Librarium Online Forums banner

guilty about filenapping

1K views 35 replies 14 participants last post by  Commisarlestat 
#1 ·
i torrented the sopranos last night, but that got me thinking, should i feel guilty about his?
i may buy the dvd set, i may not.

I wouldn't want anyone to steal anything that's mine...

I thought this would be a good place to post this: should i feel bad about downloading movies and music?
 
#2 ·
It depends on what your purpose is. I use streaming sites to watch Battlestar but thats because i dont have the channel. Generally there is so much mark up on the shelves that they sort of deserve it. If items were cheaper in the shops people would be them more readily.
Music is the big one. A giant pack of cd's costs less than a cheap album in some places. This just shows people the immense amount of markup. I know the artist wants his cut but selling an album for £15 is ridiculous when your average joe can make 100 copies for that.
One thing about the music copyrighting that really bugs me is sheet music. It is sooo expensive yet most decent tablature websites have been closed by lawyers for supposed copyright infringement. Now i understand if a band takes the song reproduces it says look what we did then you can sue but stopping someone wanting to play it in his house when the actual songbook doesnt exist just seems a little petty to me.

i dont think you should feel guilty, if you like it then you will buy it. I plan to do this when Battlestar is released on DVD over here. As far as business sense goes its probably better for them to let people see it first!

Anyway enough from me lol.

A
 
#3 ·
I view streaming as alright, it's just using another channel that you have access to. Downloading copyrighted material that you don't own is another matter, however. Although the laws can be stupid (as pointed out in the post above), they're still the laws and should be abided by. Downloading stuff that is your own I find fine (I'm currently torrenting a CD-ROM I've lent to a friend and need), but stuff that you download to keep and don't pay for is basically shoplifting.
 
#4 ·
I wouldn't feel guilty. Guilt is just the recongition that you've done something bad, but of course, bad relative to what? There's a pretty good argument, well outlined above, that forcing people to pay large ammounts of money for something as reproducable as data is 'bad.' How much would it cost you to make copies of that series? It can be reproduced in a matter of minutes..

However, a better idea would be to consider the consequences. The idea that you're stealing from faceless corporations or, at worst, slick haired, overpaid producers and spoiled artists is flawed. Behind every faceless corporation is a group of very real human beings, many of them not paid obscene ammounts of money, whose livelihoods are entangled with the fate of their company through employment or stock ownership. In an immediate sense, they would suffer.

But hey, society has to change, and change is built on dissent. Media producers are going to suffer regardless because they've failed to consider the advance of technology. By downloading their product, you are undoubtably stealing from people (and I doubt it will be the incredibly rich executives or major shareholders who suffer from that) but you're also forcing change and development which needs to happen anyway.

The decision is yours. You more than have the right to download whatever you want, after all, you have the power to do so.. Provided you're not caught doing it, which is impossibly unlikely, noone is going to stop you or make you feel bad about it. Morality is something you have to create for yourself, ability is concrete.
 
#11 ·
But hey, society has to change, and change is built on dissent. Media producers are going to suffer regardless because they've failed to consider the advance of technology. By downloading their product, you are undoubtably stealing from people (and I doubt it will be the incredibly rich executives or major shareholders who suffer from that) but you're also forcing change and development which needs to happen anyway.
I think The Mantis summed up my stance on this.

This might sound stupid, but the Internet is an amazing invention. It has opened up sooo many possibilities for societal progress, we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg.

It's like the next Dimension of the "free speech" movement that spawned Democracy, once the concept was out there, it was impossible to reverse the change, no matter how hard the power-holders tried.

I think that by suppressing music/video downloads, the entertainment industry is just trying to suppress knowledge, keep people living in the Dark Ages, so that they can make money off of a monopoly on knowledge (or, data). Like Monarchs suppressing free speech, or G.E. patenting the zero-resistance engine so that no one can make it... thus they make more money off of crappy engines that need to be replaced..

