A Philosophical Perspective on the Music Industry Controversy

FionnMatthew

Digital Rights Management. Use of the strongest possible sense of the term "Intellectual Property". Lawsuits. Government lobbying. Self-righteous propaganda.

Are there any adequate defences for the measures the music industry is taking to defend itself against its own obsolescence?

herbieflowers

Care to elaboarate slightly?

simu

Moved

FionnMatthew

Moved where? (I can't find it.)

And why?

simu (in the Philosophy Board charter) wrote:

Remember that there are also politics, religion, humanities and science boards and consider whether these would be more appropriate for the topic you're posting about.

I intended this argument to draw specifically on philosophical argument. What I asked for - an ethical defence of the music industry's actions, is a specifically philosophical perpective. I wanted to open this debate to a philosophical analysis, because there is a dearth of philosophical perspective on it. All we ever get is economic and legal hyperbole and the banal whinings of a dispossessed and inarticulate music fandom.

Proper argument on the subject is never addressed by the industry. It's not even countenanced properly in the media. I haven't heard a philosophically valid defence of their actions by industry representatives - only an economically valid one. I think there's enough philosophy in this topic to justify its thread not being moved.

You didn't move the "Postmodernism" thread to the Humanities board. Or the "Does God exist? the definitive answer" thread to the Religion board.

I specifically don't want this this conversation to continue outside of a philosophical context, and if you insist on it not being included on the Philosophy board, I would prefer you deleted it, because I don't want to have started another banal food-fight along the same lines as those found on the Winamp forums.

Please move it back.

(But I do propose a change in the name of the thread to "A Philosophical Perspective on the Music Industry Controversy")

lostexpectation

FionnMatthew wrote:

Moved where? (I can't find it.)

And why?



I intended this argument to draw specifically on philosophical argument. What I asked for - an ethical defence of the music industry's actions, is a specifically philosophical perpective. I wanted to open this debate to a philosophical analysis, because there is a dearth of philosophical perspective on it. All we ever get is economic and legal hyperbole and the banal whinings of a dispossessed and inarticulate music fandom.

You obviously don't frequent the rights website or blogs to get extremely articulate writings which cover all areas of the subject, they are all over the, and you have sorely missed out on it. Look harder and for your homework come back with some recent examples.

FionnMatthew

lostexpectation wrote:

You obviously don't frequent the rights website or blogs to get extremely articulate writings which cover all areas of the subject, they are all over the, and you have sorely missed out on it. Look harder and for your homework come back with some recent examples.

If you would care to furnish us with some links (rather than signposts so general that they don't even lend themselves well to Google) then we mightn't have to wade through a vast amount of nonsense. Every time I read or hear something on the subject, it is economic and legal hyperbole or the banal whinings of a dispossessed and inarticulate music fandom.

I don't frequent the "rights websites" or "blogs", becuase I don't know where they are. Feeding either "rights websites" or "blogs" into Google will not bring me any closer to the material I want. I started this discussion to bypass all this searching, and draw on the pooled linkage and interests of a larger number of people than just myself.

That I haven't spent days of my time sifting the nonsense for what I was looking for doesn't invalidate the purpose of this thread. And that there is, hidden away somewhere, a perfectly articulate argument already existent, does not consign everyone here to silence.

If you have read something elsewhere, then you have something to bring to this discussion.

Your homework : post a link or two.

Dades

FionnMatthew wrote:

I haven't heard a philosophically valid defence of their actions by industry representatives - only an economically valid one.

Just what is a "philosophically valid defence"? The connection between business practice and philosophy is not clear to me.

FionnMatthew

The Atheist wrote:

Just what is a "philosophically valid defence"? The connection between business practice and philosophy is not clear to me.

All practise yields itself to a philosophical analysis. Every science, or system of practise has behind it a philosophy - meaning that certain judgements have been made, certain conclusions reached and certain ways of behaving deemed correct, according to those judgement.

The actions of the music industry are perhaps (although I doubt it) defensible in terms of business ethics. But these actions throw light on the broader assumptions underlying business ethics. I wonder if a broader ethical context for the controversy would not clarify the subject bit more.

MiCr0

and moved again

FionnMatthew

Thanks!

I'll probably post a more cogent argument here in the next few days. So there'll be somethiing more substantial to talk about.

Parsley

Why are you giving fionn matthew so much guff, assholes? Every action or set of actions may be discussed ethically and therefore is a legitimate topic for debate on a philosophy board.

simu

Parsley wrote:

Why are you giving fionn matthew so much guff, assholes? Every action or set of actions may be discussed ethically and therefore is a legitimate topic for debate on a philosophy board.

Why are you being abusive there? You'll get banned if you do it again.

-simu (forum mod)

Now back on topic!

Spectator#1

simu wrote:

Why are you being abusive there? You'll get banned if you do it again.

-simu (forum mod)

Now back on topic!

You were monumentally off topic by moving this thread in the first place, you cast the first stone, now you're throwing them at that poor guy who is annoyed at all the people you started off throwing stones at FionnMatthew! *Throws stone at simu*.

The Atheist wrote:

Just what is a "philosophically valid defence"? The connection between business practice and philosophy is not clear to me.

What do you mean there? Are you saying that business practices justify themselves as business practices and should not have to answer to any sort of ethical framework because "that's just the way it is"?

1. Individual human beings are considered, for the most part, responsible for their actions. They are obligated by law, by normative standards and - for the most part - by ethical common sense to behave in a responsible way towards each other.
2. 'Business' is a human activity, it is part of that greater set of 'things that people do', along with philosophy.
3. Business, as a human activity, has the same responsibility to ethical practice as individual human beings.

Justifying unethical or unreasonable business practice from within a business paradigm, ie. saying that anything goes in order to make money, is ignoring the fact that 'business' is just the activity of a lot of people. Hiding behind that big impersonal term is a justification for despicable practice all over the world.
For example the Sma campaign in third world African countries where mothers were told that breast-feeding was dangerous so they would buy powdered milk and mix it with water that was infected with cholera.
This argument however, is for another topic. FionnMatthew, please enlighten us with your thoughts on the music industry!

lostexpectation

FionnMatthew wrote:

All practise yields itself to a philosophical analysis. Every science, or system of practise has behind it a philosophy - meaning that certain judgements have been made, certain conclusions reached and certain ways of behaving deemed correct, according to those judgement.

The actions of the music industry are perhaps (although I doubt it) defensible in terms of business ethics. But these actions throw light on the broader assumptions underlying business ethics. I wonder if a broader ethical context for the controversy would not clarify the subject bit more.

No the 'business' reasons have been shown up to be nonsense, I think the most obvious stuff is the way politicians are just doing what they are told by the the companies, and have no clue what they are saying, I guess that where the ethics comes into it. The reasons for not doing it is the logic.

