Downloading Muslic Illegally - Theft?

InFront

Not the most important topic that ever got discussed on Humanities, no, but do people not consider that downloading music equals stealing it?

Most people wouldn't even contemplate stealing a piece of music from a store like HMV or Virgin, but online it seems that an awful lot of internet users think of it as an acceptable practice.

I can't understand why this is. Is it because the seller is a faceless businesman as as opposed to a real shop assistant? Or because people believe they won't get caught? (Ireland has introduced EU legislation on this as far as I remember, but I doubt it is of any influence or consequence)

I'm just curious, why do people think it's OK?

fade2black

For the same reason that they thought it was ok to tape Coronation Street off the telly and songs off the radio.

You're not going to get caught there and then by a security guard.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Most people wouldn't even contemplate stealing a piece of music from a store like HMV or Virgin, but online it seems that an awful lot of internet users think of it as an acceptable practice.

I can't understand why this is. Is it because the seller is a faceless businesman as as opposed to a real shop assistant? Or because people believe they won't get caught? (Ireland has introduced EU legislation on this as far as I remember, but I doubt it is of any influence or consequence)

I'm just curious, why do people think it's OK?

No it is because making a copy of a mp3 doesn't cause anyone else to lose something, so people debate if it is theft.

HMV pay for their stock, such as CDs and DVDs, and they then plan to sell them on the consumer. Say HMV buy a CD for €7 and plan to sell it on for €14. One that CD they not only make a profit of €7 they get back their initial investment for €7.

Now if a skanger does a grab and bash on the CDs, for each CD he steals he is not only depriving HMV of a potential profit of €7 (which is a bit abstract because it relies on the idea that someone in the future will buy the CD), he is also costing HMV €7, which is much is a much more defined loss on the part of HMV. You are stealing property they own and as such they are without that property. HMV would have to buy the CD again, costing them another €7, and if they sold that for €7 they would only break even on the loss of the original CD.

Copying an MP3 is different. There is no loss of property. They only "theft" is the theft of possible future revenue (ie the second €7). If someone copies a CD of a mate, or downloads the CD, the argument is that they are not going to go out an physically purchase the actual CD, and as such you are depriving the record company a theoretical sale.

The issue with illegal MP3s is not that you are stealing, because you aren't really. There is no loss. The problem is that you are getting something for free, where the record companies want you to pay for it. You should not see or hear this unless you have first paid for it.

The counter argument to that is that culture should not be restricted in such a fashion. It should be ok to view or hear something for free, after all we do this all the time. A family member buys a DVD and lets everyone in his family watch the DVD. He then lends it to his friend and his friend lets everyone what it. The issue with digital media is that such an act used to be restricted by physical availablity yet in a digital world there is no such restriction.

Now that digital media is as free as our culture itself, unrestricted by the physical medium that has tied it down for the last 150 years, culture is moving into a brave new world. And it needs a bit of a rethink of what we consider fair use and how we view the ownership of "culture".

mike65

EMI are considering ending DRM on thier catalogue which tells us something about a gradual shift in thinking. I will admit to tracking down individual songs to download, stuff which might well be quite hard to find on a legit database. (unreleased live/demos etc) plus oldies from the 60-80s.

Mike.

humbert

If I download a song that I wouldn't have bought anyway, and I've never bought any music in my entire life so that is the the case, then it's a victimless crime. In general people are downloading music instead of buying it but for a long time the music industry have been very greedy. It might force them to compromise.

Nick_oliveri

I'd love to see actual statistics from independant sources that show downloading degrades music sales.

It would have to be some slump in sales to convice me that the actions of the "Big Six" towards mp3s and downloaders are correct.

Small slumps in sales would probably indicate ****e pop music not selling.

nesf

There are a few ways of thinking about it.

The first is the division between distribution and downloading. Putting a copy up for others to download is quite different to downloading a freely available copy of an mp3. Whether they should be treated differently is up for debate.

The second is that, as Wicknight pointed out, there is no physical theft taking place. There is 'theft' of intellectual property but that's a far greyer area outside of the courts. Do people who actually want music and can afford it buy it or download it illegally? The success of Apple's iTunes store would seem to suggest that quite a lot of them are happy to pay for music. Would people who download music actually buy it if downloading didn't exist? That is impossible to answer but it also questions whether this is theft in the sense of the copyright holder actually losing anything.


