Persecution (sorry prosecution) of downloaders

Bob -- you already subsidise the downloaders via paying for CDs. The point of $6/m idea is that you get *much* more music for less money and the artists and record companies still get paid.

Also you already pay for all sorts of things via a socialised cost mechanism - radio, tv, roads, hospitals, libraries, museums, etc. All sorts of things that you pay for indirectly but might not actually use.

Matthew

Ross,

Thanks for the lengthy, thoughtful and, if I may say, rather cogent reply. I honestly asked because you had brought up intellectual property rights in previous posts, but I don't recall your ever elaborating why they should be abolished. Thanks for explaining. I don't imagine your answer was a quickie to post.

quote:

---

While it's true that drug companies will not invest large sums to develop new drugs without significant reward...

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite the millions pharmaceutical companies spend on R&D for new drugs, their greatest expense is marketing... at least in the U.S. Those drug ads for "boner juice" aired during the last SuperBowl could not have been cheap.

Joe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew L. Weekes:
An interesting proposition. The only real problem with this is will the end users pay the fee?

If we asssume the cost translates pound for dollar, then that means my broadband access costs rise by around 30%, which by anyone's measure is a lot, especially if I don't utilise the 'features' I'm paying for

---

Andy,

I understand a lot of the file-sharing at the moment is done via P2P (literally, offering any files already on your HD to a third party in exchange for being able to download any new files you happen to want from second pary(s)).

P2P can be an extremely wasteful use of bandwidth, and it exercises all ISPs how to manage this "anti-social" use of more than the paid-for 1/50th of the headline connect rate.

For instance, a 512kbps connection on a 50:1 contention ratio shares it's "backhaul" (connection from your local exchange to the internet) on the assumption that a user will not average more than 10.24kbps over a 24 hour period (a total of 108MBytes). In theory, a P2P user might consume over 4.3GBytes over the same period.

As it happens, the costs of the bandwidth on that backhaul are the major proportion of the total costs of internet provision, and those P2P users aren't paying a fraction of the true costs of their usage.

ISPs have a vested interest in "doing something" about P2P users, but this may well involve them charging by the megabyte. I suspect that gigabyte-per-day access will cost more than £0.15 per day.

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.

How are you supposed to buy music if you can't hear it beforehand?

I tend to download albums and, if i like them, i buy the original.

I've been stuck several times in the bloody stupid position where I download the mp3 and make a music CD, like it, buy the original, often waiting a while for it to arrive as I tend not to listen to stuff Amazon stock, only to find the bloody original won't play in the car (VW) cd player.

If you want to buy a book, you can walk into a bookstore and have a good look first, with music you're usually limited to a 30 second clip on Amazon, and after that you're out of luck unless the band put samplers on their website.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
Ross,
While it's true that drug companies will not invest large sums to develop new drugs without significant reward...

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but despite the millions pharmaceutical companies spend on R&D for new drugs, their greatest expense is marketing... at least in the U.S. Those drug ads for "boner juice" aired during the last SuperBowl could not have been cheap.
Joe[/QUOTE]

From a UK prespecvtive, the costs of R&D make advertising look like small change. The problem with developing new enteties (or even me toos) is that the potential for sales is never known fully until the drug is a significant way into development. And even then it's not a sure thing.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
Downloading music files deprives no one

---

Of course it does ... it deprives my five year old daughter of food, shelter, clothing, etc. paid for in part from royalties derived from sales and mechanical reproduction/performance of my music. Or how else do you propose I support my family?

Your comment elsewhere likening income derived from intellectual property royalties to income derived from Mafia racketeering is reprehensible.

Fred Simon

Fred you're making a few illogical presumptions there. First of all you presume that most people actually know who you are. Face it, most don't. Secondly you presume that someone who downloads your music would have otherwise bought it. Why would they?
Thirdly someone who has never heard of you isn't going to buy your album just for the heck of it but if they somehow were able to download or otherwise acquired one of your songs then they may decide they like it enough to go and buy it - I know I did.
In otherwords, my being able to download songs has actually HELPED feed your "five year old daughter".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:

You say that copyright provides for "food, shelter" etc "_in part_". How big a part? Can I ask how much you earned last year from royalties, either as a number or as a proportion of total income (compared, say, to income from live performance). I'm guessing that the amount was pretty trivial. Am I wrong?

---

Ross, you may ask, but I won't answer specifically other than to say it varies from album to album and year to year ... sometimes a trivial amount, sometimes quite significant.

However, is it less morally wrong for someone to steal only a little bit? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

And, yes, I do consider it stealing if someone who would otherwise have to buy my music avoids payment by downloading. I would prefer that they go to a record shop and steal the actual CD ... perhaps then they'll pay a consequence.