FionnMatthew

lostexpectation wrote:

No the 'business' reasons have been shown up to be nonsense, I think the most obvious stuff is the way politicians are just doing what they are told by the the companies, and have no clue what they are saying, I guess that where the ethics comes into it. The reasons for not doing it is the logic.

Once again, you refer to judgements and decisions that have been made outside of this thread, without referencing them so that we can follow them up ourselves. If "the 'business' reasons have been shown up to be nonsense", let's examine them here and make our own assessments - and avoid accepting the alleged conclusions of others elsewhere, especially if we don't know who they are. Cite your sources.

Of politicians doing what their told:
Yes, that's part of it. I think there is a civic issue here. Politicians accept that the Industry line is the 'right' one, and legislate accordingly. But there are a great many people opposed to this move - they are legislating against a huge number of people.

Let's ignore for a moment the moral analysis of the measures that are being taken to prevent downloading. Let's just look at the question of the act itself.

Take the example of the anti-piracy ad.

"You wouldn't steal a car".

Let us take two senses of the word "theft".
A) The legal sense. In the legal sense, this analogy is justified, since, the industry having pressured governments into legislature, it is now illegal to download music.
The moral sense. The moral sense, in this case, is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on which the legislature is supposedly based. If we can demonstrate that it's not morally wrong to download music, it follows that it should not be legally wrong to do so, and that the governments were wrong to legislate in favour of the industry.

I think that in the moral sense, the ant-piracy ad commits the fallacy of false analogy. Stealing a car is quite different to internet "theft". In fact, the ploy of the ad in enacting the analogy reveals the fact of intrinsic difference between the two acts, since there would be no need to equate internet "piracy" with material theft if they were obviously the same kinds of activity.

If I steal a car, someone loses a car.
If I download a song, nobody else loses a song.

Music oligarchs characterise downloading, ie. copyright infringement, as theft because they extrapolate from your act to the loss of your potential business.

They say: "If you download the album, you won't buy the album".

Accepting for a minute that loss of potential purchase due to downloading is theft, there is no necessary connection between downloading and potential purchase. Let us say I have just downloaded an album.

1) I might be an actual buyer. I might still buy the album.
2) I might not be a potential buyer. I might not have bought the album in the first place. I might not be the kind of person who likes to take chances. The kind of music I download isn't necessarily the kind of music I would buy.

Not everyone who downloads the album is a lost potential buyer.
Hence, it is not correct to characterise all acts of music downloading as theft in a moral sense. Since there is no way of discerning who is or who is not a potential buyer, and since, in cases where a non-potential buyer downloads music nobody loses out, it is heavy-handed to legislate against downloading, since not ALL acts of downloading constitute theft in a moral sense.

But let us say that I was going to buy the album, and that now that I have downloaded it, and although I like it, I will not buy it. Let us say I was a potential buyer, and now I will never be an actual buyer.

Is this morally wrong either? Can you morally endorse a legal provision that states that loss of potential sales is theft?

Potential sales are not actual sales. Aristotle shows us that nothing can be potential and actual at the same time in the same sense. Potential sales are largely imaginary, and until something potential becomes actual, we cannot prove that it was ever potential. Is loss of potential sales valid moral ground for legal provision?

Not all cases of potential sales lead to actual sales. Downloading isn't the only cause for loss of potential sales. I might hear the songs on the radio and decide not to buy them. I might spend all my money on something else. I might just lose interest in music altogether. Are these actions morally suspect?

I propose that the industry assertion that "dowloading is theft" doesn't carry the same moral weight as, say, the condemnation of automobile theft. Hence, music downloading is only theft in legal terms and this only because of industry pressure on governments. I move that the moral basis for anti-piracy legislation is immoral, and that our government has acted wrongly and without our consent.


The need for commerce and trade originated in the fact of scarcity. Things are only ever sold if there is a need for them, ie. if there is a comparitive scarcity of them, so that there are not enough to go around. People have always had breathing-air, and so breathing-air is not typically sold. On a moonbase air would be in demand, and so someone would have to pay for it's being moved from earth to the moonbase, or for it's manufacture from chemicals found on the moon (if this were to turn out to be possible), and so there would be sufficient grounds for commerce.

Scarcity means potential sales.

Music used to be in demand - because of a relative scarcity of recorded media units. In order to hear something, you had to buy it. There was scarcity, and so there were potential sales and so the people who made the units had a market.

We now live in a world of post-scarcity with regard to music. We don't physically need to buy music to hear it. There is actually no necessary market for recorded music. But the industry relies on the recorded music market, and in order not just to protect its interests but its very existence, it must maintain the market.

It does this by trying to create scarcity. The industry pressures governments to make it illegal for you to obtain music, an act against which there is no physical or moral forbiddance. And then they charge you for something they've deprived you of. They take with one hand and sell with the other.

This is what I'm talking about when I talk of a broader philosophical context outside the catchment of business ethics.

But it's only a legal deterrent. And we are the constituents of our own nation, and, as a body, have power over the laws of our country, if only we choose to recognise and exercise it.

Playboy

I wonder if you could argue libertarian self ownership and Nozick's Entitlement theory here.

Nozick's Entitlement Theory is comprised of 3 main principles:

1. A principle of transfer - whatever is justly acquired may be freely transferred. [You are free to transfer your poperty (music) to whomever you decide in whatever manner you decide and anyone who takes (downloads) your property without permission is violating your rights of self ownership which is fundamental to the libertarian concept of Justice]


2. A principle of just initial acquisition - an account of how people first come to own common property. [Music would be considered justly acquired since it is the product of your own talents and labour - see below (a) to (e)]


3. A principle of rectification of injustice - how to deal with holdings if unjustly acquired or transferred. [In this case the Record Companies suing people who illegally upload/download music]


(a) People are entitled to their natural assets.

(b) If people are entitled to something, they are entitled to whatever flows from it (via specified types of processes).

(c) People's holdings flow from their natural assets.

Therefore,

(d) People are entitled to their holdings.

(e) If people are entitled to something, then they ought to have it (and this overrides any presumption of equality there may be about holdings)



Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are full self-owners just in case they own themselves in just the same way that they can fully own inanimate objects. This full private ownership of a person or thing includes

(1) full control rights over (to grant or deny permission for) the use of the person or thing,

(2) a full immunity to the non-consensual loss of any of the rights of ownership as long as one does not violate the rights of others,

(3) full power to transfer all these rights to others (by sale, rental, gift, or loan),

(4) a full right to compensation if someone violates any of these rights.


I'm not of a libertarian persuasion myself but I'm sure a defence of most property and transfer rights would come from that philosophy.