Therefore, I have absolutely no moral problems with downloading stuff. It's not like we're putting the music industry out of business, but we (hopefully) will force them to downsize and restructure the industry. It'll probably go back to how it used to be, when the majority of profits were made off of live gigs and radio performances. Yeah, this does mean that the music industry will shrink significantly, but it's not like record companies really deserve loads of money just because they undercut the artists, and use lawyers to try to destroy all copies of songs not produced by them... Those tactics will hopefully become extinct one day.

Now I'm really gonna go out on a limb, but think about a University, the symbol of Knowledge. These places charge ridiculous amounts of money for access to their knowledge. But the irony of it all is, I could download a pdf of a textbook, a lesson plan, or a video of a lecturer off of Limewire and learn it all myself! Therefore, Universities don't provide knowledge, they suppress it, by badmouthing "unofficial" sources of knowledge, and convincing everyone that they need to pay the Universities in order to learn. As it is, I am a 3rd year student, I'm in an honors society and I get pretty good grades... and two years ago I vowed never to buy a textbook again because they are such a rip-off, when I can google any term I can think of and get all the information I want for free!

My point is, Knowledge (or Data) isn't a commodity anymore, it's freely accessible to anyone who wants it. Companies that make their living off of suppressing knowledge should be shut down, because they are only impeding our evolution.
 
#5 ·
Many call piracy theft, and they have good reason to.

But, I strongly feel that this works both ways. If I went out and honestly spent, say £15 on a DVD for a film like 'Blood and Chocolate', then I am a victim of theft by the film company.
'Blood and Chocolate' is hardly a film, it's a farce. You'd spend your time better by plucking out and categorising your eyebrow hair.

I don't think either is particularly fair.

So.. why am I allowed to try on a jacket or shirt before I buy it? But not a film or game or music?

So for this reason, I download things with a clear conscious and if I like it, then I'll delete it and but the original.
Of course, torrenting is sometimes the only way to get certain films and series too.
 
#6 ·
So.. why am I allowed to try on a jacket or shirt before I buy it? But not a film or game or music?
But don't you have that chance to test out games, movies, and music first?

Games have demos, most of the time. Usually it's just a level or two, but it's enough to let you decide whether you like the game or not.

Movies have previews. I'll be the first to admit that a preview can often times be very misleading to the true intent of a movie, but you have reviewers and critics as well that can help you 'test drive' a movie before you buy.

And of course there's always rentals.

Music is pretty easy. Radio stations often times take requests, and just ask for a sample track from an album you're considering. Or go to a music store. Usually they have devices that scan the barcode and allow you to listen to the tracks.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, per-say - just playing a bit of devil's advocate.
 
#7 ·
I download stuff from time to time and I do feel a bit guilty.
I would like to pay for most of it (somethings though are just so below what they made me
believe
it would be, I think I should be payed to even view them...
timetheft
it is!) but the problem is how to pay what I think it's worth.
I'd like to see a good way to pay a small fee for the things I like, some more for what i really like and really much for the stuff I love.

I would do it and I think I would not be the only one. Or just add a text somewhere about what companies payed for the
commercials
and I promise I'll buy some of their stuff in the supermarket next time I go shopping.
 
#8 ·
Sorry for the disect style reply, but they're three different areas, so warrant three different replies:

Games have demos, most of the time. Usually it's just a level or two, but it's enough to let you decide whether you like the game or not.
Agreed. I have a personal interest in the games industry, so i'll now no longer pirate games on principle.
The only reason i did in the past was to get Japanese versions of beat'em'ups which ran at the proper speed.
Now, I simply import them.. like the latest Fist of the North Star game *drools*

Movies have previews. I'll be the first to admit that a preview can often times be very misleading to the true intent of a movie, but you have reviewers and critics as well that can help you 'test drive' a movie before you buy.
Like a wide eyed backpack wearing fresher/freshman, I swallowed up the reviewer's opinions about The Titanic and went to see it. I felt betrayed and dirty.

As you wisely point out, trailers accomplish nothing but showing every punch, every explosion, the bit just before the ending, and the part were the leading lady is just about to get her bits out.