Finally, of course it's an emotional issue, no getting around that. How could it be otherwise?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
Fred you're making a few illogical presumptions there. First of all you presume that most people actually know who you are. Face it, most don't. Secondly you presume that someone who downloads your music would have otherwise bought it. Why would they?
Thirdly someone who has never heard of you isn't going to buy your album just for the heck of it but if they somehow were able to download or otherwise acquired one of your songs then they may decide they like it enough to go and buy it - I know I did.
In otherwords, my being able to download songs has actually HELPED feed your "five year old daughter".

---

John, I presume only that no one knows who I am; that way, when they do I'm pleasantly surprised. Believe me, I've been "facing it" for several decades now.

I also presume that while some people who download for free wouldn't otherwise buy the music, some indeed would because they want the music. And if they want it they should pay for it. Otherwise it's just moral laziness.

Regarding your third point ... once upon a time, we bought an album either having heard a track on the radio, or at a friend's house, or based on someone's trusted opinion. But just as often, we bought music on blind faith and accepted the risk that we might not like it, just as we would with a movie in a theater, or a live concert, or a book (when the opportunity to sit in a bookstore and read substantial portions was not an option).

I have absolutely no problem with someone downloading tracks in order to taste before they buy ... as long as they then actually do buy it if they like it, which you apparently did and for which you have my sincere thanks in helping to feed my five year old daughter.

On the other hand, if they don't like the downloaded samples, they should delete them so that other P2P users who are not as conscientious can't steal them.

Best wishes,
Fred

Ross you are stealing - you are getting a service and not paying for it, the work being the performing and the composing of the song or track

I believe you are a lawyer - do you take kindly to people getting you to do work and then not pay you.

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
I don't believe that music can be stolen. You can steal an instrument, a CD, a sheet of notation paper, but you can't steal music.

[Ross

---

I agree, and you should feel free to hum or whistle any tune you like (so long as you don't get paid for it).

I have some CD's that are copies. If I like something, I then go out and buy it and throw away the copy. The problem comes when I don't like something enough to buy, but don't throw it away because I haven't replaced it; it just sits there overlooked on the shelf. I liken this to listening to the radio and being able to pick up on stuff that I otherwise wouldn't hear, but I accept that it isn't necessarily right. I however have bought hundreds of LP's & CD's over the years that I wished I hadn't (and still do), so maybe it's all balanced in the end.
Radio in this country is generally pretty poor and doesn't introduce me to anything I might buy (IMHO; accepted). If downloading music was treated like radio; being able to hear stuff downloaded to an ipod or something, but with a built in 2 day life before it spontaniously combusts, could that be made to work? Could that be the best compromise?
Artists have to be paid, and record companies have to have income to invest, promote and encourage new artists. Without that, we will only have U2 and Elton John to listen to.

How about this for a (near) future scenario?

The net becomes so fast and accessable that the instant a fim or CD is produced it's on-line. It becomes so easy to download for free (at high quality) , name the songs and print the CD details that everyone does it. So no-one buys any CDs anymore.

Music might get made still just for fun, but there'll be no coverage in any press - so sifting will be difficult. The only films made will be paid for by advertising or ultra low budget productions -again for fun. No old music or films will be re-released as no-one will make any money from them. Everything previously available will be free on the net.



Stephen

quote:

---

I do hope you realise that there are _vast_ amounts of underground music out there that receive virtually no press;


John.

---

I do. I make quite a lot of it.



Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. A. Toon:
In a way, if I were a musician (sadly I lack the talent), I would like to offer my music like this: I sell my CDs at a basic rate that just covers the amount it costs to produce them together with their artwork and packaging (e.g £1 or £2).
John.

---

I'm sure you realise that the cost of making the CD itself is just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, you can record a pretty nifty dance tune or pop song on your home PC in your spare time. But say you wanted to record a new orchestral piece, a big band or a complex pop or rock recording? How do you pay for the upfront cost of the musicians (food, time, bedding) and recording studio/equipment - especially if you have to give up the day job to have the time to do it? Expecting people to pay for the results out of the goodness of their hearts isn't going to help there.

I'm one of the many musicians who create with little or no reward. The amount of time and money I've spent over the years will never be re-paid unless I have a number one or two (unlikely !). A lot of my creative ambitions are limited by the lack of money (I have to do other work)and thus time; I'm sure many musicians will sympathise with this.

Expecting (most) people to pay for something if they can get it for free is expecting too much IMHO. You may do it; but you are in a very small minority. Most people I know under 25 download exclusivly; many are musicians ironically.

Imagine if U2 or Brittany or a current up and coming act (Zukons?)released an album on the net tomorrow and said 'download it. If you like it, pay what you can'. Do you really believe people will pay anything? And as for the 'underground'? - there's even less chance of that happening.



