I'm not jealous, I don't even make music)

[quote]but who do you suppose fronts the band the money for special staging, lights, sound equipment, printing for concert books, t-shirts, hats, keyring fobs and the like? That's right, the label does[/quote]

actually it is up to the concert promoter (usually clear channel) to pay for most of that stuff. the sound equipment is likely the bands own things, the merchandise is payed for by the promoter, and lighting and stage effects are payed for by promoters. that is why clear channel (or whoever promotes it) get a cut and not the labels. if the labels payed for it all, don't you think they would want a return on their investment?

[quote]And paying for a concert ticket gives you the right to steal their latest cd from a file-sharing service? Because you already paid to see them live?[/quote]

like I said, I NEVER download entire CDs, and rarely make one of the same artist. I usually download good songs and scraping the crappy ones (by not downloading them) I feel I am being ripped off when I purchase a 20 dollar CD and there are only 1 or 2 good songs, in essence, paying ten to twenty bucks for them.


[quote]It absolutely never was based on whether or not I could obtain and listen to every thing they ever produced first, because I might not like a half dozen songs.  [/quote]

[quote]But again, why are you more willing to see someone based on your ability to take all of his cd stuff for free, in the form of downloads[/quote]

I never said I would go to concert based solely on whether I could obtain and listen to every thing they ever produced first. I said if I can get their music free it justifies charging me 50-100 dollars a ticket. why should I pay 20 dollars per album for a few good songs, and then have to pay 50-100 bucks for a ticket? if they want to produce junk and charge me 20 bucks for it they should lower the ticket prices. (oh, wait, I see, they hate poor people) I am more willing to pay 50-100 bucks if I can get their music free. if I really like someone, I am willing to buy their album and pay outrageous amounts of money to see them live. but if I only kind of like some one, I am not willing to pay huge amounts for a mediocre CD and huge amounts for a likely mediocre concert. I will only pay huge amounts for one or the other.

[quote]Hey, nobody likes absolutely everything that anyone has ever done. If you're not gonna go because of that, you're missing out.[/quote]

not true. I like absolutely everything rage against the machine put out. unfortunately I never had the money to go to one of their shows. I also like everything sarah mclaughlin, jewel and dido have put out. I would only go to a concert if I liked a good amount of what someone put out. if I only like a few songs from each album, I won't go to their show, as it is likely a waste of my money.

Possession of burglar's tools is a criminal offense in most states. So-called "file-sharing" software is the cyberspace equivalent of burglar's tools.

The MPAA and the RIAA do not get to decide what is and what is not illegal copying of copyrighted materials. Copyright law is clearly written and has fair use provisions. For the most part those who "share" MP3 files of copyrighted materials violate the laws. They go far beyond the fair use provisions.

Suppose I pay for an all-you-can-eat buffet. Then I give plates to all of my buddies and they help themselves to all they can eat as well. My "reason" for doing that is that I think $7.95 plus tax was too much to charge for the buffet. Clearly wrong. The same goes for the thieves who steal copyrighted materials.

Only the Looney Tunes set calls this "fascism." 80% of teenagers think "file-sharing" of copyrighted materials is all right? Then 80% of teenagers are wrong. Neither teenagers nor anyone else has a "right" to the product of someone else's intellect. Don't bore me with lame and faulty arguments that the creators don't get much of the revenue. They get what they bargained for in their contracts. They did not have to sign those contracts.

"No one has to tell you when it's right."