illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[MrBrau1]

what i find hilarious is the notion that some people think it's terrible that we download for free when i'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us at LEAST do it on a somewhat regular basis.

and it probably hasn't been within the last seven years or so that i've bought an album without first downloading some songs "illegally" (shock horror).

it might not be my right, but i'll do it anyway. and if you download anything without going out and purchasing it later, then you have no right to criticize.

Yes it's stealing. And it's wonderful cause it's so easy, and your chances of getting caught are nil.

But lets stop with all the romantic ideals behind it. We steal music because the internet has made it so incredibly easy.

We don't steal because the record companies/artists are so rich and screw over artists. We don't steal because it helps us sample music or acts as a promotional tool.

The notions that illegal filesharing is some kind of unselfish Robin Hood act is complete and utter crap.

People steal because they're greedy and they can.

 

[phanan]

They made one jump since their inception, that's it. CDs the same way the first year they were out cost more than now. All mediums do that, the make one drop and then stay there until they are obsolete.

CDs certainly haven't made a drop at all. Having worked in music retail, this is something I most certainly can attest to.

All I'm saying is that a CD hasn't ever had a major price drop like the DVD has, whether it was only one change or more, that's not the point. The point is if the DVD format went through a price reduction, the CD format should have as well. And it never has. And I think this is because of the greed of music companies, and while I don't condone stealing music, I can certainly understand why it happens.

 

[Zoomerang96]

and as a result i've bought perhaps over a hundred albums i'd never have bought if i hadn't first downloaded them.

your points are for the most part true, though you cannot outrightly dispute the promotion power that the internet provides in this "illegal" way.

but the point is, most of us on this forum and countless others do it anyway. i can only imagine how many in the rest of the world do as well.

does anyone think the industry will be able to stop it?

look at phones, landlines in particular. they're shitting themselves over skyp and what they've managed to do.

i know it's not the same thing, perhaps not even close, but it's still a point worth looking at.

but hey, what do i care if you agree with me or not. i will continue doing what i do, and you can as well. i could care less what happens to fucking guy hands and the rest of the people like him.

a new model will emerge. there's no other way... they just won't like it.

 

[thelaj]

People steal because they can yes, but I reckon people are more motivated to steal because of what they perceive as unfair costs.

I am not saying "fair prices" for digital tracks will eliminate piracy, but it will enable more people to have a CHOICE about it.

I think a lot of people DO download to sample music, otherwise you are just buying into the record company's absurd notion that 1 download = 1 lost sale which is patently false.

Downloads should be cheaper than they are based on the price of CDs and the relevant costs for each, even taking into account current royalties and margins. I have data to show this, which I may post later.

 

[BVS]

CDs certainly haven't made a drop at all. Having worked in music retail, this is something I most certainly can attest to.

I've never paid the 18 to 20 dollars for a CD, that many folks did in the mid 80's.

All I'm saying is that a CD hasn't ever had a major price drop like the DVD has, whether it was only change or more, that's not the point. The point is if the DVD format went through a price reduction, the CD format should have as well. And it never has. And I think this is because of the greed of music companies, and while I don't condone stealing music, I can certainly understand why it happens.

Do a little timeline research.

 

[BVS]

a new model will emerge. there's no other way... they just won't like it.

I'm all for a new model, I agree it's time.

I just can't agree with those who feel the right to free music.

 

[MrBrau1]

Isn't there a royalty fee baked into the price of a blank CDR? or blank cassette tape?

 

[MrBrau1]

People steal because they can yes, but I reckon people are more motivated to steal because of what they perceive as unfair costs.

I want a BMW, but can't afford one. It's cost is "unfair" to me.

 

[Snowlock]

No it doesn't. You ARE allowed to record a tv show for your own consumption. But if you uploaded it on a torrent, it would be illegal, same as the Radiohead album.

No, technically you aren't allowed to record a tv show or any other copyrighted work. Someone should just post the terms/conditions of downloading In Rainbows. I think in a court of law it'd be nearly impossible to convict someone of piracy or theft for either uploading or downloading a free album; the same as it would be taping ER and giving the tape to a friend.

 

[Snowlock]

People steal because they can yes, but I reckon people are more motivated to steal because of what they perceive as unfair costs.

I am not saying "fair prices" for digital tracks will eliminate piracy, but it will enable more people to have a CHOICE about it.