Also, it's almost impossible to watch the trailers for things like Predator unless you actually buy the DVD by which time it's too late. (but youtube but youtube.. yes I KNOW about youtube.. but I only use youtube to watch that OVER NINETHOUSAAAND clip which Kos-Mos posted anyway).

And of course there's always rentals
Very true. Not really viable in my part of the world.. but certainly when I was in Japan me and my mates rented a phenomenal amount of films. Aah. Tsutaya, what a shop.

If i could viably rent all the films that i like to see then I would. But, it's almost impossible to rent anything other than the latest movies. Which is a pain when i'm more into films.

Music is pretty easy. Radio stations often times take requests, and just ask for a sample track from an album you're considering. Or go to a music store. Usually they have devices that scan the barcode and allow you to listen to the tracks.
I'm just being ackward here.. but it's unlikely that I'll get X-Japan's Weekend played on a radio station in Sheffield. As good for everyone as it would be - it's impossible.
So.. i download, and if I like enough of it, I'll buy it without hesitation. It's always good to know exactly what the hell they're singing anyway :p

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing, per-say - just playing a bit of devil's advocate.
Nice to have a discussion :)
 
#10 ·
Sorry for the disect style reply, but they're three different areas, so warrant three different replies:
No apologies necessary. I do it myself more often than not. It helps me keep my thoughts organized, or else I stray onto tangents too often. I guess I've never considered it rude, though. I wonder if anyone gets offended when I disect their post so I can answer each point seperately?

See, there's that tangent.

I'll give my personal take on it, and my own code of ethics when it comes to downloading material.

When it comes to games, I'll never download anything but a demo, unless it's a ROM. In the case of ROMs (for those who don't know what a ROM is, Google Emulation) I only keep the file for 48 hours, unless I own the cartridge/CD, in which case I'll keep it permanently. However, this isn't illegal, since the law states you can keep a ROM for up to 48 hours to demo it, unless you own a physical copy.

Regular games I'll either play the demo, rent, or borrow from a friend. Or just flat out buy and get pissed off later on. Command and Conquer 3, anyone?

Movies and TV shows are a mixed bag. I'll download or stream a movie only once, and then decide whether I want to own it or not. I consider this to be no different than borrowing a boxed set from a friend and watching it before returning it. I will never keep a copy for myself, however, and will always remove the file after viewing. If I liked it enough, I'll go out and buy it. One would think that producers would appreciate this kind of behaviour, as many times I wouldn't have bothered buying a boxed set if I hadn't had the opportunity to view it beforehand. Firefly instantly springs to mind - had I not downloaded and watched the first three episodes, I would have never bought the boxed set, nor seen Serenity.

Where games is one extreme end of the spectrum and movies are the middle road, music falls under the more 'free data' end. I freely admit that I download songs. However, I do limit myself to three or less songs from a single album - any more than that, and I'll buy the album.

But I refuse to pay 15 bucks for two songs I liked only to find out that the rest of the album was pure crap. I'm looking at you, Modest Mouse. Yeah.... you know what I'm talking about. Pure. Crap.


I don't consider it piracy, as I still spend money on the things that I feel are worth my money. I consider it.... 'doing research on a product before hand.'
 
#9 ·
I am a pirate.....or (probably) more accurately, a hobby-pirate meaning that I haven't made a career out of it, and I don't do the duplicating/sharing, I only leech.

I have restricted myself to non-movie pirateship though, I'd rather own a bad dvd than risk a $250,000 fine for having a copy of a good movie. (I haven't copied a game in ages, I don't play them that much anymore.)
When it comes down to it, here in Australia it can cost $30 for a new CD with, if you're lucky, 3 good songs on it. That's the same price as a new release, box-office smash DVD, it just doesn't make sense.

The Recording Industry has essentially priced themselves out of the market by charging insane prices just to maintain their own wallets. I suspect it would be less of an issue for consumers if the artists actually got more than a few cents per sale, because obviously the artist is being robbed by the record company first and worst.