FionnMatthew

Playboy wrote:

(a) People are entitled to their natural assets.

(b) If people are entitled to something, they are entitled to whatever flows from it (via specified types of processes).

(c) People's holdings flow from their natural assets.

Therefore,

(d) People are entitled to their holdings.

(e) If people are entitled to something, then they ought to have it (and this overrides any presumption of equality there may be about holdings)

OK. Good stuff. This brings in the question of intellectual ownership, which I'd like to keep seperate from the question of the moral rectitude of Industry position. I'll probably deal specifically with Intellectual Ownership later on, but the two are connected, so I'll respond here.

I don't believe Nozick's theory holds up in all cases. It describes well HOW we do business, when such is warranted - how we decide the rules of conduct and ownership etc. But it needs to be asked WHY such situations arise. WHY business? My argument from Scarcity raises a valid objection to Nozick, by objecting to:
"(c) People's holdings flow from their natural assets."

Ownership of music, (which is insubstantial) is not the same as ownership of material goods. Music, previously, had to be imprinted onto material goods, the production and distribution of which required an industry. The very fact of the media through which music had to travel gave rise to its scarcity, and necessitated a middle-man between those people from whose natural assets the music came, and those people who wanted it. Certain groups of people, then, had a monopoly on the means of distribution of recorded music.

The data age has liberated insubstantial goods from the substantial media that was its prison. This means that there is no material scarcity of music - it no longer relies on the material end of things at all. The monopoly has been broken on the means of distribution of immaterial goods. This, the data age, therefore has implications on ALL forms of intellectual ownership.

People's holdings, in this case, no longer flow from their natural assets.

We might say that it has never been the case that all potential holdings which might flow from people's natural assets have been actualised. It is only where a market which can be carefully and efficiently run, and where the supply of holdings flowing from personal assets is in demand, is in some way finite, that any market is actually run.

For instance, let's give an example of an unsustainable marke. Let us say:
My personal appearance is the product of my natural assets. To some, or to a greater majority, my personal appearance might be considered preferable to the personal appearance of others. Since my appearance is preferable, it is conceivable that there would be a market for it. But the market is uncontrollable, because there is no physical limit on the fact that people can just look at me. Therefore there is no scarcity on my personal appearance, and holdings will not flow from it.

It is far more conceivable that a controllable market can be sustained on the basis of material goods - where the surplus for one holder is the deficit for the other, than for insubstantial goods, where duplication allows shortages to be eradicated. The market for music without scarcity is unsustainable. Granted, this has dire implications for the notion of Intellectual Property, but my point is that intellectual property is a notion bound to an obsolete model, where insubstantial goods were bound to material products. The landscape has changed, and yet the industry, which is the prime loser in all of this, is trying to convince us that it has not.

This situation does not necessarily spell death to the artists. All it necessitates is a change of approach. Nozick's model still applies to material property, but we must abandon notions whereby notions of property apply to insubstantial things.

For those from whose natural assets art comes, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are changes. For one thing, the need for a middle man is eradicated. Secondly, the tendency to look at acquisition of insubstantial goods as a transaction must end. And yet there still remain ways for such people to live off their talents. Internet-patronage and investment-directed altruistism are an interesting avenue of development. And live music remains a non-duplicable experience, etc.

The landscape has changed; the way we navigate it must change too.

noh showband

Man writes a choon. Man plays choon. Record company pays man to perform that choon in the studio. Man is happy. Record company sells the recording to individuals, one at a time on a silver disk, with the agreement that the purchaser doesn't go off and sell it to somebody else for more than he paid for it. Purchaser makes an MP3 copy and carries it around on his iPod.

(FionnMatthew has probably long-since stopped reading by now, so it's just you and me from here on down.)

Another purchaser puts it on his website and charges tuppence a download. Purchaser now becomes an unauthorised vendor and gets rich.

Man is sad. His choon is at Number One but his record company has only sent him a cheque for two CD sales and a handful of authorised downloads (don't ask me how he got to Number One, it's obvious - you only need to sell a handful of records these days, anyway).

People are happy. They have access to a nice choon forever and it only cost them tuppence each. World Happiness Up; Man's personal happiness down; Record Company's happiness, pretty much where it was, they're a miserable shower, anyway. The needs of the many have outweighed the needs of the few, Spock.

Conclusion: Downloading good.

Was that a philosophical argument or was that a philosophical argument?

FionnMatthew

noh showband wrote:

(FionnMatthew has probably long-since stopped reading by now, so it's just you and me from here on down.)

Not really sure why you said this. I'm still reading.

Another purchaser puts it on his website and charges tuppence a download. Purchaser now becomes an unauthorised vendor and gets rich.

What purchaser does this?

iTunes and other such internet vendors are explicitly authorised - otherwise they wouldn't be run by corporate businesses. Music corporations make money from internet vendors. To download from Napster/iTunes etc is to legally acquire music.

Unauthorised distribution of music is mainly through file-sharing networks. File-sharing is free - you don't have to pay for it, but it's also illegal.

Unauthorised vendors of music on the internet would surely be unprofitable. Why would anyone buy music illegally? If they were prepared to break the law, why would they not just download it for free?

Man is sad. His choon is at Number One but his record company has only sent him a cheque for two CD sales and a handful of authorised downloads (don't ask me how he got to Number One, it's obvious - you only need to sell a handful of records these days, anyway).

Man is typically sad anyway - regardless of the internet situation. It's only the few very successful artists that make big money (for themselves). Check out this article by Steve Albini on the subject.

People are happy. They have access to a nice choon forever and it only cost them tuppence each. World Happiness Up; Man's personal happiness down; Record Company's happiness, pretty much where it was, they're a miserable shower, anyway. The needs of the many have outweighed the needs of the few, Spock.

Conclusion: Downloading good.

I'm not sure a utilitarian analysis of the situation is enough. You've left out an awful lot of what I consider the important parts. It's not a foregone conclusion that downloading is good, because time and money invested by the industry in propoganda has been convincing people that downloading is an immoral activity.
This works in contravention of the utilitarian theory you've offered. Even if downloading would provide most people with happiness, they won't do it if most of them consider it morally wrong.

And there is a corollary to this. If it is widely perceived that something is morally wrong, it will be made legally wrong. And this has been happening. Whole governments are toppling under (on close inspection, weak) argumentative and (strong) monetary pressure from the industry to legislate in favour of the music industry.

And people are even less likely to download if it's against the law, because they'll be afraid of the penalty. Your argument does not acknowledge that it is irrelevant to the industry whether or not a great many people are happy about downloading. They'll still take steps to prevent it happening. And they are claiming a moral right to do this. And I'm saying that they don't have that moral right.

