How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?

[whyterabbyt]

dystonia_ek quoth

Morality is what people turn to when they no longer have a leg to stand on, and has no place in a rational debate. I'm 36, which is perhaps not 'old', and I have a value system that I believe is very well thought-out (and always evolving), but it's certainly not based on anything as ephemeral and irrational as 'morality'.

Just out of interest could you define what you see as being the difference between 'a value system' and 'morality'. The latter has an implicit scale of 'right' and 'wrong', however that might be measureed, so are you meaning that your value system doesnt. Thanks.

Oh and apart from the philosophical bit


All Kaden was trying to point out is that we're in the middle of a major transition in the nature of media and its means of distribution, and that you can't just put the genie back in the bottle - this is a simple statement of fact, and I don't see how arguing morality addresses this.

Whether or not the the 'genie can be put back in the bottle' is still a matter for debate, IMO. Those who have a vested interest in that media as the keys to their profits will do everything they can to control the it and its distribution, and they have a very great deal of influence over the technology used to deliver it. Personally I think we've only seen the start of an 'arms race' of DRM and the like, and I dont think that it will disappear. Not without a major shift in how these companies 'think'. And I dont see that as likely, I really dont.

[whyterabbyt]

oh feck. apologies for the double post.

[herodotus]

If police took it seriously.... then it could hammer home the point well enough to stop people doing it. People only do it now because they believe that they are not doing anything wrong. Wait until a few of their friends are hauled into court and ordered to pay damages and see if their attitude doesn't change.

Yeah, that works perfectly.

Just look at illegal drugs: no one uses them since they started putting people in jail for it.

[dystonia_ek]

Just out of interest could you define what you see as being the difference between 'a value system' and 'morality'. The latter has an implicit scale of 'right' and 'wrong', however that might be measureed, so are you meaning that your value system doesnt. Thanks.

I don't see any sort of absolute 'Right' and 'Wrong', no, based as they tend to be on either a)religion-based thought streams and/or b)the political mechanics of control/coercion/domination/domestication. I do have a few relatively fixed principles though - it'd be a long digression so I won't clog up the thread with one though.

Oh and apart from the philosophical bit


All Kaden was trying to point out is that we're in the middle of a major transition in the nature of media and its means of distribution, and that you can't just put the genie back in the bottle - this is a simple statement of fact, and I don't see how arguing morality addresses this.

Whether or not the the 'genie can be put back in the bottle' is still a matter for debate, IMO. Those who have a vested interest in that media as the keys to their profits will do everything they can to control the it and its distribution, and they have a very great deal of influence over the technology used to deliver it. Personally I think we've only seen the start of an 'arms race' of DRM and the like, and I dont think that it will disappear. Not without a major shift in how these companies 'think'. And I dont see that as likely, I really dont.

I don't see it as likely anytime soon either, but nonetheless some unconventional thinking is bound to seep into the mainstream eventually, especially as the technology continues to decentralise, and 'unique object'-based concepts continue to be misapplied to infinitely reproducable media. A friend of mine, who is a mid-level manager at IBM, is currently writing an MBA thesis about the obsolescence of traditional approaches to copyright and intellectual property as an opportunity, rather than a threat. Others in his company agree (though their ideas have yet to filter too far upwards in the hierarchy).

What is surprising to me is that, in a forum such as this with such a noticeable liberal bias, the focus is not placed on the potential of these new trends to essentially democratise new technologies, rather than leaving them in the hands of a small economic oligarchy. I also don't understand the knee-jerk loyalty that so many people seem to have to largely outmoded meme-complexes. There's this underlying 'the system must be preserved' line of thinking that runs through all of these 'debates', and which sometimes, after analysis, is the only argument being made.

[fjell_strom]

I have to say, for kaden's sake, whose style is clearly unabashedly abrasive and has incited more than one of you to rage: I do not think he put forward so much as once the suggestion that he supports music piracy.

What he has put forward several times is a question: if you don't like it, what do you plan to do about it?

Why does he keep getting blasted for advocating music piracy?

And, to Bones, who asked, "What if you had designed all the pieces yourself, spending countless hundreds of hours meticulously making hand-crafted originals and then was walking down the high street one day and saw cheap, Chinese knock-offs of all your work for a few bucks/quid/euro, all with shoddy workmanship?"

Answer: I would probably be shocked and upset and would have to ask myself what I planned to do about it. But verily I say unto you: This reaction would be much different than if they had come and taken those same things you described. That is why I draw a line between stealing and duplication, and I think it is very important. In fact, I think you'll find the law finds them to be two different offenses with two different penalties.

