[Stoner]

Since responses in the Tech Related News forum to pro piracy and illegal file sharing threads take on the image of debate and even suggestions about this issue are shouldered off into Civ Debate, this thread is for the discussion/debate of those issues....... that administration doesn't want to see in the Tech Related News forum.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...ml#post6951953

Originally Posted by Stoner

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=15724

Headline:
"European music sales down 8.3% in 2008 "



Cashed Link
CNN_Money
Headline:
" Music sales down in 2008"
qxcerpts>



" Sales have plummeted 45% from the industry's high-water mark of 785.1 million units in 2000, due largely to Internet piracy and competition from other forms of entertainment such as video games."



http://www.reuters.com/article/indus...53K5VY20090421
Headline:
"Global music sales down 8 percent in 2008: IFPI "
excerpt>



Looks like piracy is not good for the music business after all

response:

Originally Posted by guy2

Good im so happy for them ,looks like the music industry has finally met cancer ,thank god!!! GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

Soon file sharing will be unstoppable and take over the world!!!

HA HA HA HA!!!

This just means art will become a hobby in stead of a job as the music industry portrays it.

Harder working more talented musicians making music form the soul as individuals can never be a bad thing.

Good im so happy for them ,looks like the music industry has finally met cancer ,thank god!!! GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

Interesting.
Are you more supportive of a communist economic model or swing with anarchy?

Soon file sharing will be unstoppable and take over the world!!!

One thing to be considered is that without incentive for the authors of the original files, the quality is sure to degrade.
I'm doubtful your communist/anarchist model for the music industry will survive for long unless the general public actually embraces crappy music

HA HA HA HA!!!

This just means art will become a hobby in stead of a job as the music industry portrays it.

Indeed....a loss of professionalism.....like watching the talent shows on the TV set back in the 50's.........crude.

Harder working more talented musicians making music form the soul as individuals can never be a bad thing.

But how do you intend to make them work harder if you intend to steal their works?

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...oney-does.html

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

"The major music labels say that they stand to lose £200 million this year in the UK alone thanks to Internet file-sharing. But one of the country's biggest ISPs is now slinging around some huge numbers of its own, saying it will actually cost ISPs £365 million a year to adopt "three strikes" rules meant to stem piracy."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_campaign=rss

response:

Good points.




It isn't fair that innocent users of the internet should be..... in effect.....punished.....especially on such a large scale...... for the actions of the criminal element.

Just a thought.....maybe a percentage of those big court awards we hear about in the US against these online thieves could go towards enforcement?

In the end, though....it'll probably be technology that brings a better solution.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...acy-could.html

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

"While I'm sure defenders of kicking people off the internet will quibble with the numbers, ISPs are pointing out that the cost of implementing Lord Mandelson's plan to have ISPs police the internet for file sharing, will cost the industry significantly more than the music industry claims it's losing to "piracy." Even if you accept that the ISPs may be exaggerating the cost, we already know for a fact that BPI massively exaggerates its loss numbers. So if you cut back the ISP estimates significantly, the overall cost is still likely to be much higher. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for anyone to explain how kicking people off the internet gets more people to buy stuff. It's difficult to see how anyone could support this plan if they've actually put more than two seconds into thinking about it."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090922/1357376284.shtml

response:

Having ISPs Fight Piracy Could Cost More Than Claimed 'Losses' From Piracy

That is going to be a problem.
Hopefully, technology will provide a suitable answer that reduces all the online stealing with out penalizing the innocent users.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for anyone to explain how kicking people off the internet gets more people to buy stuff. ...........

The scare factor should be enough to stop the massive stealing....but there has to be enforcement that's effective and of course , fair.
From the BBC link I posted in one of your other posts .....it looks like music album sales are actually reduced by such large scale stealing rather than the claims of sales being boosted.
No doubt the same with movies and software, too.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...lf-worked.html

Clothing Firm Pirated Itself... And It Worked Great

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

"As fashion designers in the US are, once again, pushing for a misguided new "fashion copyright," it's worth remembering that studies have repeatedly shown that knock off fashions are what help make the fashion industry so successful. They serve a few different purposes. They make the authentic versions appear more valuable (who would knockoff an unpopular fashion?). They help differentiate the market by letting the clothes diffuse to the lower end that would never buy the designer level clothes, and they push designers to keep innovating each year, because they want to keep coming out with something new to stay ahead of the counterfeiters."
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090921/0413036268.shtml

from your link:

Now, it appears that at least one clothing designer decided to use these facts to its own advantage. ReallyEvilCanine writes in to let us know how a South African t-shirt designer made its own counterfeit line of t-shirts and used that to boost the perception of the original line, while also being able to differentiate and sell into different markets:

Pretty smart promotion.
But there is no real piracy going on, just a clever sales gimmick, imo.


