cfleck
tired
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.
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.