Record company pays man to perform that choon in the studio. Man is happy. Record company sells the recording to individuals, one at a time on a silver disk, with the agreement that the purchaser doesn't go off and sell it to somebody else for more than he paid for it.

And I am saying this is unnecessary. What I am proposing is no less than the complete obsolescence of the record company. It is no longer completely necessary for the distribution (or recording) of music. New ways can be devised to provide that artists receive renumeration for their efforts (probably with a more stringent emphasis on their merit than at present).

Was that a philosophical argument or was that a philosophical argument?

Appreciably, it was an argument. But it's not an argument for or against the actions of the music industry. You've explicitly allowed the industry to endure in your model, and you haven't provided for the fact that the industry will make moves to protect itself, or the fact that all they have to do is to convince everyone that downloading is morally wrong, even if its not. The landscape is a little more complex than is dealt with by a straightforward utilitarian perspective.

noh showband

FionnMatthew wrote:

Not really sure why you said this. I'm still reading.

And you deserve credit for not not being put off too quickly by the simplistic nature of my argument.

"What purchaser does this?" you ask. Any purchaser, I suggest.

"iTunes and other such internet vendors are explicitly authorised"

(Sorry, haven't figured out the wee gray box thingy.) This is true. Others, as I understand it, are not so legally bound. I might be wrong, but I tthought it was like an internet version of burning a CD for your mates or something. Anyway, I don't think it disrupts the jist of my proposition too seriously.


"Unauthorised vendors of music on the internet would surely be unprofitable. Why would anyone buy music illegally?"

Why do we get spam? Isn't there a pay-per-hit system out there? Dowmnloading might, for example, activate a pop-up ad for which the site's admin receives a payment. The downloader might know nothing of this. But this is only one form of unofficial/unauthorised site. There are music sites where sometimes quite detailed MIDI sequences of tunes are freely available, nothing whatever to do with the original artist, but downloaded nonetheless for karaoke and the like. They aren't any substitute for the original, of course, but within the letter of the law, they might be considered illegal.


"Man is typically sad anyway - regardless of the internet situation."

Sometimes because of it, often because of IT.


"It's only the few very successful artists that make big money (for themselves)"

A longer discussion, perhaps, for another day, something along the lines of "why does success so rarely seem predicated on talent?"


"I'm not sure a utilitarian analysis of the situation is enough."

Be sure. It isn't.


You've left out an awful lot of what I consider the important parts. It's not a foregone conclusion that downloading is good, because time and money invested by the industry in propoganda has been convincing people that downloading is an immoral activity.
This works in contravention of the utilitarian theory you've offered. Even if downloading would provide most people with happiness, they won't do it if most of them consider it morally wrong.

The industry asks us to believe they are the only conduit through which we should be permitted to enjoy their entertainment. This is true. Society has allowed it to be true. Society, if I may be utilitarian again for a moment, doesn't have to leave it that way. The company may argue that it is protecting the artist. Society might argue back, "From what?"


"Your argument does not acknowledge that it is irrelevant to the industry whether or not a great many people are happy about downloading."

I think it's in the subtext of the "they're a miserable shower, anyway" line.


"They'll still take steps to prevent it happening. And they are claiming a moral right to do this. And I'm saying that they don't have that moral right."

Correct.


"And I am saying this is unnecessary. What I am proposing is no less than the complete obsolescence of the record company."

Fantastic. Fantasy.


"It is no longer completely necessary for the distribution (or recording) of music. New ways can be devised to provide that artists receive renumeration for their efforts (probably with a more stringent emphasis on their merit than at present)."

Or live gigs. Or personal websites and up-front download fees.


"Appreciably, it was an argument. But it's not an argument for or against the actions of the music industry."

I fear it was merely a summary of the state of play. Sanction me forthwith. Section me shortly thereafter.

You've explicitly allowed the industry to endure in your model, and you haven't provided for the fact that the industry will make moves to protect itself, or the fact that all they have to do is to convince everyone that downloading is morally wrong, even if its not. The landscape is a little more complex than is dealt with by a straightforward utilitarian perspective.

The record invests hugely in the launching of an act. It's all hype and mirrors, of course, but the artist can survive for almost three years (the lucky ones) on the results. I am personally doubtful that the bulk of the return is derived from record sales as so much of the other merchandising is probably considerably more profitable, but there's a number somewhere with a percent symbol after it that represents the artist's income and it is a proportion of that number that is being affected by piracy. I believe it might be a little naive to hanker for a time when the generic record company becomes obsolete. Its form may change and adapt, but it is an essential part of the recording process. Domestic studios are not a substitute. Your mate with the DAT recorder and headphones cannot replace an experienced producer/engineer combo. Somebody's dad who works in the photo-copying shop can't get enough freebies to print all the posters and literature you'd need. PhotoShop is only as good as its operator and so on and so forth.

I know I appear to be towing the party line (which I assume comes from something to do with barges, but if it's some sporting activity then it should probably be 'toeing'), and party-line towing (or even toeing) is not something I'm often prone to do, but the best record companies do wonders for their artists and perhaps what we should be aspiring to is the record company that embraces the technology and absorbs its potential for the wider distribution and appreciation of music.

I think it stopped being philosophical there for a moment, but I got it back on track right at the end, didn't I?

(pleasedon'tmovethethreadagainpleasedon'tmovethethreadaga
inpleasedon'tmovethethreadagainpleasedon'tmovethethreadaga
inpleasedon'tmovethethreadagain....)

FionnMatthew

noh showband wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

I'm not sure a utilitarian analysis of the situation is enough.

Be sure. It isn't.

I believe it's a wiser course of action not to be sure about anything until I believe I can demonstrate it. I am not persuaded to ammend this belief. In saying "I'm not sure.." here, I left open the possibility that you had a utilitarian take I wasn't aware of that was quite adequate to the situation.
I take it now that this is not the case.


I don't mean to be rude, but you're putting across quite a confused message, and, in the process, rather missing the point. On the one hand, you're arguing for an idealistic approach - an "it doesn't have to be this way" argument. You do this here:

noh showband wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

You've left out an awful lot of what I consider the important parts. It's not a foregone conclusion that downloading is good, because time and money invested by the industry in propoganda has been convincing people that downloading is an immoral activity.
This works in contravention of the utilitarian theory you've offered. Even if downloading would provide most people with happiness, they won't do it if most of them consider it morally wrong.

The industry asks us to believe they are the only conduit through which we should be permitted to enjoy their entertainment. This is true. Society has allowed it to be true. Society, if I may be utilitarian again for a moment, doesn't have to leave it that way. The company may argue that it is protecting the artist. Society might argue back, "From what?"

