Admitting to file-sharing

mr_angry

Having read a lot of posts in this forum lately, I'm surprised by the amount of people who seem to put on some kind of guilt-ridden admission to minor file-sharing. Personally, I use file-share apps quite a lot, and I'm not afraid, or even guilty, to admit to that.

There seems to be some kind of directive from Boards.ie that nobody should admit to actually LIKING file-sharing. Since Boards.ie have no commercial links to either the record industry, or file-sharing networks, and only a questionable right to censor the opinions of people, I find myself wondering why people never seem to openly support file-sharing on these forums?

"Could it be that it's illegal?", I hear you say. Well, yes. You are correct. Most of the traffic on file-sharing apps is copyrighted material being used illegally. Does that mean we don't do it? Does that mean we don't like it? Does that mean we aren't allowed to admit to it?

I can see why certain parties are against file-sharing. Personally, I don't give a damn about the record industry, or the RIAA. Record sales are at an all-time high, and EMI's profits were up 23% on last year. Do you see many record executives on the Dole queues these days? I don't think so!

The fact is that the record industry charge (in my opinion) an extortionate amount of money for muscial recordings, of which the artists recieve virtually nothing. I've spoken to the Corrs (how very rock & roll) about this several times, and despite being fairly well-liked among easy listening Europeans and Australians, they still have made f*** all (just enough to keep Jim in his shades, permanently). You think that file-sharing is hurting artists? It isn't - the artists have always been screwed over by the record companies, unless they are massive, or Mariah Carey.

These people don't deserve our moral support, and I don't give it to them. I support file sharing, even if you think its wrong. In fact, almost every reader here does - I just admit to it.

seanos

Huzzah

Lukin Black

I have to say I agree. I don't believe that downloading music is correct, per se, rather that in the face of the continued overcharging for music, it doesn't seem wrong.

Karl Hungus

You completely miss the point altogether.
It's certainly not a case of admitting to 'Liking' file-sharing, nor the moral implications of it.

Here, let me give you an example.
If someone was to put up a link on the games board as to where anyone could download full games, lets say to an FTP server, and the boards moderators didn't take down this link immediatly, boards as can be held in account, and henceforth sued for trafficing warez.

Get it?

Well, same goes for the piracy of music.

So, I hope you understand this, and why any form of piracy is frowned upon by boards, and whatever links, or suggestions of file sharing.

But this is an interesting discussion altogether, andI think the has more to do with music in general than specifically rock/metal, so I'm going to move it to the Music/Radio board. Not that I'm trying to freeload this thread onto Lucutus, mind you. But if he finds it 'Dodgy' or 'Questionable' dont blame me.


On a side note, I generally buy a lot of my CDs from the bands themselves, at gigs/festivals and whatnot. You can be sure that the price you're paying cuts out all the shop charges, tax, distribution, and whatever else.

I also think that people are forgetting certain things when they say 'Most of the money is going to the companies'. Namely, that there is the money that the shop has to get from the CDs, then the distributors, and other such concerns. I dont really think that the company itself would work out with the highest percentage of the profits.

nadir

Interesting. I dig AW, its pretty obvious really, but no harm to point out i guess. I was wondering about this moral thing. I mean at what point does it become insignificant. I mean basically , mp3s are a heap of 1s and 0s and mean nothing without the appropriate hardware-software to decode. Basically just an idea, at what stage do we forget about who owns it, and does nayone have a right to ownership of an idea. Personally im not sure, even about patents and stuff like that. How can someone say they have ownership over an idea. Claiming ownership of something so grand and ethereal. Whio has the right to do so? Should I say no one is allowed to look at me because the light that shines of me permiates through the air due to me allowing it to, for just being there, and hence you have no right to look at me. Its rediculous. It should really just be down to the individual imo, whether they think its correct or incorrect, but not something enforced.

mr_angry

As it happens AngelWhore, I used to work in a well-known music retail outlet, whose name and location shall remain secret. Thanks to an NDA, I'm unable to reveal the markup that the shop itself charged, but I feel perfectly obliged to reveal the price that the major distributors charged us.

