Collaboration

BitTorrent users take another hit


Some of the Internet's largest torrent trackers have been taken offline or severely cut back this month.

For those of you who don't know what a torrent tracker is, it's a server which helps BitTorrent users to locate peers for a download via the BitTorrent protocol. Once users have established a connection, the tracker is no longer required although it can be checked from time to time in order to find new peers. BitTorrent is one of the most popular peer-to-peer platforms used for distributing files over the Internet. While there are many legitimate users of BitTorrent, a large amount of the material in distribution is illegal; this can be anything from movies to pirate software. Obviously copyright infringement is putting increasing legal pressure on tracker sites. The way in which BitTorrent helps users to share data puts it in a difficult position; while the tracker and index files hosted by the tracker do not contain any copyrighted material (which makes them legal) they are facilitating the illegal distribution of it.

Last month TorentSpy announced that following legal pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) they would be barring all users in the US from making torrent searches. This move was made after a Federal judge ordered them to start logging visitors IP addresses so that they could be turned over to the MPAA. This month ISOHUNT made similar move which would stop users in the US from connecting to trackers hosted by them but not those hosted by third parties. The statement says, "This is due to the US's hostility towards P2P technologies, and we feel with our current lawsuit brought by the MPAA, we can no longer ensure your security and privacy in the US."

As if the loss of these two trackers wasn't enough of a hit, it seems that Demonoid has also been taken offline. Demonoid is the second largest torrent tracker after The Pirate Bay. Hosted in Canada after fleeing the Netherlands in June, Demonoid tracked over a million torrents at any time. A report on torrentfreak.com suggests that Demonoid may have been taken offline by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). Thus far there has been no comment by the CRIA or Demonoid's ISP. The administrators of Demonoid apparently have no idea what's happened.

What does the future hold for BitTorrent? Can the owners of these tracker sites keep relocating or will the law eventually get a hold of the situation?

120 comments
scott_heath
scott_heath

OK, let's talk about copyrighted items. It is not illegal to let a friend listen to a CD as it is not illegal to let a friend borrow a book. It is illegal to go to Kinko's and have the book copied and give the copy to a friend. If you have learned a song from a song book you can freely play that music for friends all day long. But if you attempt to charge admission for a show and play someone else's music you must request permission. I truly believe you have good intentions and many of you, like Canuckster, have been very well spoken. But the core problem to your arguments is that you attempt to justify stealing as a means of punishing the RIAA, and it is not your right to do so. You may punsih them as all consumers punish businesses, by refusing to buy their product. Clearly you are in a much smaller minority than you believe as millions of albums continue to be sold. To be honest I think your real complaint here is that you want your views heard but you either aren't happy with the amount of effort and dedication it take to do it or you just believe that since money talks the RIAA won't listen anyway. Both valid concerns as most of us have lives to live and have neither the time or the funds to fight this battle. For those of you in this group, I am sorry your voices aren't heard more. Until we live in a utopia you can pretty much count on the "money wins' rule. It's been that way pretty much since the dawn of time.

scott_heath
scott_heath

Odd, you're taking the high moral ground that the record companies are getting what they desrve. My point is that everyone has to bear responsibility for their own actions. Artists and cry about the contracts they signed. The RIAA can't cry when people stop buying records. Thieves can't cry when someone tries to stop them from stealing. BTW, since millions of albums still get sold every week around the world I am thinking that some people don't find it that huge a problem to pay for their own music.

scott_heath
scott_heath

I hate that it stops posts at a certain depth... Anyway... I hear you and agree that the music industry needs to change it's ways. But that doesn't advocate stealing. Bit Torrents success as a technology isn't dependent on illegal downloads like Napters and it's clones are. Several large companies use Torrents to split downloads equally over several of their large servers and partner network to reduce load. As technology people you should know this. You have a decision as a consumer. Buy what is being sold to you because you want the latest Maroon 5 album or find someone who sells their music cheaper through an alternate distribution channel. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, but you an everyone else who makes a case for theft on moral grounds is doing a diservice not only to yourself but to the greater world community. Fight back as a consumer not a criminal. Refuse to buy products or to support musicians who use traditional distribution channels. If enough people band together you can make a difference. I'm willing to bet that less than 10% of the people posting about the horrors of the music industry have actively done anything to change it. You've chosen instead the path of least resistance, to steal from them.

Helpdesk
Helpdesk

Is this the reason why demonoid.com is no longer accessible?

scott_heath
scott_heath

I think many of you are getting the issues confused here. The sharing of music by bands isn't being crushed by the RIAA by wanting BitTorrent sites shut down. They have many different outlets to do this. The problem is one of content owner versus consumer. You don't like what they are doing, so what? Don't buy their product. It certainly doesn't give anyone the right to steal it. It costs too much to see a movie, it costs too much to go to a football game, it costs too much to buy a CD, etc. Welcome to life. Expenses go up kids. I can tell you my Dad didn't make half of what I make at 30 and he has a better education than me. That's the way of the world. You don't get to steal things you want because you can't afford them. Start going to film festivals with free screening, or minor league games, or to the websites of indie bands and buy their burned CD for $5. Let's face it, the bands sign with labels because labels put up the money for them to do what they want: become rock stars and get rich. If music was more important than money they would play local clubs their whole lives and CDs themselves at their shows. Once again, this is not an issue of whether or not the record labels are greedy. We all know they are, as are most humans. This is a case of the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right". It's pretty hard for a man to stand up and claim the man next to him is immoral when he's stealing when he can't be seen.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Several OLD trackers, once shut down have recently resurfaced. Though simply images of their once gigantic selves, this is not something that will be thwareted or will end. If you think so, lets look back to blank cassette tapes vs records, VSH recorders, dubbing (dual) tape decks etc. They were ALL targeted for piracy and "the end was near" but its' all hype to keep out the more unsure. Those that know better will get what they want at the price they are willing to pay. As Canuckster said, if quality was there, so would the sales. Being fed poorly recorded fluff from label created bands/musicians (sure, musicians, not likely)is the reason people don't BUY cd's anymore. Get stung with buyng crap a few times and you've had enough. On another note, Judas Priest released a new CD last year, I lined up and bought a copy on release date (had some goodies that downloads don't offer as well as a full booklet and lyrics, cover notes etc.). Next year Iron Maiden AND Judas Priest AND AC/DC will release CD's, I will buy them all without hesitation, I know I will get a quality recording from Sanctuary, a decent colourful booklet etc.

Veenstra
Veenstra

Torrents...end of copyrighted materials...maybe, maybe not. I heard the same arguments for more control...and how the industry was going to collapse due to people stealing...then it was when radios and stereos started to come with built-in recorders. Years later we heard the same calls for more restrictions when everyone got VCR's...Guess what...the Motion Picture industry, TV and the music industry have continued to grow, not collapse. Yet recorders and VCR's were/are more pervasive in society than computers. Some will say 'but this is different' - but is it? I suggest that too much is being made on this latest 'threat', maybe to help support the huge growing business for 'copyright protection'...let's work for torrents to provide cheap downloads instead, in cooperation with the Copyright associations.

robert.withers
robert.withers

leave us downloaders alone, we ain't doin' no harm.

royhayward
royhayward

1. Breaking the law is always wrong/immoral. 2. Bending or ignoring laws that are unpopular and difficult to enforce is morally acceptable. Here is what I mean. Assuming that you are a driver or familiar with driving, is speeding a crime? Under premise 1, it is a crime to go one inch per hour over the posted limit is a violation. Under premise 2, it is not. Making copies of books, or art, or music and then selling it for a profit is obviously so far over the line, it is like the guy doing 80 mph in a 35 mph zone. but if I go visit a web site with a picture and a tune, am I speeding yet? The images and music are bing reproduced on my PC. What if my browser caches them? Did I break the law? Now copies are being stored. What if I intentionally save a jpg of the Mona Lisa? Or Handles Messiah? Just for my own purposes mind you. Did I break the law yet? What if I redisplay these images and tunes on my own site? Now I'm offering, or forcing those visiting my site to reproduce them and some times cache them. Is that against the law? What if I also have paid advertising on my site? Or just link to someone else who has them? This is the dilemma that most of us fall in. We aren't trying to steal, we are just not willing to walk the web with our eyes closed on the chance that turning on images will break the law. And don't start that we are talking about music, we are talking about copyright, intellectual property laws and the internet. The laws are outdated, and some what us all to suffer while they catch up. BTW, the argument that there are millions of albums sold is pretty lame, I buy books that I have read, songs that I have heard, and pictures that I have seen. So what? I want a nice copy on my shelf/wall is all. Not wanting to get sued I don't download music anymore. (I was once unaware that there were legal issues here when I was a kid.) But I also reject the concept that this is some black and white issue. Its not.