Here you encourage us to imagine a society enlightened as to their moral inculpability in the act of downloading music, rather than a society which, as ours, by apathy and ignorance, has allowed themselves to be duped into continuing to pay for something that should now be free.

Since this is mostly what I aim for in trying to defeat the music industry claim that downloading music is morally wrong, and in doing so, to undermine the moral bases for legal provisions against the free traffic of music on the internet, I don't believe it is necessary to persuade me that "it doesn't have to be this way".

Where I think you miss the point is that there needs to be strong argumentative basis for the fact that it doesn't have to be this way.
I've certainly noticed a trend among casual users of music technology that indicates that the industry propoganda is working. Not only do people avoid downloading music because it is unlawful, but because they believe it is morally wrong. They believe they are doing something bad. This is becoming something of a received opinion - accepted, unquestioned. I know people who feel guilty about downloading music for free. By affecting the core moral beliefs of the public, the industry is installing an ad-hoc morality that operates purely towards its own benefit.

How is such a society to respond to the music industry in the manner you described? If they don't know there's nothing wrong with downloading, how will they be able to ask "From what?" as you described? There needs to be a counter-argument to the (non)argument coming from the industry, a concise, rational refutation of the industry claims - this is how such an enlightened society could come about.

And so when you use the "it doesn't have to be this way" argument, you're using an idealistic argument - but you're falling short of providing a way by which people might be convinced of such idealism.

Anyway, if we are to take that part of your argument seriously, you advocate an idealism, a "possible world", argument, with no uncertain suggestion that things should be as you describe them.

But later on you criticise that very strand in my thought:

noh showband wrote:

FionnMatthew wrote:

And I am saying this is unnecessary. What I am proposing is no less than the complete obsolescence of the record company.

Fantastic. Fantasy.

Which is to invoke the age-old anti-philosophical dogma of "It'd be great, but it's never going to happen". This kind of apathetic pseudo-realism is anathema to your earlier "it doesn't have to be this way" argument. It's a position synonymous with that which uses "idealism" as a derogotary term.

Nigh on nothing invented at the hand of humankind was not an idea before it was an actuality. I understand "fantasy" in the exclusive sense - the fantasy is impossible - the fantasy is only conceivable. The model I have suggested is conceivably possible, and, to a large extent, subliminally actual. The industry is already obsolete. It is only be virtue of a successful death-throe that it has hung on for so long. For as long as the people at large remain behind the veil of ignorance, the obsolescence of the industry will be a secret, and no questions such as that one you suggested will be asked.

The crowd at large must decide, as must you yourself, between that mindset engendering potential change, and that mindset that is anathema to all change.

noh showband wrote:

Or live gigs. Or personal websites and up-front download fees.

You will note that, as to the second example, my model invalidates even such things as download fees. Insubstantial goods cannot be bartered. It's a case of a gift-based economy, not a barter-based one. As to the first example, I have already suggested that this would remain one of the cornerstones of artist income, although this too would have to be acclimatised to the new model. Did you read that part of the thread? I reproduce it here:

FionnMatthew wrote:

Internet-patronage and investment-directed altruistism are an interesting avenue of development. And live music remains a non-duplicable experience, etc.

Moving on.

noh showband wrote:

The record invests hugely in the launching of an act. It's all hype and mirrors, of course, but the artist can survive for almost three years (the lucky ones) on the results. I am personally doubtful that the bulk of the return is derived from record sales as so much of the other merchandising is probably considerably more profitable, but there's a number somewhere with a percent symbol after it that represents the artist's income and it is a proportion of that number that is being affected by piracy.

A really nice analysis of the figures is given in the Steve Albini article I mentioned. Here's another interesting tally, in this article written by Janis Ian. What emerges is that the artist is not the issue, or even the primary concern of the various industry figures. The artist is merely the vehicle by which a lot of fat-cats get even fatter. Here's a quote from Albini's article. (I recommend reading the whole article, not just the quote)

Albini wrote:

Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25

Any artist who "survives" on that kind of income for three years, while other people are making that kind of money out of the fact of their existence, is not lucky in my estimation. And yes, the artist's wallet is affected by piracy, but here we get a better idea of who the real pirates are.

noh showband wrote:

I believe it might be a little naive to hanker for a time when the generic record company becomes obsolete.

That's because you're not imagining a radical enough change, a change made possible by the onset of the digital age.

noh showband wrote:

Its form may change and adapt, but it is an essential part of the recording process.

A recording process no longer necessary in its current form. For instance: There may be a move away from the "definitive take" approach to recorded music.

noh showband wrote:

Domestic studios are not a substitute. Your mate with the DAT recorder and headphones cannot replace an experienced producer/engineer combo.

And yet the "bedroom studio" is becoming more established in a world tiring of slick and polish and global stardom, and yet another Rick Rubin, Dave Friedmann or Flood record. And why shouldn't such engineers be employed - by the artist. Does the work a producer do on a record really justify the amound of money he/she charges? I'm not diminishing the input of a producer. I'm asking does anyone's job justify that kind of income? Why can not the artist train in these skills? They are as much a part of making the music as "being inspired". Why cannot the artist devote the time to this that is presently devoted to media whoring, contrived photo-shoots and bogus interview posturing?

noh showband wrote:

the best record companies do wonders for their artists and perhaps what we should be aspiring to is the record company that embraces the technology and absorbs its potential for the wider distribution and appreciation of music.

This is a distinct possibility, but I propose that such a company would be a very much neutered form of what we have now. A record company that does what it is told, which does not "own" the voices of its artists and which does not pursue what so resembles a hate campaign against its artists as that ethos represented in Albini's figures.

noh showband wrote:

I think it stopped being philosophical there for a moment, but I got it back on track right at the end, didn't I?
(pleasedon'tmovethethreadagainpleasedon'tmovethethreadaga
inpleasedon'tmovethethreadagainpleasedon'tmovethethreadaga
inpleasedon'tmovethethreadagain....)

I don't understand why you wrote this. Do you intend to parody me, and thereby imply that this thread does not justify its own place in the philosophy forum?