For an average chart CD, the average price charged by a major distributor was €12.56. We also paid carriage inwards. Given that the cost of mass-producting an entire CD, complete with sleeve-notes was reportedly €1.20, this leaves the distributor with a 1,000% increase on the purely manufacturing outlay. Of course, out of this must come the recording artist's royalties (a whopping 4% of sale price, by all accounts, which is approximately 90 cent per copy for a chart CD), the cost of producing the recordings, and the cost of promoting the album itself. In the case of a newly signed band, this is likely to be fairly insignificant. If a previously unknown band sells a lot of copies, the record companies make the largest possible profits, which is why the major labels are only too happy to spew out "Popstars: The Rivals" records. Artists like "One True Voice" and "Hear'Say" make them a lot of money on their initial investment, and then their sudden demise means the reocrd companies don't need to fork out for an expensive follow-up, or improved contractual terms. Seeing as the artists involved are usually amatuers picked up off the street, I would assume that they receive poor contractual terms, and the only real benefit they see is their 15 episodes of fame.

I have to say that I have some sense of respect for these poor artists, because they are purely motivated by the fame, rather than the money (if there is any). What really makes me sick is seeing somebody like Lars Ulrich, who is a multi-millionaire, engaging in a personal crusade to get Napster shut down, really because he's an anally-retentive c***-monkey of the highest order.

Yes, I know file-sharing is immoral. But I feel little sympathy for an industry that has been screwing me sideways for the whole of my consumer-life. I also doubt that anyone can "post links" to files on networks such as KaZaa, so I feel ligitimate in saying I use them.

jesus_thats_gre

Obviously the whole file sharing debate extends beyond just the music world, movies and games are increasinly being pirated of late.

Personally I would prefer to own the original copies of any pirated material I currently own. I would have no problem purchasing a CD for anything as low as 10 to 15 euro, but when they exceed 25 euro, it is taking the absolute piss. The same applies DVDs and especially new computer games. 65 euro for a new title is a rip off.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=5988978&p=5989x3z&n=5989092

The above link, from todays news, highlights the problem specifically in this country.

Another factor that is even more frustrating is that the cost of physical media has come down over the years. Records and tapes were considerably more expenisive to manufacture than CDs. The same also applies to video tapes and DVD's. The most obvious abuse is on behalf of computer games companies. 10 years ago, all games were released on large chunky cartradges that cost a fortune to make when compared to CD's. Games are now released on CDs and DVDs, yet cost even more. The same applies to new music and film releases.

There is no justification for the costs of these products. Until we are charged fairly, I will not feel bad about using file sharing services.

Dakeyras

Just thought i'd throw out a few thoughts about the music industry and file sharing for you to mull over.

When radio first began broadcasting musci over the airwaves the music industry tried to stop it because they thought 'if people can hear all the music on the radio who'll go out and buy it?'. Well radio helped to increase the sale of music by bringing it to a wider audience. Then along came the wonderous tape and again the music industry cried loud and hard about how it would destroy the muxic industry with people recording all the music they wanted and copying it for friends. Again the music industry did not collapse around us and again the music buying public continued to buy. Now we have file sharing and again the music industry cries 'this will destroy the industry' anyone see a pattern emmerging here?

Now, i will say that with file sharing people have access to a much wider range of music that they can obtain 'illegally' so this may be a larger problem than any before. with radio and tapes you were restricted in what kind of music you could record or copy. but with file sharing, metaphorically speaking, you have millions of friends who have millions of files for you to download. But i think in the end the music industry will find a way to turn this to its advantage and leave all us poor suckers taking it up the jacksie again. But that'll take a while yet so enjoy while you can, i don't know how they'll do it but maybe they'll release all music on the internet with a program meaning it can't be copied at all. Who knows were technology will take the b#!*~!*^s with millions to plough into development.

So i've no problem downloaded the odd tune that i want to listen to and would never have bought anyway and no problem downloading any songs really. The only place where i draw the line is with new, upcoming and homegrown artists. Even if the musician band is getting a pittance out of the price of the record at least they're getting something and if i like they're music i want them to make more. So by buying their records your helping them to make more music.

Thats what we want, good music and someday maybe at a resonable price. Maybe if the record companies start releasing music direct to the internet they'll cut out a lot of middlemen, reduce the overheads and cost of music will come down. Personally i'd prefer the packaging though, without that i always feel i'm missing something. Anyway just some random points.

Dathai

I only use file sharing when I want only 1 song/I cant get the album/song in Ireland if the single is too ****in dear.

Lukin Black

Yeesh, Daithi calm it down.