Canuckster
Canuckster

"It is not illegal to let a friend listen to a CD...", so why is it illegal to let a friend listen to an MP3? BTW, I totally agree, if you download music with the intent of profiting money-wise from it yourself, then that makes you a thief. Otherwise you are just a fan, and fans in the end, end up buying music they like. The fact they listened to an MP3 first does not make them criminals.

Canuckster
Canuckster

I too will gladly pay for music after I've listened to it and made a judgement call that I want it, or if I trust the musicians enough to know I will like it. But stealing can be a white collar crime that hides behind lawyers as much as it can be a street crime hiding behind the internet. I won't choose sides in a battle of thieves. Oh yeah, I also don't take advantage of drunken women or musicians - I am not that morally bankrupt either.

XT John
XT John

Last week, I was searching for a song online. I found it at four popular, legit download sites. All of them were fairly competitive price-wise; in the 99 cents range. Problem was in payment. I had a gift credit card with a 4.60 cents balance left. I would have loved to burn up the balance on 3 songs. None of the sites would allow me to pay using the Vista gift credit card, without opening an account with them, and depositing a minimum of 10 dollars. If I went to the store and purchased that song, any place of business would have gladly accepted that card as payment. Unfortunately for R.E.M., they lost the sale:(

ShaggySheld
ShaggySheld

I still buy vinyl guys and gals. I _used_ to DJ a lot, and have LOADS of vinyl. I download the tracks I have on vinyl, because my decks aren't always set up, so I can listen to some of the old tracks again. Like I said , I STILL buy vinyl now, even though most DJ@s these days download ALL their tracks and just play through laptops, or burn to cd for cd-decks (and that's where the DJ loses his creativity). As for _demi_, and him actually admitting that his wife cowrote Shakira... Well I blame him and her for writing and _pushing_ that crap onto young kids, and charging a premium for absolute rubbish. I mean, come on.. It's POP FFS. Totally engineered, because a) she looks good, b) it doesn't matter if she sounds bad, we have machines we can stick her through to make her sound _better_. In fact, that reminds me. Annie Lennox was live on TV yesterday morning, doing something you don't see very often these days.. She was singing LIVE, and she sounded good. How many ofd these so called artists these days can sing LIVE and actually sound good? Hardly any of them. I though sugababes album was quite good (using old riffs/samples), but I heard them live in concert on TV, and they were abysmal. The original rockers/singers/artists from back in the ANALOGUE days, HAD to know how to sing, as they had nothing to back them up. So SHAKIRA, and all the rest of the whole POP/RnB shite can go swivel for my money. Cheers

!demi!
!demi!

My wife is a music producer... a successful one and is well known in the latin industry. P2P has KILLED KILLED KILLED the music industry... now not even one of your friends has to buy the cd to make copies.... at least before someone you knew had to purchase something at the store. let me shed some light on how just one aspect of the industry has changed since Napster. In the past you could write a few tunes.. record a few and pitch them to record labels and publishing companies. If you were a producer thru say SONY, and had produced artists or singles to them and were successful in the past you have a good chance of them taking up your new project and funding it. Now YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE YOUR FIRST ALBUM (OF THE NEW ARTIST) ON YOUR OWN!! Which is about $30-50K if you have your own musicians... thats not including hiring studio musicians at $150-250 and hour. The record labels will not throw a single dime at you ... Thats just how it effects the musicans and the producers which only get paid for the work they do.. not the bullshit corp paper pushers... this is your friends and family.... Everyone is out of work.. no one can produce or record full time anymore because only a select few that are safe and marketable are getting all the work. Now I do agree with all the BS that is going on combating it? NO... I think they need to stop spending money on reactive measures and instead rethink their entire marketing and distribution methods.... but this will not happen anytime soon.. they'd rather put the beat down on everyone stealing their revenue. While I am on the soap box I am going to go download BIOShock on Direct connect... Just kidding!! :-P

scott_heath
scott_heath

The comparison with speeding doesn't quite fit. It is impossible to do exactly 60 mph. Your speedometer is most likely not even accurate enough to do it. But yes, if you exceed the posted speed limit you are in fact breaking the law. I got a speeding ticket last year because I failed to notice I went from a 60 to a 45 (on a highway!) but the law is the law and I paid my fine. You can't "accidentally" download someone else's property. And the laws aren't outdated and this isn't a new problem. Albums have had crap songs for decades. If people have been copying their buddies tapes since it has been possible. But 1 guy could only share the tape with his friends. Now 1 guy can share it with millions reducing further the number of albums that can be bought. And the point that millions of albums get sold was that there are clearly people willing to buy music and are enjoying what they buy. Would they like it to be cheaper? Sure. I'd like my next car\house\whatever to only be $100 as well.

scott_heath
scott_heath

I would have to re-read too many posts to see if you advocate the downloading of music illegally, but it seems to me that you are a person of high intelligence and moral standard. I do not see myself as choosing sides. There is no sides when it comes to breaking the law. And before anyone says it, I have yet to hear of a law in the US that is soooo unbelieable questionable that it must be broken. There is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish a goal. It doesn't matter if your are trying to cure cancer, stealing money to donate is wrong. And since fixing the music industry will never be more imprtant than saving hundreds of thousands of lives then stealing music to "stick it" to the RIAA will never be right. I think I am out on this now. It's been hashed and re-hashed. If you truly download music as a sign of protest I urge you to consider other options. For those of you who steal because you can I hope someday you figure it all out. Good luck.

pcassidy
pcassidy

Funny how so much attention goes into to the copying of a bunch of Ones and Zeros from one computer to the Next. I am indifferent to the music companies and or producers. I love Music and could not afford half of what I want. VIVA BITLORD. If you Download support the bands. Go to the Shows and buy there stuff!!! Destroying the Music Industry one Bit at a time.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I agree that most of todays "artiists" are just as you describe, manufactured garbage with no actual talent at all. Shakira can sing, I have heard her sing achipella and she ain't all that bad. Are her recodings a result of premium engineering? Yes, but she can still sing. As for tone and oitch tweaking, Annie Lennox and MOST others have that handled LIVE through the board anyway. If you stand behind the mike, you hear a completely different sound than the speakers in teh arena play, it is digitally mixed, tonally adjusted and harmonizers are used to match choruses. It doesn't mean she can't sing though, just that in order to be perfect when live, she has some assistance, just in case she misses a note. But hey, EVERYONE else does too, The Stones, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, ZZTop, even those Vegas regulars, Wayne Netwon, Neil Diamond etc. It's 2007, that's all.