Catsmokinpot

i dont think anyone can really own a piece of music, this is just going on rock music which uses the pentatonic scale mostly, theres only so much you can do with the pentatonic scale, and more rock songs have come out than scales so its impossible to make a piece of rock music with a completely 100% unique piece of music which belongs to you... and therefore cannot be your intellectual property. so if your not using something thats your intellectual property in making a song, then how can you say the song is yours? all music is sampled nowadays.


i personally feel that if you like a band and you want to show your appreciation go and see them live in concert. and thats all you have to do, and pay to see it dont sneak in for free, as for a cd, musicians make too much money these days, as do footballers, and other famous people that get much more than they need, i think the southpark episode on this subject sums up how i feel about the music industry at the moment

Spectator#1

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i dont think anyone can really own a piece of music, this is just going on rock music which uses the pentatonic scale mostly, theres only so much you can do with the pentatonic scale, and more rock songs have come out than scales so its impossible to make a piece of rock music with a completely 100% unique piece of music which belongs to you... and therefore cannot be your intellectual property. so if your not using something thats your intellectual property in making a song, then how can you say the song is yours? all music is sampled nowadays.


i personally feel that if you like a band and you want to show your appreciation go and see them live in concert. and thats all you have to do, and pay to see it dont sneak in for free, as for a cd, musicians make too much money these days, as do footballers, and other famous people that get much more than they need, i think the southpark episode on this subject sums up how i feel about the music industry at the moment

This: " . " is a full stop. Here is a link to direct you towards correct usage of it and others like it: FULL STOP. One recipe I suggest is mixing them with a nice assortment of CAPITAL LETTERS.
You clearly haven't read any of the posts on this thread or any of the links provided. If you're going to join in the discussion I suggest you try and actually understand what's going on.

FionnMatthew

Catsmokinpot wrote:

musicians make too much money these days, as do footballers, and other famous people that get much more than they need

That's erroneous. Read the Albini article or the Ian article. It's by far the very few musicians who make any proper living out of their skill at all. It's the invisible people who make the money.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i dont think anyone can really own a piece of music, this is just going on rock music which uses the pentatonic scale mostly, theres only so much you can do with the pentatonic scale, and more rock songs have come out than scales so its impossible to make a piece of rock music with a completely 100% unique piece of music which belongs to you... and therefore cannot be your intellectual property. so if your not using something thats your intellectual property in making a song, then how can you say the song is yours? all music is sampled nowadays.

I wrote something like this a while back, on the TalkPhilosophy Forums at thevaselines.co.uk. That site was destroyed by a hacker, and everything lost, but I still have the piece. I'm posting it here, although I don't necessarily agree with it anymore, as a preliminary to my thoughts on intellectual property. It's a little more expanded than Catsmokinpot's piece, but I don't think it suffers for it.

FionnMatthew about 2 years ago on talkphilosophy.org, now reproduced here by courtesy of FionnMatthew wrote:

Plagiarism is unacceptable, but so is Intellectual Ownership in the first place.

The limits of musical diversity are imposed more by fashion and convention than anything else. 'Artists' choose to write compositions in Cmaj at 4/4 rock time to the formula AABA because that is what is conventional, accepted and, presumably, what sounds like everything else. Thus, to a certain extent, any new piece of music that is recognisable as 'music' is indebted to its predecessors and probably almost identical to one or two of them.

However the possible variations of musical components are nigh on infinite. The 12 note system we are familiar with is merely a series of incremental measurements of the frequency of the sound vibration, and is thoroughly human-imposed. Moving outside of this convention would increase the possible combinations of musical notes almost infinitely (although the music might initially sound completely alien).

The scale systems we use are conventional, and are predated by the modal groupings of notes, again conventional. We can move outside of these too. Rhythm, Song Structure and Instrumentation are other components of any muscial piece typically regulated by convention, and outside of which the possibilities are endless.

Even working within these conventions, combining all of these elements in different ways still gives us an infinite variety of possible musical results. This accounts for the diversity of conventional music.

Assuming that all possible combinations of these elements constitute music, (and I do assume this, having heard what constitutes music in certain cultures, and among certain groups of people), then all an artist can be said to be doing is arranging (albeit meticulously and skillfully) a number of initially arbitrary aspects of sound, which then (often in concert with language) take on special, human meaning to both the artist and her fans. This human-value factor is then exploited as a means of amassing status and money.

It seems absurd that anyone should want to 'own' the music they have made. The music is not even merely the audio information of a given recording, but a conceptual bubble loosely surrounding everything for which the artist believes she is responsible in arranging the music. But might we not similarly demand intellectual ownership of a meticulously and carefully arranged sequence of digits? And how meaningless would that be?

The ownership of music is as absurd a concept as that of the ownership of the idea, or Karl Venter's intended ownership of the human genome, or of the Parisian property owners who have prohibited photography of ancient monuments prior to a substantial payment, purporting to actually own the light that has bounced off their buildings. These people 'own' these things only because there is an advantage in owning it, and will continue to push their luck as long as we permit it.

Plagiarism is not admirable insofar as a person is passing off concepts/work/music as their own, in order to gain prestige or money. But in my estimation it is as reprehensible for the original author of a work/concept to proceed along the same lines, expecting monetary gain from an idea that supposedly 'belongs to her', because she 'came up with it first'. Why should temporal precendence bequeath any legitimacy upon one's ownership of an idea? Scientists do not create scientific truths; they discover them, which implies that the truths were there beforehand. Any piece of music could conceivably come about by accident, without human intervention, randomly. As a musician, all one does is elevate one particular, preferred possible combination of sounds over all of the other ones. There is no creation involved, no authorship. Anyone who attempts to pass such a work off as their own is guilty of plagiary. It simply does not 'belong' to anyone.

"What, then is the point of engaging in 'creative' activity?", might be the response. All quantitative qualification of such activities has been removed. The point is that "Artists" should only engage in such activities for their own puroposes, for the pleasures and rewards that engaging in these activities brings them alone. This should eliminate cynical, business driven forays into such activities, where there is no genuine 'artistic' sentiment, only commercial intentions. Music should once more become the preserve of those to whom it is an attraction in itself, of those for whom nothing else is quite so worthy a pursuit and whose needs are satisfied by merely playing music and by nothing beyond that; in other words: of musicians.

No artist, publishing company or individual can respectfully claim ownership, intellectual or otherwise, of ideas, music or information. When they do such an action is supposedly legitimated by a disgraceful, advantageous institution known as Copyright Law. All such claims should be disregarded as without proper argumentative foundation, and disobeyed at will, ( and yet mindful of the fact that state bodies foolishly tend towards enforcing such unjust measures). Download music, enjoy it, play with it, change/improve it as you see fit and then hand it on. Likewise with ideas. We must persist in the rightful(if unlawful) trafficking of information and ideas which rightfully belong to everyone and noone.

noh showband

FionnMatthew wrote:

I don't understand why you wrote this. Do you intend to parody me, and thereby imply that this thread does not justify its own place in the philosophy forum?

You're quite a serious and defensive person, really, aren't you? Do you assume I would be so cunningly clever as to construct such a convoluted implication as you suggest? Why ... [blush] ... thank you.

I see your point about a neutred record company and wonder if you aren't actually suggesting a record company but not as we know it and if so, perhaps the term needs replacing for the purposes of further discussion.