But.....how is this related to any news about technology?

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

In your wisdom, figure it out.

No....it's a reasonable question.

Why did you post it in that forum?

I do realize that you have interest in articles promoting piracy.....but what is the connection between a manufacturer making a second line of a clothing product and technology?
I only ask.
If you don't know, I'll understand.


Still wondering why the label of 'piracy' was used in your news article.
I see none there and don't see how it is comparable to actual piracy like techdirt often rationalizes is good for the music industry.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...ml#post6952163

Originally Posted by JohnWill

Let's not forget the economy might have something to do with lack of disposable income for the target audience.

The time period in those statistics seem long enough and covers better economic times, too....that the consistent decline seems representative of piracy......but economics is obviously a factor to consider.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...e-sharing.html

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

""By demanding blanket suspension powers from the government, the industry is in danger of cutting off a promotional tool that is of great use to fledgling artists who seek to create a buzz around themselves yet don't have the financial support of a major label," FAC said."
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/200909..._filesharing_2

From the article:

"By demanding blanket suspension powers from the government, the industry is in danger of cutting off a promotional tool that is of great use to fledgling artists who seek to create a buzz around themselves yet don't have the financial support of a major label,"

Why aren't these 'fledgling' artists offering up their music for free ( legally) as self promotion?
Why does the act of stealing have to be rationalized?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by stoner

One thing to be considered is that without incentive for the authors of the original files, the quality is sure to degrade.

i'm assuming here you're talking about the quality of the recording, rather than the quality of the songwriting.

if so, it's an interesting point, particularly if its true -and i admit to a vast chasm in my understanding of the issues here.

but in a capitalist business model, it usually proves true that "you get what you pay for", and access to free files would lend itself to an expectation of less quality, wouldn't it?

most youth simply don't care and part of the reason for that is the product itself......music is not a digitally mastered CD....and that's what the industry spends it's millions on producing and promoting.

music exists outside that world: it's impact and experience are user defined....like a painting.....and those things will continue to exist outside the industry.

it is the very thing which makes the definition of a musician as an artist valid, imo.

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Why aren't these 'fledgling' artists offering up their music for free ( legally) as self promotion?

They are, in droves. Youtube and myspace and other similar networks are full of aspiring musicians and singers attempting to gain a fanbase through self promotion. Why sign up to a crippling contract with a record company when you can do it for nowt?

Anyway, record companies these days are increasingly reluctant to spend money on riskier new acts - ie the ones who just might be treading new ground - preferring to throw money at what they see as the safe option. (eg EMI with Robbie Williams - who, you may well ask - a deal which has undoubtably contributed to the near collapse of the company)

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by iltos

i'm assuming here you're talking about the quality of the recording, rather than the quality of the songwriting.

if so, it's an interesting point, particularly if its true

It's not. A laptop with a decent amount of computing power and a copy of one of the sound editing/production software programs - I use Cubase - and you've got the recording and manipulation capability which would make the engineers from Abbey Road 20 years ago slump over their mixing desks in envy.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

i'm assuming here you're talking about the quality of the recording, rather than the quality of the songwriting.

if so, it's an interesting point, particularly if its true -and i admit to a vast chasm in my understanding of the issues here.

but in a capitalist business model, it usually proves true that "you get what you pay for", and access to free files would lend itself to an expectation of less quality, wouldn't it?

most youth simply don't care and part of the reason for that is the product itself......music is not a digitally mastered CD....and that's what the industry spends it's millions on producing and promoting.

music exists outside that world: it's impact and experience are user defined....like a painting.....and those things will continue to exist outside the industry.

it is the very thing which makes the definition of a musician as an artist valid, imo.

i'm assuming here you're talking about the quality of the recording, rather than the quality of the songwriting.

Actually, an argument could be made for degradation in either case.
What song writer considers considers working for less than his perception of value and what promoter intends to distribute a quality transfer of the finished product if the economic return is diminished beyond expectations?

but in a capitalist business model, it usually proves true that "you get what you pay for", and access to free files would lend itself to an expectation of less quality, wouldn't it?