The only other major issue that Australia suffers, is the insane lack of availability. It is impossible to find anything from overseas other than the overhyped stupidity of "mainstream" US music. It's almost impossible to find actual albums of the weirder slice of audio or pretty much anything european (go Lordi! go Nightwish!); and so we are reduced to finding it online, in whatever form we can.

I have heard the "but if I download it, no-one else will be able to have it" excuse a few times....well, I've used it a few times anyway :D
 
#13 ·
#14 ·
ROFL - Tough critic I see.:w00t:

For the most part I agree. Though I think the initial concept wasn't bad. But the again, it's been months and months seen I've seen it, maybe I'll rent it to see what I remember.
 
#15 ·
I do download music, but it is not because I want to keep my money. I like the music ALOT, and I want the artist to get their share of the money for their songs, but if you buy a $15 cd, the acual artist only gets about 25 cents of it. I support my favorite bands by going to their concerts, and buying things like hoodies and stickers.
 
#18 ·
Id like to continue what Abe has said,

There is a monoply on the industry as there is in many industries. With the Nike shoes analogy i personally dont like Nike shoes they are badly made and generally ugly to me. However i can simply go ooo il buy these vans from tkmaxx (not on card cash obviously lol) get them for a fraction of the price get something i like and also something that is worth the money. Now with music i dont have that option. For an artist to get big they really need a label nowadays (yes i ignore the whole underground scene but that takes us offtopic a little) therefore i have no choice but to buy whatever style of music i like from a single 'industry'.

By strategic buying customers can force companies to reduce their greedy attitude. If there is more competition then this is much easier to do. I have noticed a slight drop in the cost of cds since the internet options became sensible. it already has an effect. With more companies able to offer you the same thing the more likely the price will be fair.

Now onto the university question!
This IMO is a slightly different issue. education in this world is necesary and so is money to live on. The lecturers need paying so does the lighting etc. there are also many bursaries etc. However there is much truth in this arguement. The University of Reading (where i am) has consistently shown itself to be acting for profit and not the benefit of the students. The best example is the closure of its physics department. Physics is actually a growing subject (popularity wise) it is also expensive to run; many lab hours, lecturers needing high wages to keep them from other industries etc. Research and parts for machines are also expensive. However the university has closed a growing department because it isnt making a profit. This IMO is absolutely unbelievable and has many knock on affects. I study ancient history and Archaeology and the newer students to the subject are declining in quality as more are pushed into university and profit making subjects are filled because of 'transferable skills'. This hurts the education i am paying through the nose for.
A monetary example is good. I am poor so i get lots of loans form the governement (student loans here make the poor more in debt and the rich richer go fairness) i theoretically pay about £1200 a year tuition. yes it is cheap (top up fees have doubled this figure though i started before all that crap) now i had (this last term) 2 hours of lecturing a week. for ten weeks, i also had around 6 hours per week the term before. when the maths is all done i pay £10 an hour for tuition. cheap yes but think in the first year there were up to 150 people in a lecture thats £1500 per hour. For the time i get and the price i pay this is ridiculous. I believe i am actually fortunate, this country isnt nearly so bad as some others (america comes to mind man those fees are damned high) but simply put i have had to borrow around £15000 to do my degree. with top up fees education is being priced out of the reach of the poor.

Now that was a rant however it had a point. It illustartes that all parts of society are geared up for profit. the only way to reduce this is competition. Monopolies create high profits and harm users. If the only way to stop this is to break the law then so be it. (laws arent always ethical aswell that, however, is a topic for another thread!)

Sorry for such a long post i just think more use should be made of the non profit status for education and banks etc, it would mean better service and less profit mindedness.

A
 
#19 ·
i agree about the cd companies being monopolies, but in holland you can get a cd for 5 E, that's not a lot... however these cd's are older albums from mostly less known bands or artists. If you want a new pop-cd you can pay up to 25 bucks... i think lowering prices and adding more extras will really help.