Originally posted by Cloud here.
For images in signatures: 1 image up to 300 pixels wide, 125 pixels tall and 20k in size. No animated images are allowed.

AdMMM

Agree with you totally Dakeyras.

I have discovered many brilliant bands via File-Sharing.

I had never heard of Guttermouth for example but after downloading a certain song, I loved them and bought all their albums and went to see them in England.

I may have cheated the record company out of 4.99 for the original song, but they made a massive profit (in the hundreds) after that off me.

Proof that File-Sharing can be used for good

jesus_thats_gre

Regarding the recent posts.

I honestly believe file sharing will benefit the industry in the long run. It has forced a long overdue overhaul of how they do business and this will eventually benefit the consumer.

I have discovered many new bands thought file sharing that I would never have come across otherwise too. Even though I have only purchased the albums of a small number of these bands, I would have not done so otherwise. I would also use file sharing to determine is an album is worth buying - download it, have a quick listen and if I like it, I will buy it.

The same goes with movies. A recent example being Bad Boys 2, I loved the first film and was a bit unsure as to whether that second one would live up to my expectations. Combined with the fact that the studio seem to be holding it back for 4 months longer than in the US, I downloaded it and really enjoyed it. I will still go to watch it in the cinema to experience it properly and I will certainly purchase it when its released on DVD.

Hopefully the music and movie industry will realise that some aspects of file sharing is beneficial to them, and eventally release their products are more competitive prices.

The cost of movies, music and video games should steadily be dropping in price over recent years. Sales are improving steadily, costs are increasing at a slower rate to sales and overall the 3 industries are wealthier than they have even been. Specifically the Video games industry, the big publishers are growing and growing all the time.

monument

What AngelWhore said and…

At the end of the day, illegally downloading music (or copying a music or game CD) is just like braking into a record company’s warehouse and walking out with a few CDs.

It’s one thing to illegally downloading one or two tracks which can no longer be found off or online it’s another to be downloading albums or just the tracks you want one after another.

If you really have problems with the price of music try shopping online (play.com is a good start).

Lukin Black

Originally posted by |.Murderer.|
I may have cheated the record company out of 4.99 for the original song, but they made a massive profit (in the hundreds) after that off me.

Ah, but did you cheat them out of 4.99? Would you have bought any of the stuff otherwise? If you weren't going to go out and buy the single anyway, but end up buying stuff because of the download, how are they losing out?

I agree that it is 'wrong' to go downloading full albums constantly, never buying any music, but you can't say that doing so is like breaking into a warehouse and stealing CDs. Firstly, they didn't have to pay anything for your copy. They didn't have to pay for the physical material, the manufacturing, the distribution for those discs. It all depends really on whether YOU would have gone out and bought the music if you didn't have the means to download it, or if it wasn't available to download.

As silent bob was saying in this thread, copyright infringment is different to theft, and I have to agree. If I take a copy of a song that I'M NOT GOING TO BUY, then how has the record company lost out? If that song leads me to buy an album or more material, then the record company has gained. This has certainly been true in my case.

monument

I don’t really care who has “gained” or not. The bottom line is that if you copy (inc. downloading) a song or any other intellectual property with out the copyright owners permission it is theft.

It’s just like physical property; some of which is owned by normal people and some owned by large corporations. So if it is ok to steal intellectual property, is it ok for us all go out and steal things from everyone from the average person to large corporations? Sure if we all go out and steal stuff it won’t harm anyone the insurance companies will pick up the bill and that will have no lasting affects. Right?

It is fine if you want to campaign against over charging. But if you’re going to break copyright laws the least you can do is stop bragging about it.

If on the other hand you want to find out about music you haven’t heard before try listening to the radio (on or offline) or reading music reviews/articles (in print or online).

mr_angry

I really think you've misjudged the message in this post Monument. We aren't bragging about stealing from the music industry - we're complaining about the undue negative attention it is receiving.

And breaking & entering, combined with the theft of physical media is very different than what we are doing.

monument

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I really think you've misjudged the message in this post Monument. We aren't bragging about stealing from the music industry - we're complaining about the undue negative attention it is receiving.

And breaking & entering, combined with the theft of physical media is very different than what we are doing.

IF your post was about how file-share is getting a bad name because most people use it illegally and you’re defending the people who don’t; I’m really sorry.

However IF the post is about you thinking that breaking copyright laws isn’t wrong; your wrong (wrong = immoral and illegal).