You're absolutely right about my woolley thinking, too. Within the space of a paragraph I can come up with an argument and contradict it. It's a flaw, it's a human flaw but (and in this I intend to parody you and imply that you are actually either a Vulcan or a robot) it's not an ideal world. However, while at once adhering to convention and reinforcing the need for many of the things a record company does for the artist, I can understand that from other perspectives the company is clearly out for itself. Of course, casual observation suggests that this is the way of all things altruistic. Even Bill Gates once had a fan following, but that was before he became a power mad dictator - or is that his schedule for next year?

Independents are certainly gaining a following. New music emerges from bedrooms and garages and soon this will not be just a fad, but a benefit. I don't think it is just yet. But I wonder how composers of ambition will decide to proceed once they realise no one is willing to foot the bill for an 80 piece orchestra (and besides, their mum won't let them use the dining room until their dad's finished the wallpapering).

Making a proper living is a goal all right for all artists, ideally through their art. But then a lot of people aspire to presidency or godhood and only a very few make it that far, too. For some of us, any kind of living is enough. For some of us, just to be acknowledged as skilled or recognised as talented would be worth a year's salary. However, contributions from fans would be welcomed and if a system were in place whereby I could pay John Barry directly for the pleasure his music has given me and the influence he has been on my ("serious") composition, I don't think I'd mind.

Okay, I'm being distracted by work. I'll come back to this later if I don't think I've exhausted my lucid contribution quotient.

And, hey, guys, take it easy on Catsmokinpot. Even if a guy can't properly. place a fool's top or spell rightly, it dont' mean he do'nt have er contributization to make.

Love and best wishes to one and all

simu

Aye folks, save the complaining about spelling for the spell czechs forum.

Catsmokinpot

Spectator#1 wrote:

This: " . " is a full stop. Here is a link to direct you towards correct usage of it and others like it: FULL STOP. One recipe I suggest is mixing them with a nice assortment of CAPITAL LETTERS.

"here is me caring about your opinion"
Oh wow! \o/ I don't care about punctuation!! ZOMG!! WTF!! and so fourth!!!! you've really cracked my opinion wide open there.

you don't have to make fun of someone's spelling/punctuation mistakes to devalue an argument, i just gave my opinion and then you are supposed give your opinion back, that's the way it works, now you look stupid, people don't have to punctuate properly in order to have an opinion.

Spectator#1 wrote:

You clearly haven't read any of the posts on this thread or any of the links provided. If you're going to join in the discussion I suggest you try and actually understand what's going on.

i have read it, i give the opinion that the music industry and musicians alike (the ones that are making all the money that is) are solely money driven individuals. now in the beginning musicians weren't just driven by money but by a love for music, but now with the advent of commercially pumped out garbage-pop, i can now see musicians driven by money and selling an image rather than musical/lyrical talent. now the things i refer to, are the recent copyright theft laws. these bands, musicians, producers etc. are making money even with the huge amount of copywriter theft. my point is, they aren't going to die, they are still making millions. copywriter isn't impeding their lifestyle or freedoms to do as they wish. these people are some of the most free on this earth, to go where they want and do what they want.

britney spears for instance, is fighting against copywriter theft, that's why i referred to the southpark episode about copywriter theft where britney gets a gulf stream 3 jet instead of a gulf stream 4, the poor crater!! :rolleyes:

not only that but they want to control what we already listen to: AOL time warner copywriter the song "happy birthday to you" and make stations pay out €10,000 just to play it on television. an innocent and supposedly joyous birthday song earns a corporation €10,000 every time its played.

i know you can't apply that same philosophy to every situation, to do that would mean you could go round to anyone rich or poor, and steal their stuff because that is wrong.

but its not even physical property.

i believe that everyone has inspirations, and i believe that people making music today have been inspired by others to create the music they come up with, so it isn't really theirs in the first place, the rock scale in particular is limited, so in turn music gets repeated. nobody is trying to steal the music to pawn it off as their own, because everyone knows most famous musicians. people aren't stealing physical property, they're sharing information, is it wrong to share information between people?

even free guitar tabs are being banned now, then branded and sold back to the public, i mean people can create a tab by listening to the song, why can't they share this information if they choose to?

that's like taking someone's dirty washing away, washing it (which they could have done themselves) and making them pay to get it back.

their philosophy of money > distribution of music for the public is reflected in the price of a cd, most cds today cost in and around €20 most people can go down to a cd shop and purchase 25 cds for €10, most people can see that the amount of money they are paying to these record companies is ridiculous, take james blunt for instance, a half decent artist but €17.99 for just under 35mins of sound? the profit for the parties involved is unbelievable. is that morally justified?

FionnMatthew wrote:

That's erroneous. Read the Albini article or the Ian article. It's by far the very few musicians who make any proper living out of their skill at all. It's the invisible people who make the money.

i should have made it clearer, yes i know this, i have allot of friends who study music in WIT, and some who are just musicians in bands, most of whom don't make much money, but i was talking about huge bands/musicians, producers and record companies, and yes there is a massive divide but im just talking about the more "sinister" side instead of the average joe who lives round the corner and is in a band who plays on a friday night in the forum, or the average record company who just has one studio, and prints their own cd covers down the road in the local printers.

I wrote something like this a while back, on the TalkPhilosophy Forums at thevaselines.co.uk. That site was destroyed by a hacker, and everything lost, but I still have the piece. I'm posting it here, although I don't necessarily agree with it anymore, as a preliminary to my thoughts on intellectual property. It's a little more expanded than Catsmokinpot's piece, but I don't think it suffers for it.

thanks for expanding on that, you always know how to put me in my place, very informative

see that Spectator#1? that's how you reply to someones opinions.

Spectator#1

Catsmokinpot wrote:

"here is me caring about your opinion"
Oh wow! \o/ I don't care about punctuation!! ZOMG!! WTF!! and so fourth!!!! you've really cracked my opinion wide open there.

you don't have to make fun of someone's spelling/punctuation mistakes to devalue an argument, i just gave my opinion and then you are supposed give your opinion back, that's the way it works, now you look stupid, people don't have to punctuate properly in order to have an opinion.

This reply is both for you Simu and for you Catsmokinpot: I will continue to pull up people for poor spelling and punctuation on the basis that it is eminently difficult to follow a philosophical argument when the author has neglected to utilise certain useful tools of the language. Nor does it inspire confidence in the author's rigour or ability to make a cogent argument if they are incapable of/not interested in using simple linguistic rules while expressing it.

Thankfully your punctuation wasn't the only problem in your original post.

