Ok... I've been discussing the ethics of piracy with most of my friends,
and we've decided to take teh gloves off and put this out there for
EVERYONE to chat at.
the definition is The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or
patented material. Now. Napster Kazaaa, all of that makes it so easy, but
moreally is it right?
One of my friends cited the fact that it takes money away from the artists
and that is punishing them for the pricee of the cd. I agree with this,
BUT, the record company actually pockets most of teh proceeds. I mean, if
you are like me, you buy cd-rs 100+ at a time... even at retail, the price
of a cd is only 17 cents if you shop right. NOW... I know a band, prodiuced
their first album themselves... per cd after recording, they spent 3
dollars a disk... and that was payin retail for all services... so... where
is the 15-25 dollar price tag coming from...
second instance... video. if it's been on tv, cable, pay per view... is it
moral to download the fucker and rip it to vcd?
just food for thought kiddies
Feral
____________________ The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 2/8/2003 at 11:40 PM
Well, since I've now been bitch-slapped into reality on the fact that it's
not such a good idea to download mp3's anymore, I won't be doing
that...well not anymore at least.
I've gotten into more than a few discussions lately over the whole issue of
the crackdown on downloading songs and the like. One of the more
interesting points (at least for myself) lately is that some people are
convinced of how morally improper it is to download a song from the
internet, and yet they believe it's not harmful to artists if they just
burn songs from a cd they purchased. *blinks* So I've pointed out to the
moral ones *cough cough* that when they buy one cd and make several copies
of it for their friends, they aren't putting additional money in the artist
or record company's pocket when they do that.
I think if the whole idea of money and commerce is moral in and of itself,
then it would follow that it's immoral to take something from someone who
sells the something without paying for it. Technically it is stealing, and
stealing is generally considered wrong in all circumstances in today's
world. Even with all the arguments about how certain types of stealing are
okay because of all the circumstances surrounding those situations (ie:
rich peope vs. poor people). Reality is that most people feel violated when
something is stolen from them regardless of whether they are rich or poor.
____________________ "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
Anya
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 3/8/2003 at 12:11 AM
Well, it is quite the double-edged blade here. Yes, in a way, it is taking
money out of the pockets of the artists (more of the company, though).
However, it can also help the artists that have not been heard of before
and encourage people to buy their CD's. All I can say is that if the
record company was not whoring the CD's so much, there'd probably not be
that many people out there trying to get mp3's.
There's another thought, though...some of my statistic analysis could be
wrong, but we've had mp3's for quite a long time and it's only in this
recent year or two that the record company is having problems? Maybe the
mp3 sharing increase isn't any help, but I still strongly believe that
there's more factors than just mp3's that's making the company lose money.
Read some chapters in the book called "The Truth About Lying With
Statistics", you'll understand a bit of what I mean.
As for myself, I don't care how immoral people think it is, I rather get
three songs off a CD free than spend fifteen to twenty bucks for the other
ten songs that I do not like and will not use it against anyone else. If
people had the songs sold by individual CD's, or someone started to sell
custom-made CD's, I would probably go for that. Hell, I'd even spend five
dollars on three songs I liked enough.
There's bands out there that I want to buy CD's from, but unfortunately,
the stores here do not sell them and some of the bands still have CD's
where there's only three songs out of fifteen that I like. Heh.
[Edited on 8/3/2003 by Anya]
Alugarde
Member
Posts: 185 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 3/8/2003 at 01:35 AM
There are three situations that I consider morally acceptable:
1) If I'm sampling and/or it's something I plan to buy. I don't download in
mass quantity.
2) If I'm legally entitled to a copy but that copy is elsewhere. For
example, if I buy a cd and forget to take it with me to college.
3) If there's no way to get it short of buying an airplane ticket or if it
is simply not yet available for purchase.
And Anya, I believe there are places that custom make cd's online.
____________________ l33t is the bastard cousin of contractions.
____________________ The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
Xaoswolf
Fanatic
Posts: 463 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 3/8/2003 at 10:19 AM
The moral highroad is seldom the easy way.