I think a lot of people DO download to sample music, otherwise you are just buying into the record company's absurd notion that 1 download = 1 lost sale which is patently false.

Downloads should be cheaper than they are based on the price of CDs and the relevant costs for each, even taking into account current royalties and margins. I have data to show this, which I may post later.

I would agree with you that people will download to sample, but I would think it'd be very rare that if the person like what they sampled, they'd go out and buy the album, or the itunes single or whatever. Now, they may go out and by the followup CD maybe. But the album they downloaded is a sale lost even if it leads to other sales.

 

[phanan]

I've never paid the 18 to 20 dollars for a CD, that many folks did in the mid 80's.



Do a little timeline research.

I never paid $18-$20 for a CD in the 80's, either. I always found them for about $15, same as you. We already discussed this. $15 is more or less the price now, as it was then. And as I said before, some places have them higher now.

I don't have to do timeline research, because I was around in the mid-80's buying CDs myself. I know how much I got them for back then, and it's the same as now.

CD prices have not gone down at all. Period. And it's my opinion that it is a direct result of the music industry's greed. You don't agree?

 

[BVS]

No, technically you aren't allowed to record a tv show or any other copyrighted work.

There's a "fair use" clause in most copyrighted material that allows for private use.

Someone should just post the terms/conditions of downloading In Rainbows. I think in a court of law it'd be nearly impossible to convict someone of piracy or theft for either uploading or downloading a free album; the same as it would be taping ER and giving the tape to a friend.

It would be very easy to convict for uploading In Rainbows, not that a court would ever waste time on just one album, but yes it would be very easy. Court doesn't look at cost, it looks at copyrights, and this wouldn't fall into fair use.

Same with uploading ER. Now giving the tape to a friend would be much harder to do anything about.

 

[BVS]

I never paid $18-$20 for a CD in the 80's, either. I always found them for about $15, same as you. We already discussed this. $15 is more or less the price now, as it was then. And as I said before, some places have them higher now.

I don't have to do timeline research, because I was around in the mid-80's buying CDs myself. I know how much I got them for back then, and it's the same as now.

CD prices have not gone down at all. Period. And it's my opinion that it is a direct result of the music industry's greed. You don't agree?

When did you buy your first CD?

 

[Justin24]

then wow are you missing out on a shitload of good music.

Question Zoom aren't you rich? I could have sworn you and Kieran were buddies or something and are rich? If so then quit complaining cause you have the money to go out and buy the CD's. I am not rich by any means but I at least have Amazon mp3, itunes or amazon(used) cd's to let me buy a legit copy.

 

[Popmartijn]

All I'm saying is that a CD hasn't ever had a major price drop like the DVD has, whether it was only one change or more, that's not the point. The point is if the DVD format went through a price reduction, the CD format should have as well. And it never has. And I think this is because of the greed of music companies, and while I don't condone stealing music, I can certainly understand why it happens.

But you also have to consider that for most DVD's, they already had an opportunity to recoup the costs. Movies already had a theatrical release, TV-series were already paid for by the broadcasting companies (who mainly recouped the costs with the advertising).
But for music, the record companies only have the CD to recoup the costs. And while the production costs of CDs might have gone down, the production costs of creating the music hasn't.
Studios are more expensive, as is personnel (producers, engineers, etc.). Marketing/promotion has also become more expensive. All this will go into the price of a CD, while most movies will rely on the box-office return.

 

[thelaj]

But the album they downloaded is a sale lost even if it leads to other sales.

I accept that SOME downloads leads to lost sales but what I don't agree with is the RIAA's premise that every download is the equivalent of a lost sale.

I want to point out I don't think stealing music is acceptable, because it isn't! Allowing people the ability to preview tracks would be nice but the main point for me is that the blatant over-pricing of music drives SOME people to pirate music. Take for example Justin Timberlake's last album, I downloaded that via torrent because I am not willing to gamble it is worth £9. The lower the price, the lower the risk becomes. Offer previews and the risk is almost eliminated.

No previews AND lower price
OR
Previews and current price

Either of those would be better than the current scenario.

+=========

Some random points on physical vs digital costs

"Well, here is where your money goes when you make an iTunes song purchase: Apple gets a 35% cut and the other 65% goes to the music industry. Of this 65%, they pay the artists between 8 and 14 cents per song depending on their contract. Finally, artists must also make a large pay out for producer and recording costs."