FIONNMATTHEW DID NOT ASK FOR YOUR OPINION ON WHAT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS LIKE. He asked for thoughts on a philosophically defensive position that could be argued on behalf of an industry that would have us believe that the downloading of mp3's is immoral as well as illegal.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i have read it, i give the opinion that the music industry and musicians alike (the ones that are making all the money that is) are solely money driven individuals. now in the beginning musicians weren't just driven by money but by a love for music, but now with the advent of commercially pumped out garbage-pop, i can now see musicians driven by money and selling an image rather than musical/lyrical talent. now the things i refer to, are the recent copyright theft laws. these bands, musicians, producers etc. are making money even with the huge amount of copywriter theft. my point is, they aren't going to die, they are still making millions. copywriter isn't impeding their lifestyle or freedoms to do as they wish. these people are some of the most free on this earth, to go where they want and do what they want.

britney spears for instance, is fighting against copywriter theft, that's why i referred to the southpark episode about copywriter theft where britney gets a gulf stream 3 jet instead of a gulf stream 4, the poor crater!! :rolleyes:

not only that but they want to control what we already listen to: AOL time warner copywriter the song "happy birthday to you" and make stations pay out €10,000 just to play it on television. an innocent and supposedly joyous birthday song earns a corporation €10,000 every time its played.

i know you can't apply that same philosophy to every situation, to do that would mean you could go round to anyone rich or poor, and steal their stuff because that is wrong.

but its not even physical property.

All very interesting in itself, you could say, but not very relevant to the point FionnMatthew is getting at by initiating this thread. You've given a few half formed opinions roughly relating to intellectual ownership and you aren't really relating it to the overall point of the thread, the defense of the industry's actions clamping down on p2p filesharing, overprices cd's and copyright laws in general.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i believe that everyone has inspirations, and i believe that people making music today have been inspired by others to create the music they come up with, so it isn't really theirs in the first place, the rock scale in particular is limited, so in turn music gets repeated. nobody is trying to steal the music to pawn it off as their own, because everyone knows most famous musicians. people aren't stealing physical property, they're sharing information, is it wrong to share information between people?

even free guitar tabs are being banned now, then branded and sold back to the public, i mean people can create a tab by listening to the song, why can't they share this information if they choose to?

that's like taking someone's dirty washing away, washing it (which they could have done themselves) and making them pay to get it back.

their philosophy of money > distribution of music for the public is reflected in the price of a cd, most cds today cost in and around €20 most people can go down to a cd shop and purchase 25 cds for €10, most people can see that the amount of money they are paying to these record companies is ridiculous, take james blunt for instance, a half decent artist but €17.99 for just under 35mins of sound? the profit for the parties involved is unbelievable. is that morally justified?i should have made it clearer, yes i know this, i have allot of friends who study music in WIT, and some who are just musicians in bands, most of whom don't make much money, but i was talking about huge bands/musicians, producers and record companies, and yes there is a massive divide but im just talking about the more "sinister" side instead of the average joe who lives round the corner and is in a band who plays on a friday night in the forum, or the average record company who just has one studio, and prints their own cd covers down the road in the local printers.
thanks for expanding on that, you always know how to put me in my place, very informative

You have now pointed out to all of us-in a roundabout way-the basis on which FionnMatthew was looking to expand: the questionable nature of claims that downloading is immoral and the industry is justified in charging ridiculous amounts of money to do what they want.

If it's not too much to ask, please make an effort in future to understand what it's about before you post on it, and when you post on it, try and write it so people can read it. The expanded version was still much easier to read, and some of your points are interesting in themselves but you need to relate it to the overall thread, you ask is it morally justified to sell cd's at such a high-price but that's as far as you go. Is it?

see that Spectator#1? that's how you reply to someones opinions.

See this? This is how you reply.

PS. The word is 'copyright' and 'copyright theft'. 'Copywriter' is not a word.

Now I think we've digressed enough on this topic. If you're going to respond to anything I've said I suggest you PM me out of politeness to the author of the thread. In any case, I'm not going to reply to you anymore here.

simu

People, stay on topic. If you don't understand somebody's posts because of poor spelling or for any other reason, ask them politely to explain themselves. Don't launch into a lecture on spelling!

Catsmokinpot

Spectator#1 wrote:

FIONNMATTHEW DID NOT ASK FOR YOUR OPINION ON WHAT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS LIKE. He asked for thoughts on a philosophically defensive position that could be argued on behalf of an industry that would have us believe that the downloading of mp3's is immoral as well as illegal.

yes, and what i was implying was there is no philosophically defensive position any of them can take, they are money driven and that is all there is to say about it. there's no way that i can look at their situation and say "well i suppose that's fair..." the chilli peppers said that they didn't want people to be downloading their music because they wouldn't be listening to good "CD quality" music, but they had no problems selling their MP3 quality music on I-Tunes now did they?

they try to find lame excuses for doing what they are doing, which don't wash with me unfortunately

Spectator#1 wrote:

You have now pointed out to all of us-in a roundabout way-the basis on which FionnMatthew was looking to expand: the questionable nature of claims that downloading is immoral and the industry is justified in charging ridiculous amounts of money to do what they want.

If it's not too much to ask, please make an effort in future to understand what it's about before you post on it, and when you post on it, try and write it so people can read it. The expanded version was still much easier to read, and some of your points are interesting in themselves but you need to relate it to the overall thread,

why make it complicated when this is simply what it is about? MONEY, and control so that they can make more money...... you stop us downloading so we have to consume, and therefore the parties involved make more money.

oh and when i was talking about appreciating a band by seeing them live, live gigs and tours is where a band makes most of its money.

Spectator#1 wrote:

you ask is it morally justified to sell cd's at such a high-price but that's as far as you go. Is it?

well, i don't think any material object should have such a high price attached to it. especially if it only costs a fraction of the price to manufacture. "value" to these people, is making as much money as possible with the smallest amount of expenditure, production cost vs profit and profit gigantic compared to production costs, i didn't think it needed to be explained how immoral that is, its exploitation at its best.

See this? This is how you reply.

PS. The word is 'copyright' and 'copyright theft'. 'Copywriter' is not a word.

Now I think we've digressed enough on this topic. If you're going to respond to anything I've said I suggest you PM me out of politeness to the author of the thread. In any case, I'm not going to reply to you anymore here.

i used that because i thought it more relevant as "this" would have meant it was mine where as "that" meant it was fionnmathew's

e.g.

if i was to do something, i would say this is how it's done.

if someone else was to do it, that's how it's done.

PS. i know how to spell copyright, and copyright theft. notice how i spelt it right the first time, honestly, i was probably distracted by the person nagging at me down the phone while im trying to fix his damn pc, jesus i hate night work. anyway, i know its no excuse, but then again i don't care and why am i explaining any of this to you?

if you aren't smart enough to be able to interpret what someone is writing, you mustn't be much of a people person.

edit: sorry for going off topic simu last i will say about the subject