BTW all the recordlabels cy that illegal file sharing hurts artists right? guess how much those artists make? :shifty: around 10% to 20% percent per album... off course some make more, but not a lot of 'em
 
#20 ·
Abraham Lincoln said:
and two years ago I vowed never to buy a textbook again because they are such a rip-off, when I can google any term I can think of and get all the information I want for free!
Most university professors do not approve of web references. This is because any monkey can write some random rubbish and put it on the web. Whilst places like Wikipedia are fine for posting quick references in forums, they should not be used as a reference for a serious academic article, especially a university assignment.

Commisarlestat said:
A monetary example is good. I am poor so i get lots of loans form the governement (student loans here make the poor more in debt and the rich richer go fairness) i theoretically pay about £1200 a year tuition. yes it is cheap (top up fees have doubled this figure though i started before all that crap) now i had (this last term) 2 hours of lecturing a week. for ten weeks, i also had around 6 hours per week the term before. when the maths is all done i pay £10 an hour for tuition. cheap yes but think in the first year there were up to 150 people in a lecture thats £1500 per hour. For the time i get and the price i pay this is ridiculous. I believe i am actually fortunate, this country isnt nearly so bad as some others (america comes to mind man those fees are damned high) but simply put i have had to borrow around £15000 to do my degree. with top up fees education is being priced out of the reach of the poor.
University (in England) is not cheap. Although aside from the degree/academic side, where else do you get thrown into an environment filled with people your own age? People who you live with, drink with and generally have great times with. A lot of what you learn is life experience. I've learnt a helluva lot in my three years, and I've got the best memories of my life to boot. This is why I'm not bothered about the debt I'll be in at the end.

Ciao

Stonehambey
 
#21 ·
... any monkey can write some random rubbish and put it on the web.
This should be like LO's motto or something. It's like the philosophy of my life.

{goofy}
 
#22 ·
an addition to what I said earlier. the music studios own all the music. when you buy a CD, it says in the liscance agreement that the music company is just letting us rent the music out, and that they still own the music. They can call it back at anytime that they want to.
 
#23 ·
should i feel bad about downloading movies and music?
We'll I'm stingy and I ain't going to pay 1$ per song. How the hell do they expect people to pay a dollor a song while having 7000 songs on thier Ipod. As for movies, for me its different, as movies arn't too much per dvd.
 
#28 ·
Well, just to add in another (useless) point, if you buy whole albums on iTunes you get a little bit better rate on the songs, usually saving you two/three dollars or more.

As for me, I like to pay for what I have. Working in retail on my last job, I saw too many young couples put clothes back, because they were too much to feel sorry for teen pricks who won't pay for anything because they don't have to. I mean, from time to time, yeah, ok, I guess it happens. But one the whole, it's stealing, and you rob the people who make the product you like, and you rob other people by making them have to pay more to compensate.

I thought of it this way once and it helped. Say you found this band you loved online, you downloaded all of their songs and you simply adore them. You didn't even have to pay a cent. A few months later, your friend says their coming to town, you two grab tickets and go to the concert, afterwards, you wait in line for autographs. Your get there, they are kind and sign your friend's CD's and shirts etc. They look at you and ask if you have a CD for them to sign? What do you do? Tell them you DL'ed it all for free and so effectively stolen their income? Or do you have them that Memorex CD you burnt and see the look on their faces once they realize the only thing you've paid for is the concert.

Yes, there are prolly some good exceptions, yes, sometimes the corporations outright rip us off. I'm not saying I know everything, but just something to think about you know?
 
#29 ·
I thought of it this way once and it helped. Say you found this band you loved online, you downloaded all of their songs and you simply adore them. You didn't even have to pay a cent. A few months later, your friend says their coming to town, you two grab tickets and go to the concert, afterwards, you wait in line for autographs. Your get there, they are kind and sign your friend's CD's and shirts etc. They look at you and ask if you have a CD for them to sign? What do you do? Tell them you DL'ed it all for free and so effectively stolen their income? Or do you have them that Memorex CD you burnt and see the look on their faces once they realize the only thing you've paid for is the concert.