The third and final one is that this could be a reaction to the way the market was structured. With CD/DVD prices and they way albums and singles are constructed, ie you won't find 2 good songs on a single generally and if you buy an album it can contain a lot of filler around a few half decent songs. With the iTunes store people can pick which songs they want and which they don't. People seem to have reacted quite well to this and have been happy to purchase music from it even though they probably could have quite easily downloaded it illegally. The reasons for success in my mind are, that a) they feel better about paying for it and b) it's easier to use iTunes than spend ages searching through torrent sites or whatever looking for a healthy download.

You might see illegal downloading disappearing if downloading it legally is both cheap and easy. It seems to be heading that way at the moment but there are a lot of vested interests who don't want to see an end to the old market system.

JC 2K3

Most people simply do it because it's easy and they don't get caught.

However, I believe that it is 100% justified.

Firstly, who makes money from music sales? The artists? Not really. It's the record labels who get most of the money from music sales(about 90% in a lot of cases).

Now, what justifies the record labels making all of this money when it's the artist who writes and performs the material? Well, in the past there were three main things that bands could not do independantly:
1. Promotion.
2. High Quality Recording/Mixing.
3. Distribution.

Therefore, a band's only chance of sucess was to get a record deal, it was a huge issue back then. Nowadays, however, with the coming of cheaper and more accessible technology there's been a change in the way music can be created and distributed.

Let's look at modern recording. Years ago one needed to rent a recording studio and utilise very expensive recording equipment to record and mix an album with half decent quality. Now anyone with a €1000 PC and a decent soundcard can make something of similar quality. In short, recording and mixing an album with good sound quality isn't impossible to a small independant band like it was in the past.

Now we've established that it is relatively easy to record an album nowadays, what about distribution? And this is the key to this topic. In the past there were vinyls, then cassettes and then CDs. You needed to buy a physical object to be able to listen to music, and thus in order to get distributed widely you needed a record label to do it for you. However, this is the digital age. Distribution can essentially be done on the internet for free.

Now record labels still have the upper hand on independant artists distributing online due to their control of promotion on TV/Radio - but doesn't this simply make them nothing more than glorified PR companies?

Indeed, that is what they are scared of becoming. For years record labels have screwed artists and consumers over due to their power over the masses. They have not created a viable online distribution model and instead simply continue with their old system of physical distribution. And even when they attempt some sort of online distribution(eg. iTunes) it is ridiculously expensive. They have no reason to charge what they do on iTunes, the only way they can justify it is by saying, "well, that's how much we earned before the internet existed".

In short, record labels aren't necessary any more. Downloading and ceasing to give them money hurts them and that's a good thing. If you feel bad then send €5 to the artist whose album you downloaded. They'll earn much more than if you bought their €20 album in HMV that way.

See: www.downhillbattle.org

Nick_oliveri

Well said Nesf and JC. The bix six do control the market and have massive influence on tv and radio. This needs to stop.

Didn't that Lily Allen one get popular because of her Myspace? Probably got my names mixed up!

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

Copying an MP3 is different. There is no loss of property. They only "theft" is the theft of possible future revenue (ie the second €7). If someone copies a CD of a mate, or downloads the CD, the argument is that they are not going to go out an physically purchase the actual CD, and as such you are depriving the record company a theoretical sale.

Interesting point, so yes it is just the theft of 'potential' money, and not exactly theft of goods.
You say that the deprivation of sale is merely theoretical. I'm sure we both know people who prefer getting their music online to spending money on it in stores. They probably download stuff they would never buy, but not always.

The question then is would they have instead bought a particular album online if free downloading were not an option. If yes, that is definitely depriving the production company of income they otherwise would have generated.

As you point out this is not really theft as we know it, but it is impeding someone's genuine right to make a profit on their work. So is that any better or fairer?
You suggest that it should be ok to view something for free, or that culture should not be owned. But isn't it unfair to expect those in the business to just martyr themselves for culture and exist to donate their works to the musical cause.