SaintGeorge
SaintGeorge

I am not into the record business myself, but I've seen that and serveral other businesses downloading the corporate risk onto the shoulders of consumers and/or suppliers (in this case, the musicians and producers). This is a supermarket mentality. Supermarkets or retailers, like Walmart, are so huge they can force suppliers to supply them the way the want it. And, not the case of Walmart now, but movie and music industries, give consumers whatever they want the way they want. There was a time when you bought a record and most the songs were first quality. Now you get 1 or 2 good ones and 10 to 13 pure crap. And at the prices they want you to pay. Movies on CD get to customers out of the US months later, with crappy translations or subtitling and most of the bonus stuff amputated, and no appeal to the parent companies does any good. I know because I tried. No wonder people take to piracy. In some way, corporations are in the process of replacing governments in they eyes of people. Pirates see themselves more like revolutionaries than criminals. I dont't think they are off the mark that much.

rich.geddes
rich.geddes

I've heard cases where musicians have been unfairly treated by producers... ie The Goo Goo Dolls double platinum album where the musicians received virtually no royalties... or how about, for years music was marketed in such a way that if you wanted a particular song, you had to spend up to $20 at one time to purchase an album CD of songs you might not be interested in... The balance of the content(music, movies, and intellectual property in general) economy is swinging in a new direction. I suspect that if your wife put on her creative marketing hat, she might find there are probably "diamond in the rough" business models that can challenge the traditional ones from the past. The other option is to accept the old business models and keep feeding the old dinosaurs. I think even the corporations are beginning to see that the old way of doing business doesn't work, and they are also evolving... all the law suits and posturing is only a play at maintaining turf while they make the change. Why not beat them to it and claim your own turf?

daniel
daniel

Sounds like the classic blue-collar worker line about they “took our jobs. The robot comes along and makes it harder for the line worker to do a job because technology replaced them. Sure they could learn to be a robotic technician and make more money then what they currently do, but who wants the hassle. It's an ugly time when industries change. New technology makes old jobs obsolete. Personally I think most artist are over paid for what they do. Mozart never owned a mansion why does Brittney or any other artist need one? Now I'm all for capitalism. Law of Supply and Demand reigns supreme but the music and movie industry have the problem of having to deal with that. The distribution channels have become vastly cheaper and duplication of a product is trivial. To compensate they look for artificial limiters of supply called "Intellectual Property". IP is crap and people are getting tired of it. Artists need to try and change the way of doing business if they want to get rich. They need to find a way to make money but they should stop counting on music to be that avenue. BTW $25,000 a show is a lot of money to make for 2 – 3 hours of effort. If Shakira did 4 shows a year and made that much $100,000 I think she’s doing more than adequate. I like Shakira but I’m not going to cry if she does not make million dollars take home in a year.

Fysicus
Fysicus

Isn't it starting to be about time to finally stop fussing about stuff like copyrights? We're no longer living in the dark ages crying out loud. If I don't want to spend money buying something one idiot or another wrote, it should be my choice... If that forces some artists to take a 2nd job or something of the like to be able to live, well... no offense intended, but that's not my problem... and it also shouldn't be made my problem by some medieval organisation like SABAM in Belgium or the equivalent organisations in other countries.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I've been workign in the uindustry across four ocntinets for a decade or two now, god how time flies! I manage bands in the US, Canada and Europe and have toured with top 10 performers. New bands LOVE P2P because they get heard WITHOUT USING SOME BS NORTH AMERICAN PRODUCTION COMPANY. The record labels whine, as they always did and will, but the bands don't lose at all. In fact if you look at some of the more popular bands today that were once indies, yuo will quickly see how they made MORE money and became MORE successful themselves as they didn' need to confomr to and buy into the machine. I seek bands who are quality acts and looking to get a break without a major label or producer, and they all benefit from P2P. Generally finding bands and getting them signed in Europe does the trick quite well, a decent deal at a fair price where they can be creative their own way, don't have to change or confor and actually enjoy being signed. North American bands don't like being signed, after they've had a taste of it and the excitement of being signed fades away. The music industry in the USA and the music industr in the rest of teh world are not even somwhat similar, they are ocmpletely different animals. Havign seen various sides I can tell you, NOBODY benefits from the US music insutry, except the big four who are in complete control of what you hear, what your kids like, what you buy and what you see. There are no artists in North American packaged deals anymore, just pawns.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

No longer required. Their business was distribution, production, marketing etc were put together to drive hard media sales. Obviously you don't want to spend big bucks on production and pressing for some thing that won't sell. Cassette is dead, vinly is dead, the CD except for blanks is almost dead. All we are deesing now is a bunch blinkered fools aspirating a corpse.

Larry the Security Guy
Larry the Security Guy

Don't blame the technology; guns don't kill people and P2P didn't kill the music industry. Blame all the losers who justify their thefts and illegal use of P2P with complaints about prices. Blame the morons who offer music tracks in the first place. Blame the monkeys who let others steal from their otherwise legally acquired digital archive. Blame the people who pull the trigger, my friend, and leave those who use P2P and other exchange technologies for legal purposes alone because we didn't do anything wrong. We (tinw) have no desire to download copyrighted material illegally.

royhayward
royhayward

Even though your post does elicit some sympathy that your wife is having a harder time in her career because of music downloads, the overall response hasn't changed. When the big phone companies whine that they are getting impacted by VOIP carriers and take legal action to keep them out, I am more likely to go VOIP. When Big Brother Bill plays hardball with PC vendors, I am more likely to go linux. When Hollywood and Nashville start suing college kids after hosing us on music distribution for decades, I am not going to be on their side. The recording industry is a dinosaur, and so is Hollywood. Both of them seem to be intent on missing the boat on how to make money in the information age, and at the rate they are going, they will be completely left behind in the age that is coming in the next round of technological evolution. So while I am sorry if your wife doesn't become a millionaire on the backs of artists and music lovers. I have more sympathy for the music lovers that get attacked by the lawyers. They are really the only ones that will get anything out of this fight anyway.

enriquehernz
enriquehernz

Don't you think it's a wonderful plan of big Corporate labels to make it expensive? So that new artists HAVE to go through them to profit off them? It's either you go through them, or you'll struggle as an artist FOREVER. Not to mention that these labels dont care for quality music, just something that SELLS, like crap music of Fergie, Britney Spears, Christina Millian, Beyonce and Destiny's Child and all that other CRAP.

enriquehernz
enriquehernz

Don't blame people whom download, blame those high level, corporate labels and record companies for sky rocketing the price to produce music. It is because of these giants that it is now extremely costly to produce and distribute music. That's why it is so difficult to become an artist nowadays... you have to purchase expensive equipment and be under the wing of these business men who's only purpose is theivery. I paid 18 bucks for a cd once at the wherehouse, do you think that's fair? Freakin' CD had 12 songs. PATHETIC. Screw corporate music and support indipendent labels. I boycott any major label. The corporate record companies have done to the music industry like the health insurance companies have done to healthcare.

W.E.
W.E.

The record industry gets the lions share for record production because of their ownership of the distribution channel. Artists have had to sell their souls to the devil (record labels) for too long to get access to that channel. Why do you think the artist go on tour? Because they see little money from the CD sales. That is an established fact. Why do you think so many garage bands now have a chance to distribute their music? Because of the internet! I think there are very few musicians out there that wouldn't love the chance to eliminate the record labels.

nanerglyn
nanerglyn

Splitting hairs is fun!!! I'm in the mood to copy a cd(that I paid for), and give it to a few friends. The darn theives!!!

scott_heath
scott_heath

You people would say anything to support what you do. What if I steal something from you that your not using. Or what if you have a wireless network and I steal data from out of the air. Blah, blah, blah. It makes me almost physically ill to read some of the self righteous arguments many of you have posed. Can you speak these words without laughing out loud? I don't care that much that many of you steal music. What I care about is that we have lowered ourselves to make inane and ludicrous arguments with no logic our supporting fact to justify things we know to be wrong. Whether you "believe" the record labels own the music, the fact is that they do. Most laws of this type are recognized all over the world. It's just like owning the source code you write or the invention you dream up. BTW, call the local police or FBI or whomever and tell them you are using the local cable company's connection that's out behind your house without paying for it. Then explain to them it's not stealing because "you aren't depriving them of a physical object". Because they still have the signal right? This is such a lame conversation at this point. I feel like my IQ has been lowered by just reading all of this crap. I know I am seriously disappointed in the general level of honesty and integrity among people.