As it is, the easy way is to click a song in kazaa and steal the music. OF
course, since we are only stealing from big corporations and already rich
people, it's ok right?
Sure they could buy the cd, but that would require them working to earn
money, and then spending the money on something the don't feel is worth it.
Or they could just do without, heaven forbid.
Also, feral, how much advertising did the $3 disk recieve? How much was it
distributed? Part of the $13 price(current going rate for both Pink's and
Christina Aguilera's newest CDs) of new CD's is also for advertising and
distribution.
Another thing I hear people complaining about is the cost of import CDs.
They can be double the price of normal CD's however they fail to realize
that they must also cover the cost of international shipping charges and
any import tarrifs.
____________________ Sometimes I dream about dinosaurs shopping for cargo shorts at the Gap.
Does that make me a bad person?
Anya
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 3/8/2003 at 12:23 PM
What I meant by the whoring part was how they're charging a lot of money
for a single CD, some of the CD's costing as much as fifteen bucks for just
ten songs, probably only two or three that the person will really like. At
the really good places, they'll charge as much as twenty bucks. That's
what I mean about the whoring part.
I understand the need to make profit off CD's, but there's a lot of things
out there that cost as much as pocketchange to make a piece that end up
being sold for a lot more. It's probably hurting the music company more,
though, since they get most of the profit off the CD's.
Xaos: IN the music industry, the company that makes the CD is RARELY the
company that does the promotion... 95% of the time it is done by the
distributors... the wholesale price is STILL over 10$ Currently there is a
motion in congres to regulate CD prices... I support it... As for Tarriffs,
we have no tariff on over seas import cd's as of now... that MIGHT change,
but it is a fact... over seas shipping, when dealing with most companies,
you order something and they will ship it for free...
Pricec Debate aside... Morally, is ir right to download a crystal clear
copy of something when it's been on ther radio? I know the legality... and
technicality... shit, I personally have made mp3s out of all of my cds...
but sometimes... legality and morality are in diametric justaposition to
each other...
Feral
____________________ The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 4/8/2003 at 12:15 PM
That's a good point, and I'd like to know: What's the difference between
tape-recording a song off the radio, and downloading a song off the
'net?
I mean, I recorded songs off the radio, way back in the day (oh yeah, I'm
an elderly 18 years old... :p ). It was moral, since the radio gave them to
you for free anyway. And if you wanted a particular song, you just call up
and request it. Of course, the quality kinda stunk and most of the time I'd
miss the first few seconds of a song, but it was alright...
So if I listen to the radio and download the songs that I hear on the
radio, aren't I doing the same thing (in the long run)?
____________________ Piggy's got the Conch!
MystryssRavynDarque
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 648 Registered: 24/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 4/8/2003 at 02:32 PM
I'm a pirate. YOHO YOHO A PIRATES LIFE FOR ME! I'll do Johny Depp any
day!
____________________ "People always say what we are looking for is a meaning for life…I don't
think that's what we're looking for. I think what we're looking for is the
experience of being alive." -Joseph Campbell
Shade
Fanatic
Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 4/8/2003 at 03:01 PM
I've come up with the perfect defense in terms of music piracy, but it only
works on songs you have heard at least once through acceptable channels,
ie: on the radio, in a movie sound track, in a club, at a friends house, or
even on the tester headphones at a music store. You are allowed to make a
back-up copy of data that you are currently in possesion of, I consider
myself to be in possession of my knowledge and memories. Therefore if I
have heard a song, I am in possession of a legitimate copy of that song. If
I want to make a back-up copy, or in some way get a back-up copy since
brain to digital media transfer is still not the most funtional tech, then
I have that right. I'm just making a back-up in case I get hit in the head
or contract alzheimer's.
So personally, I think of it more as pre-technological back-up of mental
material via an alternative method.
-Shade
____________________ It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of religion.
-Me
Xaoswolf
Fanatic
Posts: 463 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 4/8/2003 at 06:11 PM
Feral Government regulation of prices is a bad thing. The market
can do that, all the government needs to do is not be the lap dogs of the
RIAA. Instead of listening to them whine, they should point them to a
business class where they can learn the fundamentles of Supply and
Demand.