So, when you claim that music piracy is "taking money out of your pocket", you bend the truth. At best, in your own opinion, it is preventing money from ever ENTERING your pocket, but no one is coming and removing money from you. I think if you worded things more literally and less figuratively, it might help lend credibility to your arguments and opinions.

But I sense that you are in fact most interested in simply being upset. I sense that being upset interests you more than anything else.

[fjell_strom]

What is surprising to me is that, in a forum such as this with such a noticeable liberal bias, the focus is not placed on the potential of these new trends to essentially democratise new technologies, rather than leaving them in the hands of a small economic oligarchy. I also don't understand the knee-jerk loyalty that so many people seem to have to largely outmoded meme-complexes. There's this underlying 'the system must be preserved' line of thinking that runs through all of these 'debates', and which sometimes, after analysis, is the only argument being made.

I find this a lovely sentiment which addresses the point on which everyone surely must agree: most musicians would like their music to reach people and to touch people. Some musicians would like to earn a living from doing that in some capacity. Could the "internet music piracy revolution/practice" simply be the front door to new avenues, modes, and trends of earning that living? Could the stigma be removed, a shift in thinking be acheived, and innovations be born which would utilise the inherent incalculable potential of the limitless sharing of data? I realise that shift adresses thousands of concepts and billions of lives.

I am not with those questions or statements advocating answers either for or against. But, as dystonia pointed out, it is odd and perhaps sad that the focus has not been placed much there at all.

[Hink]

you want the truth...the truth is simple, but take notes anyhow...

see it's very easy to say that illegal downloads (which I dont do anyhow) are hurting music sales But percentage wise it might be a little higher then in the day of lps and cassettes. But that's not where a lot of today's artists make their money, many are making it in endorsements. So technically you're not killing the "pop-stars". But it's an easy sell, "look downloads are killing us, 10 billion songs were dowloaded last year, think of the revenue lost?" Easy argument to sell and believe...but it's another smoke and mirror show.

Now add in the fact that the record industry NEEDS artists to surive, and furthermore they NEED artists to NEED them. But that's not the case, vinyl pressing use to cost a fortune, studio time was just as bad...how much does it cost us to burn a cd now? You had to be chosen to be heard, you had to be chosen to distribute your music, the recording industry had a monopoly and held all the cards.

But that's not the case anymore is it? We can write, produce and release our own music now. We buy our DAW's, we dont need studio time, thanks to VST's session musicians are less needed and now the record companies have a problem.

But it's not the one they are talking about, illegal "downloading is hurting our business" gets the sympathy "we demand control" would not...

it's that simple. The record companies want to use the downloading issue to backdoor in their stranglehold again. In order to survive the record companies NEED to exploit musicians (it's been the way for years), however they dont have the power they did before....so yeah their record sales are down because they have less records to sell....there are a lot more independant labels now then twenty years ago...too me independant suggest not a part of the RIAA...

However by pirating people are helping to build the (albeit false) numbers and set the spin futher in motion...

[Amberience]

There is no concrete right and wrong, only perspective. If illegal downloading hurts music, then free software like Ambience and Triangle II hurts synth makers, and for that matter, software synths hurt hardware synths.

Point? Things die away and get replaced, downloading music is only an extension of that. As for stealing? Well it's happened since the dawn of time. Stealing is a neccesity in society, and a society breeds the criminals it deserves - criminality will always exist, and the reason brings us back to the start of this post: there is no right and wrong, only perspective. If there were hardcore right and wrong, stealing simply wouldn't happen.

[Amberience]

Oh, and those who haven't bought my downloadable album wont know that inside I put a txt file which basically says that I don't mind if you give a copy to some friends, but don't put it on a P2P. There is a certain limit I want to place on the sharing of my music. I don't mind it if you share the music between a small circle of friends, but the entire planet? f**k that. Half of the entire planet aren't even worthy of listening to music.

[sleepingsword]

You cant stop it, you wont stop it.
If its retailed it WILL be pirated.

If people steal my music I dont relly care, jus let em burn in hell

[kaden]

i have to laugh at the teenage-minds that go nuts all through this thread. especially 'kaden'.

Uh, dude...I'm 48 years old. M.A. in philosophy, B.A. in history. Apparently your adult detector ain't working too well: Likely doesn't bode well for the success of your demographhic targeting. Your 'if you're not against P2P, then you're for it' position is lamentably ill-considered. I'm neither for nor against it, much like I'm neither for nor against mayonnaise.

its just a matter of will

Simple as that, huh? 'The Triumph of The Will'...

(I'm looking up at the judges for a Godwin ruling)

Cripes...you go looking for insight on how to deal constructively with change, and the best these supposedly creative minds can come up with is 'If we wish really hard, the problem will go away'

Honestly, Bones...you *need* to look into anger management...anyone who is subject to such blind, unthinking, utterly irrational rage is inevitably going to hurt either themselves or their loved ones.