"If the music industry were to still pay the artist 10 cent, but only add another 10 cent per song sold for packaging and distribution (easily done on legal download services), this would bring a typical 20-song album down to just $ 4! "

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/iTunes-download-service-and-others-only-help-rip-off-musicians.html

 

[skott100]

The Radiohead // In Rainbows argument falls flat on both sides. The truth is no one except Radiohead has access to the sales data for that release, and they have not made it public. Thom Yorke says they did "quite well" and lets not ignore the fact that months after the internet release, the hard copy CD entered the US album charts at #1.

There's a lot of reasons to admire what they did. I just think it's badass that they have the sales figures and they're all, "It's no ones business but ours, so fuck right off."

 

[phanan]

When did you buy your first CD?

1986. Squeeze - Singles 45's And Under. I remember it well. It was at a music store in a mall that no longer exists.

I'm one of the older guys around here.

 

[BVS]

1986. Squeeze - Singles 45's And Under. I remember it well. It was at a music store in a mall that no longer exists.

I'm one of the older guys around here.

My first was Rattle and Hum.

But I just found info that the first releases on CD were mainly classical music and the price for a CD was $30 in 1982. When prices came down a little they started pressing popular music.

 

[GARY#2]

Music is and always has been a tertiary/service industry. Guess what that means? You should be paying after you listen... in other words, after the service has been provided. It's the same idea as fulfilling your consumer contract when paying the bill at a restaurant (which is also, you guessed it, a service industry). Professional musicians, prior to this past century, were paid through patronage or some sort of compensation after live performance (see troubadours, minstrels, etc.). With the inception of labels and contracts, the business model of music shifted to favor artists.

As a means to make the profession more profitable and stable (for a greater number of people), artists and labels migrated towards a product-focused model of business, which means that consumers paid up-front for recorded material before being able to fully experience the album/record/EP/live performance etc. In recent years, platforms like iTunes and myspace pages provided listeners with the ability to preview some tracks or pieces of songs. However, there was and is a lack of accessibility for back catalogue material for certain artists (especially if they have stringent distribution rights via their label contract).

It makes sense why the music industry would transition away from a service-based model, because it does not provide guaranteed capital. This is why you pay up-front for concerts and albums, so the artists can be compensated in a regular and predictable way. However, all of these up-front costs limit the ability and mobility of many consumers to invest in a lot of music and artists. Internet piracy and torrenting filled the niche for some consumers who could not afford to be exposed to a larger pool of music. Of course, some folks say that this method of procuring music is stealing, since consumers are either not paying for music or they are violating the sanctity of an artist's vision. In reality, some people are stealing, because they hoard albums and redistribute them without contributing to the artist or label. But, what about the listeners who download an album and they don't like it? Should they pay for a service that they did not want? If they abandon payment, is that the equivalent of a dine-and-dash? Maybe, I'll return to this towards the end of the post.

My proposal with this post is that torrenting, piracy, and the like are merely market corrections that invalidate the way in which the music industry does business (broadly speaking). People use these "illicit" methods of finding music because they are (of course) convenient and accomodating to the consumer, which probably implies that the current "legal" modes of acquiring music are inconvenient and less desirable. Right-protected material and DRM CDs are pitiless examples of inconvenience, which are only in place for the labels to gain control over the digital realm.

Now, I'm not suggesting that musicians and artists should return to the minstrel or medieval troubadour model. That's ridiculous (possibly hilarious). But, the veil of thievery that the music industry (and folks who just plain don't understand the issue... ahem, Gene Simmons) have applied to consumers is inappropriate and ignorant. There will always be people who do not pay for music. That is the collateral damage that artists will have to accept and absorb in the digital era. HOWEVER, the ability for artists to reach new listeners and expose themselves IS the compensation. For every dozen people that steal an album (which they likely would NOT have listened to or bought in the first place), there is a potential fan who will invest in merchandise, concert tickets, future albums... and recommendations. This is where the grey area of piracy exists, and where the market correction is most profoundly highlighted.

Having said that, music should not be free.

But, it should be accessible.