Ironboots A copy from the radio isn't a direct copy from a CD, like
you said, the quality is bad. An MP3 that someone ripped from a CD is
normally indistinguishable from the original. That is where the problem
is.
____________________ Sometimes I dream about dinosaurs shopping for cargo shorts at the Gap.
Does that make me a bad person?
Domkitten
Fanatic
Posts: 470 Registered: 23/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 02:57 AM
Two Cents:
I like downloading music. I like it a lot. Generally I only download stuff
I can’t get at all, or stuff I’ve bought so many damn times
I’m simply not willing to do it again. For example, I admit, I like
the natural born killers soundtrack. I’ve bought about twenty copies,
all of which eventually get jacked at parties, or loaned to friends.
I’ll be damned if I’m going to buy it again.
Beside, the point however, I like downloading music. And I think, that in
the long run, as the internet develops faster, and technology with it, that
musicians will begin to like downloading music even more.
First of all, the musicians we are stealing from generally have contracts
with major labels. To bad for them, really, because yes, downloading their
music really does lose them a lot of money. When you are signed to a major
label you get advanced money based on how much money the label will be
expecting you to make for them. Also, you pay for everything. Oh, sure you
get an advance, but you have to pay for everything from the studio, to the
packaging, you pay for you lawyer, you pay for distribution, you pay the
fucking caterers.
Most artist for major labels actually end up owing money, a lot of money.
In this scenario Brittany Spears has to shake her ass almost 365 days a
year just to afford to pay all the people off that are working for her, so
yes, by downloading her music you are taking money out of her pocket. In
reality they live like rock stars but they are owned by the man. And woe be
it if they want to switch labels, they have to buy their own freedom, or
they cannot record anywhere else for a better deal.
Now, the pros, for musicians who are not signed to a major label are many.
One, it’s free exposure. Two people who download the music might
actually take an interest and buy the cd they distribute, thereby putting
money in their personal pocket. MP3’s are the kind of exposure one
cannot get on the radio. I love listening to new bands, and I’ve
found, and gone on to buy lots of cd’s because I was able to find an
artist I’d never heard of before.
For some it works. For the RIAA it doesn’t, because in a lot of ways
it puts the power and the power to earn back into the hands of the
non-rockstar, cutting out them the middle man. They like being the middle
men. They don’t have to perform, they don’t have to pay for
anything, and they are paid for by the artist. They make money being there,
and so, for them MP3’s are a horrible system.
The music industry wasn’t all to happy about recordable cassettes and
the radio, but I shall have to dig through my music history notes to site
dates and what not.
In the long run, however, the artists will win, things will evolve, and the
RIAA which is an outmoded dinosaur anyway will be forced to change.
For those of you still convinced that it is best to bow down to the might
of the blanket law suiting of the American people, here is an expense list
for a band that has made 3 million for the record company, and is still not
making money:
Note the advances they get, compared to what they need to pay out, and
their final take home pay:
The Big Advance: $ 250,000
Artist Pays:
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 150,000
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
Video budget: $ 30,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 3,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
(Money they make for selling Records here)Record sales: 250,000 @ $12
=$3,000,000 (three million but wait...)
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Bands Income: Net royalty: $ -14,000
Record company income:
Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =$1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the
game.
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 (Live that rock an roll life style
baby!)
For more on the history of recording music check out this fantastic program
by NPR that you can listen to online at Here.
One last thing to keep in mind. If the American people really want thier
MP3's then they better make damn sure to vote. Yeah, the recording lobby is
huge, but last time I checked KaZaa had over 3 million subscribers and that
is a lot of votes if the people start to get there asses in gear. What we
need is a grass roots movment to take back the music.
I want rockin roll baby.
____________________ It's like kegel exercises for your throat.~Monolycus
Xaos: I disagree... government regulation of prices in a couple countries,
social democracies, to be exact leads to several interesting things...