Originally posted by humbert
In general people are downloading music instead of buying it but for a long time the music industry have been very greedy. It might force them to compromise.

But is that a valid way of asking for compromise? Impeding their sales by getting what you would have bought, for free, can hardly be seen as an effort to compromise! It's saying 'I want your product, but I don't want to pay'. Is that justified?

Not trying to be argumentative, I only ask about this because someone mentioned it to me and I hadn't really thought about it before.

Hobbes

I listen to shoutcast online. I can hear songs on that which people have to pay for if they want to keep. Is that stealing?

Earthhorse

JC 2K3, if what you're saying is true then why does the record industry still exist and why do new bands continue to sign to major record labels?

Also, in what part of your post is the justification for downloading music made.?I understand all the points you make but fail to see the point at which the act of downloading the music becomes "justified". Is it just because you don't like the way the music industry worked or works?

Nick_oliveri

Hobbes wrote:

I listen to shoutcast online. I can hear songs on that which people have to pay for if they want to keep. Is that stealing?

Yes. I tried to host my own shoutcast station for a while. My upload speed was shiite so i stopped. Loudcity supposedly supply a licence for under $20.

Hey everyone,

I just got this email from HD (HostingDepartment.net) and I am just wondering if there is any truth to the matter.

Quote:
Due to changes in our policies we have to verify some details. All new & hosted shoutcast services will need to provide a license. This is required by law. Any new & current shoutcast accounts must now have a radio/streaming license to stream music on our servers. All shoutcast services will now be suspended until this is verified. You can email your license details to: license@hdshoutcast.com.

If these details are not sent within 72 hours any shoutcast account which hasn't been verified will be removed.

Streaming music without a license is breaking the law & carries a maximum fine of $10000.

Regards

******

Head Of Shoutcast Services (HD, HDS)
But what if the music is your own? Do you still need a license? And are HD alowed to suspend your shoutcast if you don't provide one because you are only streaming your own music? What if your not streaming music at all? And it's a chat show?

JC 2K3

Earthhorse wrote:

JC 2K3, if what you're saying is true then why does the record industry still exist and why do new bands continue to sign to major record labels?

Because record labels control music PR, because online music distribution is still young and because record labels are corporate heavyweights that have existed for years. New technology isn't going to wipe them out that quickly.

Earthhorse wrote:

Is it just because you don't like the way the music industry worked or works?

In short, yes.

JC 2K3

InFront wrote:

But is that a valid way of asking for compromise? Impeding their sales by getting what you would have bought, for free, can hardly be seen as an effort to compromise! It's saying 'I want your product, but I don't want to pay'. Is that justified?

Record labels have become an unnecessary middle man. I'd like to support the artist, but they really get fúck all from music sales in most cases and I see no justification in giving that much money to a corporate body with little or no purpose in the modern world.

tj-music.com

While admitting that record companies are and were greedy I am actually convinced that downloading and copying tracks in their millions by music lovers all around the globe does negatively effect musicians because it takes away money for promoting new bands.

Sure, we can all have a myspace page but even if you have great tracks people would barely sent you their money to play or download them - it has become such a normal thing to just download and copy without asking that musicians loose out - whatever the deal.

JC 2K3

tj-music.com wrote:

While admitting that record companies are and were greedy I am actually convinced that downloading and copying tracks in their millions by music lovers all around the globe does negatively effect musicians because it takes away money for promoting new bands.

Sure, we can all have a myspace page but even if you have great tracks people would barely sent you their money to play or download them - it has become such a normal thing to just download and copy without asking that musicians loose out - whatever the deal.

Well there's no viable means of supporting artists who distribute online in operation right now. We're in a transition phase, which means, to a certain extent, musicians may lose out a bit in the short term.

I think the whole concept of MASSIVE bands is becoming redundant right now. Less and less importance is being placed on charts and I think in the future that concert profits will be the main way of bands earning money. Consequentially there will be a larger selection of music readily available to the public, yet less profit for bands. I would expect most bands in the future wouldn't earn more than a normal person's salary, and there's nothing wrong with that IMO.

plonk

JC 2K3 wrote:

I think the whole concept of MASSIVE bands is becoming redundant right now. Less and less importance is being placed on charts and I think in the future that concert profits will be the main way of bands earning money. .