royhayward
royhayward

According to the definition it is "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft Making a copy != stealing by this definition. So it must be the money earned by the sale of said music. Arguing that some guy on a PC copying a song deprives the owner of the song money is only true if the said copier would have purchased said song, but now that he copies it, hasn't, and won't. This is where the argument runs into trouble. If a person hears a song, and likes it, and wishes to own a copy, then said person can buy it. But if said person can't hear the song because the place they spend their time is devoid of songs, then they can't buy it because the didn't hear it. I know for a fact, that while this forum has been going on, that there was at least one person that encountered a song, via an MP3 shared on the internet, and who after hearing the song, went out and bought the CD. The RIAA and the music industry have missed the boat. They should be hosting mp3 sharing sites, and spending money on adds to drive people to them. Instead they have chosen the path of pain. Pain for them, pain for those they sue, and pain for all of us on this forum listening to accusations of moral corruption.

scott_heath
scott_heath

The comma seperated to ideas. Both are morally wrong, but one is legal and the other is not. This is frustrating, but let me try to go over each of your points. 1. It's possible that some laws might go against what we consider moral. Go ahead and lay out your argument as to how protecting your interests insured by copyright law is immoral. You didn't write the music or lyrics and the people who did sold it to the record label. Also while your at it, try to make an argument for how stealing it makes a positive impact anywhere other than the theif's wallet and potentially better concert revenue for the artist. 2. I know plenty of people who believe this to be wrong. Most of them wouldn't bother to post in a forum. This is actually the first time I have posted on a non-technical thread. I don't normally care to engage in debates with people about these sort of things, but I felt compelled this time. If someone here can make a compelling argument for how stealing music creates a positive impact on anything I'm willing to hear it. We've already discussed that many bands have free music samples if you want to check out their music and iTunes and other sites offer free samples of music the sell. 3. Your library illustration has no bearing on this conversation. I donate books and sometimes DVDs to my library all the time. They are the original copies and have been paid for by myself. The library then loans that single copy to a person who brings it back. That single copy is then brought back and loaned to someone else. THe RIAA cannot stop you from loaning out your possessions. They don't care about that. Duplicating a single purchased copy into 100 copies and distributing is not even close to the same thing as loaning an original out to a friend. Once again no one has produced even close to a legitimate argument for why it's OK to download music you didn't buy. We all know you can sample streaming music at your leisure and download samples if you want to try before you buy. And now with the availability of single song purchasing you can't whine about paying big bucks for an album you didn't like. We also all know the truth here. Any argument for the theft of music is predicated on a personal desire to get something for free. If you really cared about the musicians you'd be sending them money directly for what you have downloaded. Please show me the proof that you have been supporting your artists through direct financial contributions and I'll get off your back. :)

royhayward
royhayward

you write: "I'll sum it up. Stealing = Illegal, morally wrong Corporate Vampirism = Legal, morally wrong" This is that back and white attitude again. So go turn yourself in for speeding and keep yourself internally consistent. For the rest of us, we know that there are these areas where, if we assume that lawmakers did their best to make good laws, they still fail in some instances when the law meets reality, or the moral question. Are you implying that Legal = moral? Syllogisticly like this? Being immoral is wrong. Braking the law is wrong, therefore breaking the law is immoral. Ok, that is like saying: Chickens lay eggs, Fish lay eggs, Therefore Chickens are fish. This logic does not work. Even if all three statements are true, (the moral syllogism, not the chicken) they don't support each other. You also make this statement: "It seems no one here is looking past the nose on their face, which quite frankly is astonishing for a group of technically proficient people. Typically the industry requires excellent analytical skills..." From this I infer that you are feeling that the majority of your peers on this forum are in disagreement with your position. (I have not done the calculations to see if this feeling is accurate) But if that is what you think, it might be wise to re-evaluate your position. Even if you don't change it. Finally, the content had to come from somewhere. Unless the original CD/song was acquired by an act if shoplifting, or breaking into the artist home and stealing his track, then all the content on bit torrent and the other web sites are also spawning from legitimate sources. The RIAA does not go after Libraries where they have collections of "donated' music, because the distribution is slow and clumsy. Online, thousands can share the music quickly. That is why they go after napster and torrent. (but inferring that lawyers are guided by moral incentive is quite entertaining) Going after some guy in his basement on his PC who, "oh my gosh", didn't pay for the song he is listening to, or sharing, plays well to the press. Going after a library would play badly. Pretending that these suits are based on any moral footing is just being duped by the PR guy the law firm hired so they won't get run our of town.

scott_heath
scott_heath

I hate the open minded argument. Does the fact I disagree with you mean I am close minded? I have listened to what everyone has said and I have read every post. No one has yet come up with an argument that justifies stealing music. I am willing to listen to your argument, that is what makes me open minded. Agreeing with absolute crap would just make me stupid. The only thing being said here is "I'm going to keep doing it and here's why" but none of those arguments can justify stealing someone's property. They are just a person's attempt to rationalize their own behavior. And to compare this to slavery is insulting to every human on Earth. I see the point you are trying to make but come on. Government revolution to stop the FORCED oppression of a people is totally different than offering a product you don't like for a price you don't want to pay. And since you brought up slavery, I'll use your argument against you. When the majority of the US population thought it was OK to have a slave, did that make it right? Did it suddenly become wrong when the majority changed their minds? Uh, no. It was wrong from the beginning no matter how many people where doing it.

Canuckster
Canuckster

These arguments are getting old fast. It seems that opinions become entrenched instead of opened in this kind of format. In a democracy, when the majority, or significant fraction, of the population engage in an activity, can it be morally incorrect and can it remain illegal? If laws were left to law makers to change then the USA would still have slavery and only men could vote. Motivation for change often arises because people force their representatives, the big corporations and the buracracies to rethink the status quo.

scott_heath
scott_heath

I'm not saying that all of this isn't a total suck-fest. I hate having to deal with all the little annoyances in life as much as the next guy. I've got three kids who always want the latest CD by whomever, and another video game, and another this or that. Life isn't cheap. And I've been laid off 3 times by greedy companies who ran the whole thing into the ground. It's not easy to have to look for a job and wonder how you'll feed your kids. If there is a group of people who should feel entitled (and there isn't) than I think I would be a good candidate for it. To be clear, I am not for greedy companies and lazy government. I want to do away with wasteful state goverments and redundant layers of policymakers. I want a law that says that while we won't legislate how much you charge for your product, we will stop you from receiving 5 million in bonuses when the company is in the red and 400 people lose their jobs. I am all for the little man. But I am an American and I believe in doing it the right way. If you are reading this, you have a computer. Look up some addresses, email or snail mail, and staret being heard. Send the same email\letter every day for weeks. Ask your friends to do it. Ask them to ask their friends. If we can waste $6 on a coffee with a fancy name then I think we can spend $10 in stamps every month to be heard. I will be the first to admit that I don't make myself heard to the politicans enough. But this thread is starting to motivate me to write some people. Not about music, which in the grand scheme of my life isn't even on the radar. We need to write more about education, corporate resposibility, and goverment accountability. Hmmm, OK, it appears I got on a soap box... :)

