People vs. Music

[cfleck]

With the RIAA actually stepping in and doing some actual harm to file-sharers (here) and attempting to stop it at its source (here) it seems to be about time to express my views in full. I'll attempt to address the most common arguments and hopefully get some response from you readers.

To begin with, I have mixed views on music swapping, but as you will see they do veer more towards the record industry than not. Let's start by addressing the common points...

The RIAA has been screwing us for years with CD prices!!!
Yip, thats true. But in all reality thats kinda fair game. We continued to buy these CDs despite high prices so what motivation did they have to lower them. Music on CD is a luxury in my opinion. 99% of the time you can still buy the tape (which no one complained about) and there is always that funny thing called the radio (which is free). In general, this comment is not a lie, but it doesn't make file swapping fair either.

Why is it bad to "steal" now, but it wasn't a big deal for the past 30 years when we did it with cassettes and what not?
Because, muffinbrain, 30 years ago your copy didn't also get copied by 50 other people. Low scale copying wasn't a big deal. This is large scale man. Especially if you want to talk popular music, this is a big deal. Let's assume you are the sole person with the most popular song on the charts and you are sharing it on your computer. As that song gets shared, you are talking about a combinatorial explosion of availability and uploads. Point is, a lot of people now get copies that never did before. It required no work from you to put up a copy and a few minutes to get one yourself.


Someone always throws in their own interpretation of it being art so it should be free or some skewed view of copyright law and if it should be applied. These points can be addressed rather simply. If the 'artists' wanted you to have them for free, they would post them on their web sites. Done.

Now for the perfect world argument...

I would never buy this song/album anyway. It isn't hurting anyone.
Or so we'd like to think. This is the one I agree with, but is just impractical. I can say with full confidence that I will never buy the Steppenwolf CD that has magic carpet ride, yet I've downloaded it before. Yes I'm a sinner. I'm also sure that other people feel the same way about other songs they have downloaded. But the fact is, this is just a cloak for us to hide behind. I can say that about the new Dave Matthews Band album that I want, but it would be a lie, and I'm sure that there are more than enough people out there who would have no problem lying. So basically, this is a good idea in a completely honest world, but we all know this one doesn't work.


I'll close this with a simple idea. We all need to realize this is stealing. There is no way around it. By downloading songs you are essentially acquiring something for free that you would otherwise have to pay to get.

I think it sucks that the RIAA is doing what it is doing, but they are only protecting themselves from theft. In all seriousness, how many people do you know that were very very pissed about the CD prices before they learned how to file-share? How many people have joined the RIAA is evil bandwagon because it is convenient for them and furthers their file-sharing beliefs. How many of these people can afford to buy a CD, but won't because they can share? I know plenty and I'm sure you do to.

There are many more arguments that I didn't address here, but I encourage you to post them in replies to this and hopefully we can have a remotely intelligent discussion.

For the record, I've a converted file-sharer. I no longer do it, and all my d'loaded files have been removed. Oh, and I might add that I am not in the slightest way disappointed with my music collection.

[voice-]

A few arguments off the top of my head:

I download music as a preview, before purchasing, and I believe it's fair that others can do the same. File-sharing has opened my eyes to many new types of music and new bands of which I've now bought CDs.

The local CD-store has a really terrible selection of CDs, how about availibility and selection for an argument?

When I buy a CD I rarely get the songs I like. To get 3 songs I like I usually have to buy 2 CDs. Is this fair game?

I'm into rare, old songs. They don't produce or sell them any longer. Is it a crime to download?

[Dlatu1983]

I download mainly live and acoustic (soundboard) versions of songs....I have an acoustic obsession. And lucky me, they're not RIAA owned It's not uncommon for me to have a 3, 4, 5 versions of the same song...album (legally), live A, live B, acousic, live acoustic.

[cfleck]

as for the preview argument, i'd have to say that fits into my "perfect world" category. I like it. I agree with it. But its just not feasible for the masses.

I can't say that availibility and selection is a good argument because you obviously have internet access so you have all sorts of music available to buy from online record stores.

As unfair as it may seem, the 2CDs for 3 songs deal sucks, but thats a case of personal taste. I don't see how that justifies downloading them for free. For this case, it helps that iTunes is out and others are coming too. I know that doesn't address the issue for many, but I think it will as these systems become more mature.

Now for the rare, old songs, I don't know. thats a sticky one. Perhaps some other people can address this with their thoughts.

[RacerX]

I don't use any of the online file sharing software. I just don't see the need. The things being traded are more than just music, it is also software (mainly Windows software from what I've heard).

On the music issue, yes it is offal the prices we must pay, yes it would be nice to have singles again, no that doesn't justify sharing music against the artists/labels wishes.

I think iTunes looks like the best way around the "preview" and "cost" arguments (even though I have yet to use it any more than I use file sharing).

The one area I could understand would be out of print music.

I have 20+ novels on my PowerBook. These are complete works in HTML form. They happen to be older works which are now part of public domain. It would be nice if older, out of print, music would be opened up in such a way.

Unfortunately, the file sharing system as it stands right now is beyond repair. People seem to feel (at this point any way) that it is okay for them to do what they are doing. They have justified their actions, which means they are beyond the point of self-policing.

It is unfortunate because the internet (as it was when I started using it) was a place to share ideas and information. File sharing could have been an extension of that had people not taken it upon themselves to share things they didn't have the rights to share.

Sadly, this is just one more example of where people who are able to act unregulated act to excess and the harm of others. So much for the honor system.

[Cat]

I'm into rare, old songs. They don't produce or sell them any longer.

It would be nice if older, out of print, music would be opened up in such a way.

That would be absolutely great! I often have trouble finding the music I really like in stores, and p2p has solved that problem. I would buy many songs I downloaded, if I just could find them!

I am perfectly aware of it being illegal, that's why I downloaded most of them via internal LAN networks in student housing. You can utterly sue out of existence every single p2p app, but it still wouldn't solve the problem.
The iTMS is a perfect solution, and I think that when it will become available in Europe, I will get a credit card just for the purpose of being able to use it!

[Spinner X]

I used lime wire the only p2p avalible for mac. i got rid of it a few weeks bak and i am sorly temted to download it again...infact i might since there have still been no law suits in the UK lol!!! (how much ,on average would they sue u for per mp3 any1 know?)

[cfleck]

i've heard anywhere from $3,000 to $15,000, but they settled with a 12 year old girl for only $2000 total (what a steal!). thats all in u.s. dollars b.t.w.