Honestly a trruly regulated government allows everyone to be employed, have
government supplied health care and everything is affordable... by
regulating wages and not prices, the government completely negates the
point of making a minimum wage at all by letting the average company bump
up the price to compensate... ALTHOUGH... this is far from the point...
though I think I might just have to do an article on this
Feral
BTW... when dessert storm started and the white house stepped in to
regulate gasoline prices... EVERYONE (save the oil moguls) agreed...
____________________ The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
/>
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 08:19 AM
Dessert storm? *snickers*
But when you regulate to that degree, aren't you just creating a socialist
society?
And wouldn't that piss off a lot of businessmen and other types? You know,
the types that pretty much own our government?
Oui... We need a revolution or two. Just for fun.
____________________ Piggy's got the Conch!
Xaoswolf
Fanatic
Posts: 463 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 08:55 AM
Feral Gasoline is a bit differant than CDs.
You won't see people panicking to get to Sam Goody to stock up on Back
Street Boys CDs because the price is going up. You won't have lines going
around the block because they are affraid that there won't be any CD's
tommorrow.
____________________ Sometimes I dream about dinosaurs shopping for cargo shorts at the Gap.
/>
Does that make me a bad person?
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 09:01 AM
I don't know about that, Xaoswolf... People these days...
But the market ISN'T regulating prices, especially with respect to cds...
There's no controls. Lets say I want to buy Joe Rockstar's new cd. His
label puts a twenty dollar price tag on it, since its a hot item. If I want
to get Joe's music, I have to pay the twenty dollars. I can't go to a
competitor somewhere else, because that's the only label Joe's got.
There's no price competition, which means the market system failed.
[Edited on 8/5/2003 by Ironboots]
____________________ Piggy's got the Conch!
Xaoswolf
Fanatic
Posts: 463 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 06:26 PM
Well, you can buy some Joe Knockoff CD's.
It's the same thing with that new $80 pair of Nikes. If you don't want to
pay that much, you go to payless and get something similiar.
Also, the reason that the RIAA is having trouble is because they aren't
following the market.
Lastly, what CD's are people buying that are costing over $20?
Seriously, I remember a few years ago when they were like $16, but most
that I see now are under $13, unless you want an import.
____________________ Sometimes I dream about dinosaurs shopping for cargo shorts at the Gap.
Gasoline, like cd's is defined as a commodity... something that the average
person doesn't truly need.
THere are certain things that NEED to be price contrroled. I mean...Look at
software these days... R&D is a lot of dosh, yes, but EACH COPY of windows
solds is 100... Other single disc software packages run frrom 500 to
1,000... I'm not talking government policing, the public should stand up
and say.. FUCK YOU... I'm not paying for Joe Rockstar's signing company to
screw me up the ass anymore...
but we're off subject again.. the morality of it... where does it lie?
Feral
____________________ The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
/>
/>
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
Britva
Moderator
Posts: 37 Registered: 1/8/2003 Status: Offline
posted on 5/8/2003 at 09:27 PM
I don't think this is a moral question so much as a legal one. The only
things you're really running up against when you share mp3s are our current
trademark, copyright, and intellectual property laws. Now I'm not saying
that these laws are right or wrong, I'm just saying they're not the only
way to do things.
For example, imagine a system where all recorded music was free to be
shared and distributed. Musicians would continue to make a moderate income
from touring, and they would have an incentive to make high quality
recordings to pull in audiences for their shows. The musicians would
probably make less money in this system (although the amount they make from
a recording is suspect as mentioned in above posts), but can you think of
any good musicians who are in it for the money? I think the argument that
paying less for something inevitably leads to inferior quality falls apart
when it comes to music.
On another note, the media industries always get full of doom and gloom
when a new technology comes out. They said TV would kill movies, they said
casette tapes were going to ruin the recording industry, they said VCR's
were the apocalypse. Meanwhile I can get any book I want from the public
library down the street for free (and sanctioned by the government no
less), but we still have a publishing industry. Go figure.
[Any copying or distribution of this post without express written consent
of the author is expressly prohibited]