Do bands not already earn the vast majority of their money by touring, its no easy life doing 200 gigs a year then taking a year out and writing music, which might be considered ****e and then they disappear into the abyss. Id pick it over most jobs anyday but without the record company who organises everything--gigs, promotions, cds etc they would be screwed

JC 2K3

plonk wrote:

without the record company who organises everything--gigs, promotions, cds etc they would be screwed

Well I've established that CDs are not necessary to ditribute music anymore. As for booking big venues and promotion, the record labels do have power over these areas. But as the internet starts to have more of an influence on people that TV/Radio, major record labels will start to lose this power. And all a band needs is a manager to organise gigs.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

InFront wrote:

I'm just curious, why do people think it's OK?

because for years it was the record companies robbing us....

karma, tis all about karma:D

humanji

plonk wrote:

Do bands not already earn the vast majority of their money by touring, its no easy life doing 200 gigs a year then taking a year out and writing music, which might be considered ****e and then they disappear into the abyss. Id pick it over most jobs anyday but without the record company who organises everything--gigs, promotions, cds etc they would be screwed

Bands earn very little and often lose money by touring. It's counted mainly as an advertising expense (hence touring when a new album comes out). In fact, not many bands make a lot of money at all. They get their advances from the record company and go on mad spending sprees and all to late they realise that it's all run out and the record company drops them for a more popular band.

You see the likes of P Diddy (or whatever the hell he calls himself these days) and JayZ who make very little off their music, but invest in clothing lines, restaurants, hotels etc and that's how they make their money. I doubt most of them could give a flying fig how people get their music, or even if they pay for it, as they just need people to recognise them.

I_and_I

The way I see it there is nothing wrong with it at all, a lot of people I know that download music will go out and buy the CD's for their collection because they like having the real thing there as well. The downloaded versions are just for use with their mp3 or what have you. I download music because its a hell of a lot faster and I don't forget before I spend money on something else, you could say that it has made alot of peoples lives more managable because they are not shelling out loads of cash for music. And hey I still love going to concerts so I don't feel like I have robbed anybody of anything, especially considering my taste in music (mainly pre-80's).

Nick_oliveri

I_and_I wrote:

The way I see it there is nothing wrong with it at all, a lot of people I know that download music will go out and buy the CD's for their collection because they like having the real thing there as well.

I bought the Chillis "Stadium Arcadium" Cd. Sound was crap, the songs were good though. I'd like to think my stereo is good considering i paid 600€ for it.

But in saying that, i only bought the cd to give something back to the lads. What i realized is that something is fairly miniscule and would probably only buy them a pack of rizlas(if that)!

While we are on the subject of RHCP, they were at an awards there the other night. And i know they were forced to play "Dani California". But why? Because its thier most recognisable song atm and it sells. They must be fairly sick of playing that by now.

Reminds me of Nirvana playing TOTP and being told to play "Smells like teen spirit". Kurt and the band get pissed off, play the start of "Rape me" and sing SLTS in a depressing tone.

My point? Its all about the money for the label, not for the band. And fair play to anyone who rebels against such bureaucracy and greediness.

metrovelvet

Its the writers who really get screwed by it. Depending on the contracts, they may not get a flat fee, it may be entirely percentage based, and if most of the product is being illegally downloaded then they make nothing.

bonkey

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

because for years it was the record companies robbing us....

The record companies never once robbed you. Customers chose to buy music.

You were always free to choose not to buy music. Now, its just easier to choose to not buy it and still have it in your collection.

Off on a slight tangent, but very similar subject.
For those who "rip" music off the radio or TV, in a way you already pay for the music you listen/copy from commercial radio stations by purchasing any of the advertised products that the station promotes.

Jocksy

For the last time,
Downloading music is never theft so you can't compare it to walking into HMV and taking out a few cds. You are violating copyright which is illegal.
I'm all for it myself. Gets rid of music shops, cuts out the whole industry side of music and leaves you with better music with artists who aren't in it for the money.