If someone illegally downloads or copies music or any other data, no mater what spin you want to put on it they’re stealing

The “physical media” is not what makes money in the record, newspaper, news, television production, cable and satellite, publishing (printed books), film, games, software and some other industries; it’s the content or as it now called intellectual property (IP).

Reuters, Sky, Nintendo and Sony are just a few companies who make some if not most of their money from selling IP, what Sony owns includes music and games, while Reuters sells news reports and photos. It’s not only companies who benefit from selling or the sale of IP – journalists, graphic designers, musicians, game developers (etc…) in some way deal with IP and that’s along with the people who work for the publishers of the IP.

sci0x

Well if ye are feeling guilty about downloading music without paying for it there are plenty of sites setup where you can download the music at a very good price!

In Windows Media Player 9 in the Premium Services they have MusicNow where you can download songs for as little as Stg£0.75 however its not in Ireland yet.

jesus_thats_gre

In Windows Media Player 9 in the Premium Services they have MusicNow where you can download songs for as little as Stg£0.75 however its not in Ireland yet.

I would be more than willing to purchase music for a more reasonable price. As it is, movies, music and games are all over priced. These industries have been over charging consumers for years now as consumers had no alternative than to make uneducated purchases. I dont know how many albums i have purchased that I wish i didnt, the same goes for computer games (but thats besides the point). The above industries have been overcharging us all for too long now and have become greedy and very set in their ways.

File sharing is a necessary evil in order to force a shake up of the record industry. Competition between labels has not lowered costs over the years and price fixing comes to mind. Maybe they needed a dramatic drop in sales to encourage them to change their ways. Its unfortunate it has taken piracy to force this though.

sci0x

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
File sharing is a necessary evil in order to force a shake up of the record industry. Competition between labels has not lowered costs over the years and price fixing comes to mind. Maybe they needed a dramatic drop in sales to encourage them to change their ways. Its unfortunate it has taken piracy to force this though.

Yes but people will become so used to downloading music they wont buy it anymore. I mean whats the point in paying for something when you can get the exact same product for absolutely nothing. Especially now with the introduction of BB you can download songs in minutes. Much faster then having to go to town to the music store and also there is a much wider selection of songs on the net to choose from.

jesus_thats_gre

Yes but people will become so used to downloading music they wont buy it anymore. I mean whats the point in paying for something when you can get the exact same product for absolutely nothing. Especially now with the introduction of BB you can download songs in minutes. Much faster then having to go to town to the music store and also there is a much wider selection of songs on the net to choose from

Thats my point. Consumers have been paying over the odds for years as they had no alternative. The record industry was very happy for this to continue and keep their profits nice and fat. They had no reason to change the way they done business and as a result, became very set in their ways and not open to new ideas.

Now file sharing has come along and people can download any material they want, for free. Its only now that some record companies are considering using the Internet as a way to sell their products, and at reasonable prices too. This would never have happened if file sharing was not about. And if it did, you can be sure that you would save up to 400% by purchasing a single online as oppossed to a store.

Scottish

I never used to download music files, but the actions of record companies are forcing me to.

I recently bought the Kings of Leon record from CDWow. I have an ipod and use it an awful lot, so imagine how annoyed I was to see copy protection on this.

Straight on to Limewire, were I am slowly downloading the whole thing, which I find very tedious. As a result, I have downloaded other versions and other songs of theirs I don't have. Will I buy these? Not a chance.

I've paid for my music. I should be allowed to listen to it wherever I want.

lordsippa

I'm all for file sharing, indeed I'm currently downloading some as of yet unreleased live Velvet Revolver tracks simply because I can't bear to wait for the EP to be released to hear what they're gonna be like. Thing is, when that EP comes out I'll be buying it, even if I have every track on it (which I doubt I will cause there's no point downloading what I'll be buying later). So as regards me, file sharing is a major aid to the record companies as it's introducing me to music that I would not know otherwise and is leading me to go out and buy albums.

HOWEVER, I do know people whose music libraries are almost entirely pirated. The thing is, the majority of their music isn't from file sharing but from getting a lend of a cd and copying it. Sure they've dled a few tracks, maybe an album or two, and possibly even a few movies from file sharing utilities, but without them they'd still pirate everything.