I think there should be an up-front standard flat rate for digital and physical purchases that goes directly to artists and their promoters. This should be a smaller fee, if we believe in distributing funds across more artists, rather than concentrating capital into larger (more ubiquitous) acts. And maybe this next part is altruistic or naive, but just as you would tip your waiter at a restaurant, there should be a means by which you can provide further contribution directly to artists. In other words, return to the idea of patronage and service. Labels and artists should learn lessons from their collective history (and the services that they have provided) before more consumers become jaded and turn towards methods that usurp artist compensation... and perpetuate the issue.

 

[GARY#2]

I want a BMW, but can't afford one. It's cost is "unfair" to me.

Yet, you can still test drive a BMW in its entirety (for an hour or so) and check out all of its features. It's interesting that you don't have to pay up-front for that test drive or really express any interest in the car at all.

I guess people that test drive an album once and delete it are as nefarious as those prospective BMW owners.

... yes, I am simplifying things as well.

PS- I think there is a royalty fee built-in to certain blank cd-rs, Mr.Brau

 

[BVS]

Test driving not equal to having full access to an album...

 

[GARY#2]

Test driving not equal to having full access to an album...

Originally posted by GARY#2
... yes, I am simplifying things as well.

Of course, in some cases it is not equal, but in the sense of being able to immerse yourself in the full experience... it's the same. Actually, I would argue you get more exposure to the potential purchase when in a BMW test-drive than you do with iTunes previews or most low-quality downloads. The only real difference is that music is (by nature) ephemeral, so it's easier to retain "ownership" of it without purchase.

I could have said that buying cars and buying music are not equal, but I thought that was given.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

Here is what the EU Court of Justice has to say about illegal downloading (sorry if this has already been mentioned in this thread).

[q]EUobserver.com
Internet providers don't have to name downloaders, says EU court

29.01.2008 - 17:42 CET | By Leigh Phillips

EU member states are not required to force internet service providers to hand over the names of file-sharers who distribute copyright material, Europe's top court ruled today (29 January).

The European Court of Justice agreed with Spanish internet service provider (ISP) Telefonica that under Spanish law based on EU legislation, the telco does not have to disclose the personal data of internet subscribers in civil cases.

"Community law does not require the member states, in order to ensure the effective protection of copyright, to lay down an obligation to disclose personal data in the context of civil proceedings," read the ruling.

The ECJ decision, ruling on a complaint against Telefonica from Promusicae, the Spanish record industry trade association, will come as something of a set-back to the major European and international music companies.

Only three days ago (25 January), the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the global record industry trade association, issued a report calling on the EU to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who last November sponsored an initiative to force internet service providers to disconnect customers who illegally download music.

IPFI pointed out that the judgement does not preclude the possibility for member states to continue to require disclosure of data in civil proceedings.

John Kennedy, IFPI Chairman & CEO, put on a brave face: "Copyright theft on the internet is the single biggest obstacle to the growth of the music business today. The European Court has confirmed the need to have effective tools to tackle piracy.

"The judgment means that music rights owners can still take civil actions to enforce their rights, and it has sent out a clear signal."

"Intellectual property rights can neither be ignored nor neglected," he added.

The court noted that there are a number of community directives that require member states, "especially in the information society," to ensure the protection of intellectual property.

However, the court warned that the protection of such property should not come at the expense of the protection of personal data.

© EUobserver.com 2008
Printed from EUobserver.com 30.01.2008

The information may be used for personal and non-commercial use only.

This article and related links can be found at: http://euobserver.com/9/25559[/q]

 

[BVS]

but in the sense of being able to immerse yourself in the full experience... it's the same.

Um, no. You are limited in everyway, milage, time, etc... Not the full experience of owning it, being on your own, being able to open it up on a road trip.

 

[thelaj]

Um, no. You are limited in everyway, milage, time, etc... Not the full experience of owning it, being on your own, being able to open it up on a road trip.

Then a 3 play 64kbps stream (or something) would be appropriate to preview a song in terms of limitations.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

Test driving not equal to having full access to an album...

...exactly: You can't buy a pizza – but want to taste it first, then you decide, whether it's that good YOU might pay for it. Folks, get off your space ships and return to earth ...

 

[thelaj]

...exactly: You can't buy a pizza – but want to taste it first, then you decide, whether it's that good YOU might pay for it. Folks, get off your space ships and return to earth ...

I read somewhere that you can actually do that.

 

[MrBrau1]

How do ISPs police child pornography?

 

[the tourist]

This thread's still going?

Has anyone actually convinced anyone else of anything?