scott_heath
scott_heath

I don't need to back up the fact that you can't accidentally download music. When you see a song on a BitTorrent site by U2, Toby Keith, or whomever you know there is a 99.99% chance of downloading the song illegally. I guess I'll allow you exceptions for unknown bands or classical music that you may think is no longer under copyright. Heck, that may make up for .01% of downloads. You and I both know the majority of the downloaders know they are downloading copyrighted music. We can pretend all day long that this isn't about people saving a buck and getting what they want for free. Fine. I'll flip my Reality switch to Ignore if it will make you feel better. You made another totally unusable analogy by comparing BitTorrent to Radio. Radio stations pay for the right to play songs. The music is bought for everyone. That's like saying once a movie is aired on cable I should be able to dupe my DVD and hand it out to anyone. Or once I sell my product of any sort so a member of the public who can and it can be seen in plain sight that none of my patents or copyrights are valid anymore. All the stuff you see for "free" was bought and paid for by someone else. It seems no one here is looking past the nose on their face, which quite frankly is astonishing for a group of technically proficient people. Typically the industry requires excellent analytical skills... Not one person has produced a viable reason for these BitTorrent sites that contain almost exclusively illegal content to exist. BTW, I use BitTorrent all the time to download trailers and other legit content. The technology will never go away like other P2P technologies that had no real application outside of distributing illegal content. I think the RIAA figures that people found new music before the internet and they will continue to do so even if their avenues for downloading it illegally are cut off. I tend to agree with them. The number of people technically savvy enough to use P2P is growing, but I know many people who tried it and ending up with viruses and such and will never do it again. Anyway, since I am rambling now I'll sum it up. Stealing = Illegal, morally wrong Corporate Vampirism = Legal, morally wrong That's what it boils down to folks. You can live in Idealism World all you want, but the plain truth is that I can charge $50 for a bucket of junk, but my over-priced junk doesn't justify you stealing my property. Try to mix it up anyway you want about failing distribution models or unjustly treated musicians. You'll never win the argument with anyone who has decided that right is better than easy and that our own displeasure with the rules doesn't give us free license to violate them. If you don't like it, move to Holland, China, or somewhere with some real freedoms like Iran.

royhayward
royhayward

You make this statement, "You can't "accidentally" download someone else's property." And then you don't back it up. I gave examples of how one 'accidentally' does this. You haven't refuted any of them. I am not stating that speeding is equivalent to copyright infringement, merely stating that there are areas of right and wrong or legal and illegal that are not very clear to everyone or easy to steer clear of. And that is pretty much the only equivalence here. And we both seem to be saying that there are millions of satisfied purchasers of music from traditional venues. I don't know why we are arguing that. Its a fact. The point myself and others are making is that we buy music that we are exposed to for free, a la radio or internet. When the RIAA shuts down music from a bit torrent site, it is like shutting down a radio station with a major audience. Sure they will stop the illicit taping/downloading of the music, but they will also cut of an outlet of exposure to customers that might pay them money.

Canuckster
Canuckster

A self confessed criminal - a man who did 60 in a 45 mph zone - is going to tell me what is morally right and wrong? Just kidding. Yes we are talking copyright law. Yes it is illegal to share music. Yes Hallmark should have the right to sue you if you say, "Have a nice day". And don't think that you own your own DNA, it can be patented by a pharmaceutical company. Me, I prefer a simpler approach to life. That's why I'm in IT and not law practice.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

The big media company's are not in anyway concerned with the author's copyright, but with their purchased right to distribute the material for a fee. The way they interpret the rules we would have to pay every time we remembered a melody they 'own' Copyright should be a claim of authorship, not ownership. The former is obvious, the latter is convenient for publishers.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Your right you shouldn't have ot buy it, and you DON'T have to buy it. Especially if it is something you feel som eidiot wrote. But when you buy copy, you have chosen it, not been forced to pay for it.

royhayward
royhayward

This is what I was trying to say, but darn it, you said it better.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Labels, Disney, Virgin and a couple of UK compaies, have looked at opening stores where people go in, choose music from a digital database and, once a playlist is built, can burn it to a disk, print a cover pay the $1 a tune (or whatever) and go home with it. It would make sense and even though P2P would still exist, it would at least get MANY involved in pay per tune. Kinda like they did with FutureShop's Bonfire, where you can pay to download premium quality digital musc online, but put it in a retail outlet, where people can sample, browse, see posters etc. and don't have to use credit cards online. Teenagers could pay cash and make a good quality CD. But they were too late to the punch and it just isn't new enough to catch on now. Had they tried it 10 years ago,they had a chance.

drowningnotwaving
drowningnotwaving

It's an interesting thread Tony and others have hinted at it but you've nailed it. The industry's inability to understand and thence predict the impact of the new technology on their 'way of life', so to speak, should have the boards and executives in court for criminal negligence. Shareholders should be crucifying these people at the AGMs. And let's face it - they have had many many years now, and the input of hundreds of thousands of industry leaders, zealots and theives to give them some idea as to what is happening and what will happen. It's not like this was an overnight phenomenon. But still they cling to the old ways of their distribution in the hope that they can hang on. They may for a while, but I suspect that, like King Canute, the tide will get a little to high for them to hold on forever. They should be working feverously on pay-for-play technologies - whatever. The pay-over-the-counter approach - be that a shop or an 'e-counter' - is doomed. If the tv media and (to a certain extent) the movie media are putting in place systems to ensure their future, isn't it time the record distribution industry pulled its finger out and did the same thing?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

The musicians that are signed have done so by choice. Nobody stole anything from them, it was bought, usually at a very low price. But that's what musicians face in North America, a low money deal until they are big enough to go at it alone, which in NOrth America is implossible without first signing a bad deal. But it IS a deal and it IS reviewed by lawyers and it IS paid by teh record company. The record company is ripping off the end user far more than the artist. They produce low quality material and sell it at premuim prices where you have little or no choice of buying anything better. The artists gets a crappy deal, but they aren't having work atolen from them, the RIAA and record companies are not really THAT bad or deliberately malicious, it's just big business. Believe me, I've sat and listened to thier BS several times, while I would never accept a North American deal, many do and many benefit from it. As for stealing? When you download music, you have stolen it from the company that holds the distribution rights to it. End of story, if you download you are a thief. I like to wear black and white stripes and a little black mask when I'm downloading anyway.

royhayward
royhayward

I have admitted to nothing, and am guilty of nothing. I just think that the those in the recording business have some nerve for prosecuting kids after they rip of musicians to make millions. Sure most of the musicians did ok, but by your own analogy as well, if the record company rips of an artist with 100 million and only takes one million, they are still stealing are they not? And for your info, I listen to mostly 70s and 80s music, and since they don't make that any more, (and half of the artists are dead anyhow) there is no point for me to go down load it, or to feel like I was stealing if I did.

scott_heath
scott_heath

Stealing $10 from a guy with $100 is no different from stealing from a guy with $100 million. You still stole $10.

royhayward
royhayward

your analogy: "Hey I am going to go now to FYE and walk out with a cd.... oh wait I'll get arrested so I won't do that..." If one goes into a store, and takes an item without paying for it, they are stealing from the store owner. I was expressing that I feel, as it seems many on this forum do as well, that the record companies are the ones that are stealing from the artist. (Especially now days when the distribution of media is so much cheaper.) And I hope for the day when these companies will see the light of how to maximize their distribution by not suing customers, and trying to find new ways to provide content to them. As it is, there will always be at least one more person out there downloading than lawyers to sue them. And hopefully there always will be. By the way, that sympathy that I felt for your wife, evaporated when you started calling me names. Good luck.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Instead, lets compare this to another copyrighted industry....books. Based upon what you are saying, if I have just read a good book, or learned to play a song from a songbook, then I cannot "share" it with you but can only recommend that you purchase your own copy. I would be in violation of copyright laws by passing the book onto you (uploading) and you would be in contravention of the law by reading a book you were given (downloading). The artist is cheated out of royalties because you stole their intellectual property, in your opinion. Didn't all music on the net start out as legitimate purchases that someone said, "Hey this is good. Give it a listen."? I buy music I like. I know I like it because I have heard it. I do not broadcast downloaded music for commercial purposes or try to make a financial profit from it and I do not resell it - something those darn copyright laws do allow you to do with books interestingly enough.