So my view on this matter is that file sharing ISN'T directly moral or immoral. Some of us use it to mostly find rare tracks that we can't get elsewhere (or to sample a band we've been advised to check out). The "problem" of file sharing is the fact that most people lack the ethics to see beyond their own fat noses and support musicians. Even big name musicians don't neccessarily have much money, as was mentioned before. But the biggest problem is the record industry. If cds were affordable then a lot of people couldn't justify stealing (which, when you dl an album without owning it already, or going out and buying it, then in fairness file sharing is) the music.

I, as always, blame the world in general. But mostly you.

sci0x

I respect the bands i d/l music off of and when i download a bands tracks i'll probably still go off and buy the album as well. Its not quite the same d/l songs and putting them on a CD. I rather buying the CD in a shop.

Lukin Black

Originally posted by sci0x
I respect the bands i d/l music off of and when i download a bands tracks i'll probably still go off and buy the album as well. Its not quite the same d/l songs and putting them on a CD. I rather buying the CD in a shop.

Same here, though in an online shop!

John R

Originally posted by sci0x
Well if ye are feeling guilty about downloading music without paying for it there are plenty of sites setup where you can download the music at a very good price!

In Windows Media Player 9 in the Premium Services they have MusicNow where you can download songs for as little as Stg£0.75 however its not in Ireland yet.

That is not such a great price at all for a music download. On average that is about £9 (€13) for a full album, the cheapest online shops can deliver a CD to your door for a similar price or less. A download has much less value than a CD as well as the additional cost of the Internet connection necessary to download the songs.

jesus_thats_gre

I would just like to point out that I personally would prefer to purchase music and whatever. I just cant afford to keep paying the rediculous charges the record company are charging. I shouldn't use this as an excuse to use file sharing I know.

sci0x

Originally posted by John R
That is not such a great price at all for a music download. On average that is about £9 (€13) for a full album, the cheapest online shops can deliver a CD to your door for a similar price or less. A download has much less value than a CD as well as the additional cost of the Internet connection necessary to download the songs.

Well actually they have albums for Stg£7.99. But still that is pretty bad.

mr_angry

I notice Universal are slashing album prices in America, but not here. More info below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3079854.stm

Spacedog

How many gigs would every popular album made in the last 70 years, encoded into mp3s and put into an archive file? with 360GB hard disks out now and development of hard disk and braudband technology continuing, how long will it be before we can download and share 1 huge file containing every record studio's back catelouge! They smell the changes comming, they're right to be afraid. where is it written in stone that music industry stuffed shirts should earn more than the man(or woman) who scrubbs the toilets for a living? Music can't exist without people to listen to it! I think we should be paid listening royalties! can I get an amen to tha'?

fisty

Has any private resident been prosecuted for this stuff yet?

raphaelS

If you feel guilty about downloading MP3:

You can try to call RIAA:
http://www.zug.com/gab/index.cgi?func=view_thread&sort=active&head=1&thread_id=33342&mailid=20030901

Or the records comapnies:
http://www.zug.com/gab/index.cgi?func=view_thread&sort=active&head=1&thread_id=33571

And try to pay for the MP3 you downloaded...

Raphael

sceptre

Originally posted by AngelWhore
I dont really think that the company itself would work out with the highest percentage of the profits.

They do. Donald Passman includes all the figures for absolutely everything in his book. It's a cracking read - should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in starting a band. Passman may be a lawyer but the book's written very simply so that anyone can read it and understand it. I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in how the music industry works. It's great as a reference book for anyone starting their own band or getting a contract but it's also amazingly readable as a general read.

sceptre

Wired article from today that may be of interest. The RIAA are offering an amnesty to anyone who admits they've been file-sharing, destroys their mp3s, signs a piece of paper admiting they know of the legal implications so they can definitely be sued and pops their soul in the post. Excerpt:

The music industry plans to offer what it calls a "general amnesty" to file traders who step forth and promise not to do it again, but experts say few will take the bait.

In addition, the Recording Industry Association of America intends to file its first wave of lawsuits against file traders next week.

The offer, first reported by Billboard Bulletin, would require people to sign a notarized form promising to delete illegally downloaded files from their computer, submit a copy of a photo identification and pledge to stop the infringing behavior. In return, the RIAA would agree to not sue them.

Those who violate the agreement would be charged with willful copyright infringement.

Very dangerous thing to sign in my opinion but I suppose some will take the bait.

sci0x

Check out CNN.
261 music file swappers sued; amnesty program unveiled.