Yes, there are prolly some good exceptions, yes, sometimes the corporations outright rip us off. I'm not saying I know everything, but just something to think about you know?
the ammount of money that the artist gets from selling an album at a store is miniscule, as I said before, if you buy a cd for $15 at... lets say Best Buy, the artist of the album gets less than 50 CENTS of that album, thats why I go to concerts, and buy the not cd merchandice. That way the atrist gets more money, and you lose less to the monopolizing music companies.
 
#31 ·
I think the issue here is the legality of it. Stealing is wrong yes i would agree with that, its also gainst the law cant fault that but therein lies the problem.
Not all stealing is equal, to use the above example someone takes a pack of wrigleys extra while the cashier isnt looking, he gets caught on the way out, slap on wrist dont do that again maybe banned from the shop, maybe the police get involved (highly unlikely) if they do they arent going to do a huge amount unless its the 300th packet youve been caught stealing. Now say you steal a £3000000 diamond youd be straight in the nick banged up before you could say oceans 12.
Now i know the above is an extreme example but it illustrates the point well. Stealing is a grey area, it is taking something in the possesion of someone else without permission. Now if someone has placed music on the net for free and you download it you arent actually stealing. You have taken something with permission, this is similar to a gift, they have sold it too you for £0. Downloading isnt illegal as such they are after the people who put it on the net in the first place. Its the same as not arresting a guy with an 1/8 but instead tracking him to the guy selling everyone their green.

Now ive pushed the boat out lets go further. Theft by necesity can only occur in a system where there is ownership. Now the ownership of said item is the issue. The record companies are the people who own the songs and the albums, the artists rarely own their own music. When this is the case you cannot be stealing from the band. It is quite clearly known to the record industry that people disagree with the amount of profit they are taking, so it is up to two groups to set this straight. Firstly the artists need to ask for a bigger cut. This is difficult but is similar to strike action, secondly the consumers. We can show displeasure by not buying their product, they will still be obliged to pay the band a set amount for the album which will at least be the costs (if the band has agreed anyhting less than this then well they are being stupid) costs may be low however it has cost the band nothing. It is the big corporations who see our displeasure in their bank balances. If they see the ratings are high due to talk, radio playing etc yet the profits are low they simply have to have the sense (business wise) that their product is too highly priced.

I have lots more too say but il leave it at that now

A

PS: hotspike the issue you raise is slightly different. Theft of clothes is theft in the sense of stealing of an object. The companies profits are not linked hugely to theft, each company will expect a certain level of loss due to theft. If that couple havnt got the money then that is a seperate issue, if they really are that poor that they cant afford clothing (you dont have to wear designer labels) they have a serious money problem. The only really relevant issue from that scenario is wages not keeping in line with prices. Some teenager with no money downloading a couple of songs wont cause a couple to not afford a tshirt, they are not linked at least not in any way closely.
As for the CD situation you do have a point but as many have already said if they like the band to that point they will have purchased somehting signable probably the CD, hell you only need the gig ticket!
 
#35 ·
PS: hotspike the issue you raise is slightly different. Theft of clothes is theft in the sense of stealing of an object. The companies profits are not linked hugely to theft, each company will expect a certain level of loss due to theft. If that couple havnt got the money then that is a seperate issue, if they really are that poor that they cant afford clothing (you dont have to wear designer labels) they have a serious money problem. The only really relevant issue from that scenario is wages not keeping in line with prices. Some teenager with no money downloading a couple of songs wont cause a couple to not afford a tshirt, they are not linked at least not in any way closely.
As for the CD situation you do have a point but as many have already said if they like the band to that point they will have purchased somehting signable probably the CD, hell you only need the gig ticket!
Hmmm, well, yes, the metaphor was a bit stretched. But I don't think it's that unrelated. Yes, companies brace themselves for loss of profit - does that make it ok? And for the couples, many are shopping around in the bargains and sales sections, finding the cheapest things they can. If they are grabbing new stuff though, well, as you said, they shoudn't be shopping in a name brand store. And no, downloading some free songs isn't going to hurt anyone or anything significantly, But the entire loss of all the songs downloaded does bump wages down in the recording industry, or at worst (though I doubt it) causes job losses during cutbacks. The concert analogy was, well, more to induce guilt than prove a point. Ah well.
 