scott_heath
scott_heath

You do PC Support so what is your experience with the record industry? Look, we all know that companies sometimes sell crappy product at a high price. This isn't something new, we just have a way to steal it now that involves almost no risk to the thief. Say you watch a car commerical and you really like how the car looks and they promise you the best ride of your life. You believe the commercial and you go buy the car. After driving it a few times you realize it wasn't worth the money. Does the dealership owe you anything? Of course not. It's the way it goes. You knew when you bought the product it was yours whether it was good or bad. Everyone, please stop addressing this like it has anything to do with music. Not one of you has managed a decent well-thought out argument. None of them stand up to a single comparison to any other industry. It's all very simple: You are stealing when you download anything that is protected under law that you have not paid for. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. Write your Congressman and Senator. Demand the government regulate the quality of music. Better yet, start your own record label and only sell CDs with great songs and only charge $5 an album.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"don't be ass and steal... unless your 12" I guess the industry is 12, then. They rob the artists blind. Personally, I think you're full of it, as little of what you have said is actually true to the industry. Nice try, though. Again, I don't find it acceptable to freely download music without paying for it. But I did pay for a CD with 12 songs on it, of which I only listen to 2. The RIAA *owes* me 10 songs and I'll take 'em as I can get 'em. That is just one CD... I own HUNDREDS. See how this could add up? If the industry would consistently achieve a product of better quality, nobody would complain about spending $25 on a CD with 14 great songs on it.

kevin.cartridgeworld
kevin.cartridgeworld

The argument for record company's expensing practices is taking a negative hit when you look at what's happening with internet radio, for example. Now that royalties are skyrocketing, some internet radio broadcasters will be forced to go out of business all due to the greed of the RIAA and the major recording labels. I guess they have to charge more to pay for their army of lawyers. Artists will now have take Master P's approach and self-promote and self-publish if they want better returns for their hard work.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

complete BS People can't make a living doing their PASSION because if they want to earn any money in North America, they MUST sign to a label. There's no room for realmusicians anymore, the labels create trendy sounds and build the industry exactly how they want nowdays. End of story. What do you think the term HOOK means? HOOK is ALL the records companies seek. Record labels, producers, radio stations, TV networks, retail stores all owned by the same company ? It's not a conspiracy, it's dictatorship.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

stealing money o children by putting contains the hit single in a CD otherwise filled with dross then? Most modern music doesn't appeal to me anyway, but I'd consider anyone who shelled out ?17 for a CD where they had only heard one track a victim not a criminal. Oh and don't go funny on me, every track I've got I own a copy of. The reason musicians don't get a fair crack is unless they could decorate the centrefold of a glamour magazine, they have to make it first. I'd rather look at Beyonce than Joe Cocker, I rather listen to Joe though.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Let me avoid asking if the thief is just the kid earning minimum wage and on his computer, or if its the executive in his penthouse talking to his suits about which yacht to get for the summer home. Have I ever bought a cd because I liked what I heard from downloaded content? You bet! Are there artists and songs that I would have not heard if they hadn't been downloaded by someone? You know it! Am I supporting smaller artists by listening to downloaded music and then buying what I like? Yes siree! Do I remember a time before downloads when the record labels ruled the earth and the only rock music being promoted were a few big names like Pink Floyd or Led Zepplin and new acts were stifled because they didn't sound like the big boys? That's why punk was born my friend. I agree that musicians need support, but not the big record labels, they have their million dollar a year lawyers to support them.

ronsjr75
ronsjr75

Man Chill out you got problems pal !! you dont need to use profanity in a tech forums. WHOS THE PUNK NOW! WHO'S 12 ??

!demi!
!demi!

ON the backs! HAHA you don't understand anything do you .... SHE IS WORKING ALONG SIDE. She is an artist and a song writer.. she has her own music as well.. she has a family and cannot tour so she produces from Miami now instead.. Please refrain from insulting her ..again something you have absolutely no idea about.. we are fine with money.. the problem is that there are many people who cannot make a living doing their PASSION because its socially acceptable to steal digital music (Among pubescent teenagers) .....just because you can steal you do... thats what it comes down to... Hey I am going to go now to FYE and walk out with a cd.... oh wait I'll get arrested so I won't do that... I am such a dispicable piece of shit that I'll just download it for free because I have not grown up and still act like the little bitch I always was.... Don't want to be attacked by lawyers?? don't be ass and steal... unless your 12 and don't know any better... are you 12???

scott_heath
scott_heath

So you say we are all so stupid we just buy whatever is there whether we like it our not? And you, being the genius we all know you to be, are the only person capable of discerning the amazing travesties going on around you? The weight of the world's burdens must keep you up at night. I'm not sure how you could sound more ignorant than you already do. I don't even listen to that much music but I go to the store every now and then or look at stuff on iTunes. There is tons of variety. Looks at the Billboard Top 50 and you'll see Hip Hop, R&B, Pop, Country, Rock, etc. News Flash: Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it sucks. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but if you move your ego slightly to the right you'll see there are millions of people who don't care about your opinion and will like things even if they aren't labeled "indie".

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"t sells because people like it...." LOL! It sells because that's all that is available! Where the hell have you been?

!demi!
!demi!

It sells because people like it....

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"BTW, all industries spread the cost of failure to their consumers." Yes. If the industry would quit promoting such crappy music, they wouldn't have so many losses to make up. BTW, last time I checked, a company with a bad product takes the "hit", not the consumer. Why should the RIAA be any different?

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"What is costs to make a record is not relevant." Actually, it is. The labels "lock" artists into paying absolutely huge fees for production and promotion that we might as well refer to them as pimps. These costs get passed directly to you and me, otherwise the artists would make no money at all.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"The cost of producing music is decided not by the CORP.. BUT BY THE ARTIST, PRODUCER AND the studio (rate per hour)" BS. The cost of producing an artist is created by the LABEL! They force the artist to pay for production, promotion and studio fees. Plus, they force the artist to use THEIR studios and studio artists. If you've ever read a contract, you would know this. Have you ever had to deal with a musicians union? It is really no wonder that more and more artists are going "indy"....

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"blame those high level, corporate labels and record companies for sky rocketing the price to produce music. It is because of these giants that it is now extremely costly to produce and distribute music. That's why it is so difficult to become an artist nowadays... you have to purchase expensive equipment and be under the wing of these business men who's only purpose is theivery." Indeed. The contracts that the industry puts artists under are in place for the label, not the artist.

johnmckay
johnmckay

Life moves on. By your own analogy cars get too expensive to produce, forcing the company into a rethink. a) Cut the features to lower the cost. b) Enhance the features, raising the cost, but allowing more to sell, leading to a profit. c) Shut the factory and build them somewhere cheaper. Hopefully sell at the same price to the guys you just put out of work. Hey ho; that's life too. d) Look into cutting costs in the dsitribution channels. Lower the profit margin; reduce the outlets. BUT the record companies try another method. a) Weep that someone isn't buying their records. b) Kill off rather than embrace the new distribution channel. c) Actively annoy their customers by trying to maintain crazy prices rather than sell more cds at a lower price. Am I alone in finding this a turn off? I rarely ever go into a music store now. What does it offer? I can look at some packed boxes there OR I can look at pictures of the packed box on PLAY and buy it there. The music store is largely a finished entity (didn't Branson flog some Virgin sites recently) unless it rebrands itself quickly. It's been a great cash-cow in the past BUT everyone with a PC is savvy enough to avoid them largel, leaving them a diminishing market. If they were selling cars they'd go bust and we'd buy the same thing under a different brand name. Unfortunately that day can't quite come soon enough for me. The traditional music industry is DEAD. They need to REMODEL and soon. I've no intention of financing a dead-duck but luckily for them there are still some clowns out there who will. Are you one of them?

jtruebe
jtruebe

And soon enough we may see what a government-run healthcare system does to it's lemming populace that's too stupid to understand socialism for what it really is!