I would think so.
But there is also the concept of lost leaders to entice the attention of the music listener.
That is good promotion if there is value to advertise.
And very often, profit is associated with discounting on large scale to 'make up the difference' in volume.

most youth simply don't care and part of the reason for that is the product itself......music is not a digitally mastered CD....and that's what the industry spends it's millions on producing and promoting.

Indeed. To a great extent.
Many do not seem to relate to forward thinking.....relating only to the pleasures of the moment.......I probably did too
The business model of the music industry is under pressure to change and adjust to this relatively recent social problem of rationalizing stealing as a business model.
But it goes beyond music.
Also is the consideration of movie piracy. A product that is often in the 100s of millions of dollars to produce in blockbuster scale.
Legalizing piracy in that realm obviously lowers returns, logically leading to lower budgets and less quality in the final product.

music exists outside that world: it's impact and experience are user defined....like a painting.....and those things will continue to exist outside the industry.

it is the very thing which makes the definition of a musician as an artist valid, imo

And yet, it's likely the rare artist that produces with out the expectation of adulation from his/her audience expressed in material gratification
Rock stars live rich, movie stars live rich, famous living artists usually live rich........
As noble as it sounds, Bob.....it's a rare find to come across professional artists that treat their art as non productive 'hobbies' to share with the world.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

They are, in droves. Youtube and myspace and other similar networks are full of aspiring musicians and singers attempting to gain a fanbase through self promotion. Why sign up to a crippling contract with a record company when you can do it for nowt?

Anyway, record companies these days are increasingly reluctant to spend money on riskier new acts - ie the ones who just might be treading new ground - preferring to throw money at what they see as the safe option. (eg EMI with Robbie Williams - who, you may well ask - a deal which has undoubtably contributed to the near collapse of the company)

You missed my point.......why does piracy have to be a business model if the music in question ( from aspiring artists ) can be given away legally?

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by Stoner

You missed my point.......why does piracy have to be a business model if the music in question ( from aspiring artists ) can be given away legally?

I don't understand that: who's saying piracy is a business model? If it embodies any ideology, surely it's an anti-business model?

Something I missed from a post above:

it looks like music album sales are actually reduced by such large scale stealing rather than the claims of sales being boosted.

The reason for this is that people are changing their patterns of consumption, and have realised after decades of buying albums on the strength of a "hit single" which then turn out to be 75% filler, that purchasing individual tracks makes far more sense.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by SlackAli

I don't understand that: who's saying piracy is a business model? If it embodies any ideology, surely it's an anti-business model?

Something I missed from a post above:


The reason for this is that people are changing their patterns of consumption, and have realised after decades of buying albums on the strength of a "hit single" which then turn out to be 75% filler, that purchasing individual tracks makes far more sense.

I don't understand that: who's saying piracy is a business model?

News articles ( mostly from techdirt )that RootbeaR has been posting in the Tech Related news forum.
Since that forum isn't for debate....(edit: ) I'm bringing them here.

If it embodies any ideology, surely it's an anti-business model?

Indeed.

The reason for this is that people are changing their patterns of consumption

Interesting article here on the music financial scene here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/ar...indu.html?_r=1
The dynamics of sales has certainly changed a lot since I was a kid.
I think piracy brought a realization to the industry that consumers were losing interest in the filler of albums.
But it doesn't look like online sales are taking up the slack of lost CD sales.

[Stoner]

http://forums.techguy.org/tech-relat...-original.html
Want to copy something? Buy the original

Originally Posted by RootbeaR

"Our liberty is the freedom to make copies, not to steal them. And simply because you can set your PC to produce a billion copies of an MP3 file on your multi-terabyte hard drive that doesn’t mean you get to steal a copy of that MP3 file from your neighbour’s recording studio – on the confused pretext they’re immorally enclosing an infinite resource (or even the facile “It’s ok because they still have a copy”)."
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/28211

Looks like a work of sophistry to rationalize the act of illegally distributing copies of intellectual works.

So yes, the public should be free to reproduce the works in its possession ad coelum or even ad infinitum, but that doesn’t extend in the other direction ad inferos such that the public should be free to take copies of private works, private intellectual property.

This doesn't look like an argument for backups
In practical terms, it's an anarchistic argument to distribute copies of held possessions with the expectation of a reciprocal action. There is an anticipation of an exchange of value that excludes the interests of the IP creator. That is where the issue of 'theft' enters Fitch's argument. Fitch merely tries to avoid being painted as an advocate of criminal behavior by denouncing the physical theft of a legally held object.