#32 ·
CommisarlestatYou have taken something with permission, this is similar to a gift, they have sold it too you for £0.
The problem with that is that, legally at least, the person who gave you permission to download it doesn't own what they're giving you. It is owned by whoever owns the copywrite to that piece of data (be it music, video etc.)

Maybe you can't touch data, and maybe it can be easily reproduced, but that doesn't change the fact that someone legally owns that data. It's called copywrite because it implies ownership of any reproduction of that media. Since downloading something is a form of reproduction, by doing it you are creating a copy of a product someone else owns the rights to. Therefore, you are stealing from whoever owns the rights.

Commisarlestat said:
When this is the case you cannot be stealing from the band.
Maybe not, but you're still stealing from the record company. Surprisingly, record companies are staffed by human beings, not all of whom are fantastically wealthy. That's what a corporation is, it's a group of people pooling their resources and labour and sharing the profits amongst themselves. If the corporation as a whole suffers, for example, because everyone gets their product for free instead of buying it, the individual employees and shareholders of that corporation are going to suffer, probably through being laid off as the company is forced to downsize, or seeing a reduced share performance due to dwindling profits.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime.. Stealing from a 'faceless' corporation merely means you're spreading the loss amongst a number of people. But then, how many people are downloading media instead of buying it?

Commisarlestat said:
Firstly the artists need to ask for a bigger cut.
Surprisingly, record companies are generally necessary to produce music.. Not everyone can afford to run a professional recording studio in their garage. Maybe in the future we will see a world without record companies, where only the fabulously rich have a chance of ever being able to market their music because noone else will have the resources to record, distribute and market music effectively. Personally, I prefer the world in which music is well produced and a decent range of artists get signed.

Commisarlestat said:
The companies profits are not linked hugely to theft, each company will expect a certain level of loss due to theft.
True.. but then, imagine if noone stole. The company profits would increase by the ammount they expected to tollerate in theft, that money would be reinvested into the business in the form of growth. The money would be spread to shareholders and employees, who would spend it on services, in turn encouraging growth in other sectors too, making other people richer, who pass it back into their business, and so forth.

One company's profits may not seem terribly important, but it has an effect in the overall state of the economy. The economy affects everyone, from the poorest up.

The same is true in music.. Record producers spend money. If their business is doing well because people are buying CDs instead of pirating, they have more money to spend and make other people richer. The money you save by pirating music would have gone somewhere else, and may well have facilitated someone else's livelihood. It's irresponsible to assume that theft or piracy have no effect on anyone. Any change in the way people spend money has an effect somewhere, and not just in some abstract world of economic theory, but on real people in the real world.

I should note that I download music for free myself, as I have trouble finding CDs or paid downloads of bands I like, and I resent paying postal costs for CDs unless I'm buying them cheap and second hand. However, I just think it's naive to assume that it has no effect. You can decide, as I have, that the effect is not important to you, but it's still there.
 
#33 ·
Surprisingly, record companies are generally necessary to produce music.. Not everyone can afford to run a professional recording studio in their garage.
That is so not the case anymore, with the technology available for the standard home computer, you no longer need a recording studio to produce professional sounding albums.
The only two things that recording companies have over a "garage studio" is the track-mixing experience and marketing power (and even that is being challenged by youtube).

I used to live with a guy who ran his own basic mixing studio from his computer. His clientelle was predominantly schools, but he was producing decent quality CDs.

Another friend worked for a TV advertising company that was run out of a house. Their "sound studio" was a closet with soundproofing and a microphone. This small company won awards over big production companies.

Bigger no longer means better, only bigger. The sooner recording companies realise this, the sooner they will come up with a new business plan to save their industry.
 
#36 ·
This debate is getting really interesting!

A few things to answer to first off,

1. The theft analogy was a bit stretched i must admit however it isnt theft but handling stolen goods. Similar but not quite as bad.
2. I'm sorry if it was unclear but i wasn't suggesting that the crime was victimless. The people intended to be 'hurt' by the crime are not always the people who are.