Haas
Haas

Why do I want to care about or want to know what the record industry does or doesn't do. As a consumer, I want to buy legit music and enjoy it. But to get ripped off that is not nice or fair. And that is what the music industry has been doing for a long time. They have been ripping off musicians and consumers alike. Now the topic here is about the technology that led to legal or illegal downloads. Thanks to a lot of smart and hard working people that were creative enough to beat the record industry at their own game by allowing people to share what they bought with their money. If I bought a music CD and I want to share it, why not. I am not gonna wait for some corporate moron to tell me that is illegal. It has been done for years that people burned CDs for their families and friends and even made compilation from the hundreds of music they purchased. So making a compilation of your own music maybe is illegal too. I am so sick of the music industry and the quality of the currently produced music that I don't listen to it much. I listen to the 70s and 80s only when I am in the mood and they are all on the radio. If I get the chance and want to download the music I want and it's available somewhere on the Internet I will get it. Nobody was policing corporations when they were ripping off people, so now the music industry are policing us. Power to the people not to the corporations. Forget about morality, honesty, integrity ...bla bla...look what Enron did to its people, where is the integrity. Corporations are about one thing $$$ and they will do whatever it takes to mislead you to get you to buy their product. They use marketing tricks to lure people people to buy their products. This conversation is is all too nice and dandy but people will keep downloading the music as long as it's available for download. And that is the reason why RIA is trying to stop it.

scott_heath
scott_heath

No one his echoing his comments because none of you know anything about the recording industry past the play button on your CD player. What he is saying makes perfect sense and is totally logical. You have avenues other than stealing to sample music, you are just to lazy to explore them. That's not his fault. BTW, all industries spread the cost of failure to their consumers. I know I haven't used 10% of the thousands I have paid in medical, auto, and home owners insurance. I know the cost of car I bought was higher to cover the cost of models that didn't sell. I know the company I work for is going to look at their total costs and price products to make up for loss leaders. I wish everyone would drop the pretense and just say it. You like getting things without paying for them and when you feel like no one can see you, everyone else is doing it, and you can hide behind "moral" outrage then your brain rationalizes it as being OK. Well then keep stealing. Maybe some day something will get stolen from you and you'll blow it off and just think "Maybe that guy who stole my car has a justifiable resaon based on some illogical belief that car companies overcharge for their products to make up for bad decisions that lose them money. I'll just let him have it and go buy another one!"

ESchlangen
ESchlangen

Have you noticed that no one is echoing your comments? What is costs to make a record is not relevant. What is relevant is the public's perception of the recording industry. And that is not very good! I actually had guy from Sony Music (Canada) tell me that they had to charge so much to cover the costs of the bands that didn't ever make a hit song. Well, guess what? I don't feel the need to pay exorbitant prices for a group I like just to cover the incompetence of the record industry's scouting people. I listen to everything on the Internet first now. And only pay for an artist that I think really deserves the money. BTW, I do not keep the downloads of those I do not deem worth spending the money on. And also, this crap they spout on TV about downloading costing them billions of dollars is ridiculous! They assume that the people who download would buy the CD if they couldn't download it. What a crock! Most people just wouldn't listen to the music if they had to buy it at the industry's ridiculous pricing. 'Nuff said.

Canuckster
Canuckster

I noticed that you said "cost of producing music" and not cost of the cd in the store. You make it sound like the record companies are charities and their lawyers are music afficiandos.

ronsjr75
ronsjr75

----The corporate record companies have done to the music industry like the health insurance companies have done to healthcare---- I love that. its so true !!

!demi!
!demi!

The cost of producing music is decided not by the CORP.. BUT BY THE ARTIST, PRODUCER AND the studio (rate per hour) A decent studio will cost you $200 an hour. Most studio musicians (for instance backup singers) will want at least $250-500 a song. Like I said... no one has a clue yet.....

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

YOu are wholly right in your post BUT, you seem to be lumping in all record labels as the same. In actuality, it is the North American labels (the big four conglomerates)that are abusing the listeners. In England, Germany (especially Germany), Brazil and other major music production areas, musicians are really encouraged to do thier own thing. Ex. Many deals for new bands do NOT include ownership the way it does in the States. IN the majority of cases, they simply sign distribution or tour deals. These are great because the label allows the group to cut a CD on thier own, or at a low cost in the label's studios. They label gets a cut of sales, SMALL cut, but they also procide access to the distribution outlets they own/operate or have deals with. So a new group can get some decent retail exposure, globally, for very little skimmed off the top. IN cases where the label actualy does invest n the music, they reap very minor rewards, they allow the musicians to hold most intellectual rights and grow with the HELP of the label. It's kinda like giving the artist a helping hand and allowing the use of thier resources for a small cut. Not the outright ownerhip for pennies per album returned to the artist that the US offers. US acts also get stuck with the bill a lot, go on tour, be showered with gifts, riders, party all night long etc. Then when the CD money is to be handed out, all those costs get deducted from the artists paycheck. this often leaves them in serious debt and bound to the labels contract for a few more years. If music doesn't sell, they get poorer and poorer, while the label focuses on thier newset flavour and lets the old one die into bankruptcy.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You apprently know the insutry, or as it seems one TINY little part of it anyway. "Can you tell me how garage bands..." HOw do they make music from file sharing? Easy, MOST garage and indie bands (I'll get back to your 'indie' misconnception if I have time)promote and shop for their own deals. Usually they run screaming from anything nearing a US marketplace and seek deals in Brazil, UK, Germany, France etc. The popularity of music online, and demand at local record stores, is exactly what gets them those deals. Not a fancy press kit or EPK, though you must be packaged when approached. I know more than a half dozen bands personally who used this avenue to get signed with EMI London, Sanctuary music and a couple of other smaller labels. So P2P DOES lead to success for some garage bands, because they use it as a marketing tool and it works, as a way of getting outside of North America. As for indie bands, Slocan is not a washed up or former production company. Remember when RoadRunner was a tiny little indie label? A little startup? How about BW&BK, they wer once a little underground metal magazine, not the corporation they have become. So as for indie music, you simply don't have a clue either. What you know is VERY simple, a little bit of industry spew from your wife who works with a label. You have about 10% of the big picture andrespectably abotu 30% (at most) of the industry in which your wife works. You certainly don't have enough hands on, global knowledge of massive and very diverse industry to make such absurd claims though. As for touring, I've managed a warmup for a MAJOR globally recognized tour. Your right, they don't make f-all, and don't aim to on such a tour. The artists, who is free from North American labels makes a heap and a half, but not the support act. They pretty much get most expenses paid and tour for free in order to make a name for themselves, and ultimately sell CD's without a need for the label's support. why do you think so many support acts are signed two days before a tour begins? Or right after they start the North American tour leg? That way the record company has some control of the money and their future success...IF the are hungry, tired of playing gigs and just want to sell out in the US that is.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

a Tad naive matey. If someone (not me) downloads an entire CD in the UK, they've deprived the musician of ?1.75 and the record company of ?15.25. If the music is good (rare but possible) the musicians will get more benefit out of this untaxed method of distribution than the record companies will. That's what this battle is about. Pointing fingers at other peoples morality is for those who practice what they preach. That might be you, it's not the f'ing RIAA though.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Please don't take the high moral ground on the basis that musicians are just getting what they deserve. Record labels are not in the business of producing music, never mind quality music. They are certainly not in the business of nurturing talent or allowing avenues for creative expression. They are in the business of making a profit. That is not the basis for a positive moral attitude. Why don't they offer better contracts to musicians instead of getting them at a drunk moment and fleecing them for what they can? That is what is wrong with the world, money as an end and not a means to an end.