Stephen

Is downloading music for free illegal?

If so, then it is obvious that people will be prosecuted for it.

What some of you are arguing is that it should not be illegal and musicians should have no rights to earn an income from their efforts. Why not?

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. A. Toon:
[I don't follow why the samples cannot/should not be distributed, provided the relevant artist information is preserved intact with the music file.
John.

---

I think your problem John, is that you are intrinsically honest.

I've often copied music to sample it. However, if I like an album, I buy it, so in my case copying sells albums. However, I don't think that applies to the younger audience at all.

Regards

Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on Tue 21 December 2004 at 15:56.]

quote:

---

An idea cannot be stolen. (It can be passed-off, misrepresented, distorted, but that is a different issue.)

---

Music / Films / Drugs are not ideas (according to the german legal definition), as ideas cannot be protected.

The periode in which immaterial properties are protected (thats what they are according to german law: immaterial. The same as good, evil, love and hate. You cannot touch them but they exist) do differ.

With patents (drugs) it is 25 years, then generica are produced (e.g. Aspirin is no longer protected).

Films: 50 years
(after the start of initial exploitation)
Music: 75 years (after the death of the original composer).

If immaterial property couldn't be protected (and owned), what about mining rights? Fishing rights? Aren't these ideas according to Ross's description as well?

As I am working in the germay film industry I can assure you that piracy has already an effect on employment/jobs. Markets where german film generated moderate income (e.g. 20.000 USD for the video/dvd rights in Serbia and Montenegro) do not exist any longer - piracy products are available there, the profits are shared by others. This leads to less and smaller films produced, losses of jobs and all consequences.

Furthermore, why would you limit the periode of exploitation furthermore? When I look into the concept: A company invests money into a project.
If the project is a hotel, the owner of the project is allowed to exploit their property until it physically does no longer exist.

Why shouldn't it be the same with immaterial property?

The cost of advertising is a fraction of the price of any product, why is this ok for coke (or pepsi) but not for films, music or drugs?

And then there is an ethical task: even if you don't agree, you have to accept that it is existing and binding law. In order to keep society running (and your country the happy place where you love to live) obey the rules - even the ones you do not like.

Be good.

Regards
Guido

CDs and per song/album sales are clearly on the way out and artists and record labels will be recompensed via some form of universal licencing in much the same way radio is now funded. It's only really a question of how long the dying record industry can bully it's customers into preserving their enormous profits.

In the future, we the punters will be able to listen to any piece of music whenever we want and people like Fred will still get paid and be able to make a living. It will be much, much, MUCH better for everyone (with the possible exception of David Geffen, Madonna and Fat Reg but I wouldn't worry about them too much).

Matthew

I agree with Ross, and he's put the case far more eloquently than I could.

BTW, anybody who doubts the venality of the recording industry would do well to read Courtney's Love's speech about Napster from a few years back. She may be an arse, but on this occasion she was spot-on.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
A CD is a physical object. Taking that object from someone else's rightful possession so as to deprive them of it is undoubtedly theft.............

---

The problem with that lign of reasoning is that it ultimately leads you to the conclusion the insider trading and even phishing (sp?) someones internet banking password are OK because no actual physical object was involved.

Steve

Nick said "I'm presuming that when your pricing policy comes in we'll all have those neat personal jet-packs to go to work with?"

It's indicative of the level of misinformation that any mention of flat fee models brings inveitable expressions of incredulity. The facts are that we can literally have as much music as we like whenever and wherever we want, the record companies and artists get paid at the historically highest level of income they ever enjoyed and it costs about $6US a month each. Some guy from Harvard spent 3 years crunching the numbers and worked it all out (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)

The other think I'd mention is that this is only just beginning and it's all going to get much, much worse for the record companies and, indeed, people like Fred. At the moment people who want to avoid buying PCs have to go and actively find the music they want and download it and frankly they struggle to fill 40Gb iPods. Within a very few years we will have broadband wi-fi enabled iPods that self fill via public networks and ad-hoc peer-to-peer connections.

So, for example, in the case of Fred's latest album, my iPod might deduce from my collection of Keith Jarrett mp3s that I like jazz pianos. I might then sit next to someone on the tube who also likes jazz piano and our iPods might swap my copy of the Koln Concert for Fred's latest album wihtout our intervention. You get the idea...

Matthew

PS I do think a lot of people are hung up on the piracy/theft thing and that all this technology will mean the future will be much better for everyone. A while back I wrote this post and while I would write it somewhat differently now I do think a lot of people are missing the fact that this is a real opportunity for things to get better rather than some sort of apocolyptic threat.

These folks are on the ball.

http://www.tunetribe.com/


Fritz Von Nevermindthebollocks