Right and now for some other points raised. Itll all end up rolled into one anyway...

There have been severla points raised that are interesting. Firstly corporations do include real human beings and these people may feel the effect of the industry dwindling. They are, sorry to sound callous, acceptable casulaties. The corporations tend to hide behind this fact and make it their big arguemnet in defence of what they do. Now when the company is hurt they lay of those who have been with the company for the shortest time or those in menial tasks. they wont be cutting the pay of the executives. The executive will still have all of his money coming in a slightly smaller bonus than last year but a bonus none the less. So who is right here? If i hurt the company and people are laid off there is no way of hitting the pockets of those at the top. There is an importnat problem yet there is a solution. The people within the companies should have more support of redundancy and downsizing etc. There should be a way in which the members of the company can turn round and say well you can lay off these 100 people or you can have a small paycut amongst all executives (perhaps forgoe a bonus or two). This is called industrial action. It is available to unions all over the world (well in a fair few countries). The reason the workers are hurt is they wont stand up for their rights aswell. The effects are shifted onto those at the bottom no matter how you look at it its unaviodable. This doesnt mean we should hang our heads and say ok you there with all of the money you decide everything if a stand is made the higher ups would have to take a hit.
As for the equipment being expensive well that is another can of worms. Have you ever thought why it is so expensive? If the only people buying this equipment are the large compnaies then they can afford to pay the prices and wont demand lower prices. As the industry is geared towards the larger companies so the equipment will be marketed to those companies.
As for recording on your home computer. I have sevral cds of mates bands and aquintances bands. They are just as proffesionally recorded and many of them on home pc's designed for the purpose. Why do you say these are lower quality than cd's from larger companies? If the sound needs to be doctored that much dont you think that the musician might not be that great?
As for the economy being hurt by not having rich people that is just nonsense. If they dont have the money then you still have the money. Just because you are using it doesnt mean its worth any less. Whilst you may not use that money to buy form X corporation as long as the money is spent it is still going into the economy. To extend your hypothesis we should give all of our money to the rich as their impact upon the economy would obviously be greater?
As for no-one stealing. Yes i would love a world like that where e are all perfectly respectable humans unfortunately in such a world there would be no need for state systems and private ownership as we could all share. Nice but not realistic. All the while we are human there will be someone who steals, be it because they cant afford or because they are social misfits its a fact of life. Yes more money would be put into the economy but as i said above that money still exists it will still be spent the only real depreciation in economy is the outlay for police and security and in the end the more people employed the more spending in an ironic way it actually helps the economy. wierd never thought thatd be the conclusion lol!
There is also the issue of marketing. Yes you can get virgin media to advertise your cd at prime time etc to make all of the money but there is something which lacks in this arguement. The reason for the production of music. Music should not be produced for profit, on the whole bands produce music because that is what they like to do and it is for the enjoyment of all. So a band that is good will be able to market through posters (i could produced endless amounts on my PC for a minimal cost) or they sell teir cd in the street. Busking is a good earner and gets your name out there. Playing on pubs and clubs, the so called 'on the circuit'. Bands do not need to make millions and millions of whatevers to be successful. The money for a good band is a side product of doing something they enjoy. Unfortunately this world is expensive and they do need to make money but if they record their cd many times and sell it on their own site, posters etc to advertise this. Play a few gigs talk to people (God forbid we have personal interaction) and sell the cd tere then they can make a decent living. Yes it can be hard but why should it be super easy?
The basic point is music is all about enjoyment if the band is in it for the money and they discover noone wants tem on the circuit they will soon give up. IF a band is good it will get big wthout a big record company and it will stay big. This situation would get rid of those digitally enhanced idiotic chav types who think they can sing having a one hit wonder spending to much making the company lose money and then bottling it. This culture also induces many law suites for petty things fi this culture disapears think of hw much better place the world would be.

Man that was a rant sorry guys.
Im sure there was somehting worthwhile in there somewhere.

A
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top