Canuckster
Canuckster

Musicians should be paid for their music. No doubt about it, they created it, put their heart and soul and sweat into it. Its their music to offer.

scott_heath
scott_heath

If you sign a bad contract, isn't that your fault? If you take a job shoveling cow amnure for $10/hr can you complain that your getting screwed? I hung out in the "party" scene in my younger years and had many, many friends in bands and went to places with live music almost every night. A few of them signed deals with local labels, then complained of getting screwed over. Well, they were high or drunk most of the time and didn't even bother to have a lwayer look at the contract. I'm not saying what record companies do is right. But everyone on this forum who supports stealing because they don't like the cost is just showing what is going wrong with our world. All you care about is yourself and damn what is morally right. There are tons of places to get free music, but you want tolisten to U2, DMB, Shakira, Green Day, or whatever. Those people signed contracts and you have to deal with the results. Why don't you blame the musicians for selling the music to vampires looking to suck us dry when they could have sold it to you through a variety of alternate channels. Maybe if people started taking personal responsibility for their actions instead of looking for the nearest "cause" for their behavior our world wouldn't have so many problems.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

One thing you fail to mention are the contracts created by record labels and how BIASED they are against the musician. The "industry" claims the lion's share of the profits and do little to actually promote the artist, band or music. I come from a family of entertainers. One thing that we, and many artists, agree on is that the entertainment industry as a whole would be far better off without the RIAA or MPAA. These groups are nothing but legal loan sharks looking to make a killing off ANYBODY, including artists. I don't promote piracy. I don't download music and movies. This doesn't change the way I see the industry, though. BTW, go to the RIAA site and see if you can find contact info. Last I checked there was no such link to offer any sort of feedback to them. What does that tell you? It tells me that YOU are indeed the clueless one....

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

"Seen from that point of view" yet I have read them all and don't see one that is "that point of view". Sound as an audio receptory gift, is most definitely not what this thread is about. We are discussing people's manipulation and crafting of specific sounds. When someone is involved in creating it, it becomes intellectual property. MUSIC, is created. SOUND is that stuff you hear for free. Everyone can create sound, not everyone can create music. Music is a form of art, a way of pleasing the ear, a way of transforming feelings, thoughts and beliefs into audio forms. Your off base mate.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

"Seen from that point of view" yet I have read them all and don't see one that is "that point of view". Sound as an audio receptory gift, is most definitely not what this thread is about. We are discussing people's manipulation and crafting of specific sounds. When someone is involved in creating it, it becomes intellectual property. MUSIC, is created. SOUND is that stuff you hear for free. Everyone can create sound, not everyone can create music. Music is a form of art, a way of pleasing the ear, a way of transforming feelings, thoughts and beliefs into audio forms. Your off base mate.

rmjivaro
rmjivaro

If you think music is owned by everyone, perhaps you should consider the idea of your own WORK being owned by everyone. And them thinking they don't owe you anything for it. How long will you continue doing it? Your attitude of entitlement is one of the most amazing expressions of self importance and thoughtlessness that exists in the world today, boy. A few beatings from your parents would have fixed your disease in a hurry. Instead you are free to infect the rest of the world.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You sound like a kiddie on a gamers website. Your comment was absurd, incorrect and absolutely uncalled for. It was a personal slam against somebody's wife who is unable to defend herself or counter your ridiculous claims. Grow up. Here are links to more suitable websites for you: http://tinyurl.com/6wbv http://tinyurl.com/2a85mz

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I have managed bands that use P2P to check and see what titles to use on each disk. Most bands have a large bank of music to draw from, when they compile a new disk, it's always noce to get an idea of what works by using P2P to share it initially. BANDS love P2P , LABELS hate P2P. Bands benefit from P2P, Labels simply don't get a sale. Many bands have become successful and have been able to globally shop deals, avoiding teh US rip off deals, and start a much more lucrative career. Here's a T-shirt for you. http://store.northshoreshirts.com/istmuoffint.html Love it!

Fysicus
Fysicus

Music is by definition owned by everyone, it's not owned by a single person... Seen from that point of view paying for music would be like paying to be allowed to think... or to breath air...

ctrogers
ctrogers

After hearing about the band Laika, and downloading some mp3s for free *directly from their website*, I ended up buying some 3 or 4 of their albums. Should I be considered a thief as well? (question aimed towards the industry's apologists) p.s. I haven't bought any other cds in months as I'm not about to support the industry's current practices.

scott_heath
scott_heath

Way to be a classless jerk. I can't say I am a fan of Shakira's music, but is this really what you consider a logical, well-defended post? Most of the people on this site are technical folks so I assume you are at least partly educated and certainly a motivated self-starter. I find many of the comments posted on this site embarassing by association. Go check out how many albums Shakira has sold. Apparently you may not like it but millions do. It all comes down to one thing here. We all want money. You want to keep yours and get things for free. The record companies want to make money and they need your money to do it. So just don't buy anything. Start a letter writing campaign. Get other people to join you. Put in some E-F-F-O-R-T. I know, it's easier to steal, but maybe your integrity doesn't matter to you. Chances are the companies you work for over charge for their services as well. Do you have problems sleeping at night? Of course not, your "moral" outrage only kicks in when it affects your wallet. Congratulations on having morals just as low if not lower than the record execs you criticize. BTW, you can go to some artist's websites and hear many of their songs streamed for free if you really want to "sample" their songs. Or go to iTunes and listen to the freely downloadable sample. Oh what's that you say? By "sample" you mean listen to repeatedly for years without paying for it? Oh, OK, I got ya.

starmonche
starmonche

so now we know who to blame for shakira's crappy music. your wife is one of the reasons people don't pay for music without listening first.

Canuckster
Canuckster

I have bought many, many cds because of the downloaded music I have listened to.

shardeth-15902278
shardeth-15902278

I have found, and subsequently paid for more music from lesser known bands as a result of internet downloads. I don't listen to the radio (which generally you are only going to hear the big names anyway). I don't watch TV much, so I rarely pick up and soundtrack songs from shows (not that you would have any way of tracking those to artist as a genreal rule). I don't have time to stand around in borders, virgin etc... thumbing through labels, and then hoping I can actually listen to the songs on the album to see if it is worth paying for. I do listen to music when I am working on my computer, and when I come across an artist I haven't heard before, I often download a few titles. If I like them, I download a few more, then Go looking for the album to purchase it. These are often bands who are getting little to no advertising mileage from their label. Many are foreign groups which get no play in the US. I bet I'm not the only one.

!demi!
!demi!

and you don't .. Artists go on tour to promote their ALBUM because they get points on the backend of the album sales, they get a one time payment for each show... for instance shakira got $25,000 a show on her last tour.. how do i know that?? MY wife produced and cowrote her first album (Gloria Estefans husband publishing company does all the crossover gigs).. how much do you think garage bands get to play on tour... LOL if you get in a nice college tour.. playing venues that hold 1500-2500 people, you will maybe break even on the tour after expenses... cause guess who is paying for it?!?!?! YOU!! so shut your trap you don't have any idea how any of the industry works....... Garage bands have no chance in getting anywhere now.. that is a fact. You may get noticed.. but your not getting the money to make your album... also the "indy" scene is merely producers that were established.. that can't get work anymore and already have their own publishing company and deals thru the record companies (like a IT consultant) I understand you seached google to find things out before you responded but again... YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE Can you tell me how garage bands are going to make any money if you steal their music and not pay for it?? Are you implying you only steal music because Big corporations are involved.. are you a 12 yr old or an adult??

me
me

Music labels have shot themselves in the foot, maybe they shouldnt have been charging stupid money, over ?13 for a CD which only cost about ?1 to make... if they werent so greedy about the money they made, and realised they were only successful due to the money poured into those who love music... now those who love music dont see why they should have to pay for it, well not the extornate money those labels force us to pay! I think the entire music industry is to blame for these illegal downloads, and it serves them right!! Artists, Producers, Labels, whoever... no one else to blame but their money hungry pockets. I can easily make music in my bedroom,my pc, bit of software, sampler... bang! i dont need some executive in a suit to sell it... i'll whack it on MySpace!