K

[Hink]

i have to laugh at the teenage-minds that go nuts all through this thread. especially 'kaden'.

Uh, dude...I'm 48 years old. M.A. in philosophy, B.A. in history. Apparently your adult detector ain't working too well: Likely doesn't bode well for the success of your demographhic targeting. Your 'if you're not against P2P, then you're for it' position is lamentably ill-considered. I'm neither for nor against it, much like I'm neither for nor against mayonnaise.

its just a matter of will

Simple as that, huh? 'The Triumph of The Will'...

(I'm looking up at the judges for a Godwin ruling)

Cripes...you go looking for insight on how to deal constructively with change, and the best these supposedly creative minds can come up with is 'If we wish really hard, the problem will go away'

Honestly, Bones...you *need* to look into anger management...anyone who is subject to such blind, unthinking, utterly irrational rage is inevitably going to hurt either themselves or their loved ones.

K

huh? philosophy and history, I visualize someone who would probably be a facinating conversationlist...I think it likely you have an interesting perspective on things...even if you are old....
















I'll be 46 next month

[soulkraka]

you want the truth...the truth is simple, but take notes anyhow...

see it's very easy to say that illegal downloads (which I dont do anyhow) are hurting music sales But percentage wise it might be a little higher then in the day of lps and cassettes. But that's not where a lot of today's artists make their money, many are making it in endorsements. So technically you're not killing the "pop-stars". But it's an easy sell, "look downloads are killing us, 10 billion songs were dowloaded last year, think of the revenue lost?" Easy argument to sell and believe...but it's another smoke and mirror show.

Now add in the fact that the record industry NEEDS artists to surive, and furthermore they NEED artists to NEED them. But that's not the case, vinyl pressing use to cost a fortune, studio time was just as bad...how much does it cost us to burn a cd now? You had to be chosen to be heard, you had to be chosen to distribute your music, the recording industry had a monopoly and held all the cards.

But that's not the case anymore is it? We can write, produce and release our own music now. We buy our DAW's, we dont need studio time, thanks to VST's session musicians are less needed and now the record companies have a problem.

But it's not the one they are talking about, illegal "downloading is hurting our business" gets the sympathy "we demand control" would not...

it's that simple. The record companies want to use the downloading issue to backdoor in their stranglehold again. In order to survive the record companies NEED to exploit musicians (it's been the way for years), however they dont have the power they did before....so yeah their record sales are down because they have less records to sell....there are a lot more independant labels now then twenty years ago...too me independant suggest not a part of the RIAA...

However by pirating people are helping to build the (albeit false) numbers and set the spin futher in motion...

I agree 100% Hink.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html?pg=5

[dystonia_ek]

http://craphound.com/bbc_drm_response.txt

[whyterabbyt]

dystonia_ek quoth

I don't see any sort of absolute 'Right' and 'Wrong', no, based as they tend to be on either a)religion-based thought streams and/or b)the political mechanics of control/coercion/domination/domestication. I do have a few relatively fixed principles though - it'd be a long digression so I won't clog up the thread with one though.


Hmmm. I dont see them as absolute either, but I dont see how that causes a differentiation with 'morality'. Possibly semantics, though.

I don't see it as likely anytime soon either, but nonetheless some unconventional thinking is bound to seep into the mainstream eventually, especially as the technology continues to decentralise, and 'unique object'-based concepts continue to be misapplied to infinitely reproducable media.

The problem as I see it is that as these things become more commonly reproduced, the investment required to produce them becomes less attractive. Unless there is some sort of guarantee. If you're going to rely on these 'objects' then you're attaching a value to them but not a financial worth. But who's actually going to subsidise that value?

What is surprising to me is that, in a forum such as this with such a noticeable liberal bias, the focus is not placed on the potential of these new trends to essentially democratise new technologies, rather than leaving them in the hands of a small economic oligarchy.

To be honest, I consider it a tenuous assumption that it will democratise anything.

I also don't understand the knee-jerk loyalty that so many people seem to have to largely outmoded meme-complexes. There's this underlying 'the system must be preserved' line of thinking that runs through all of these 'debates', and which sometimes, after analysis, is the only argument being made.[/quote]

I've no real interest in preserving the 'mainstream' system as it is. One problem I have though, which I keep bringing up, and which people seem to prefer to ignore, or misrepresent, is that I dont see any benefit in the attitude that people have an entitlement to anything they want, whether that be infinitely reproducible or not. And I see that as a driving force, not some kind of desire for change.

To be honest, I also don't see a 'system' being suggested that will replace it, much less one which would appeal to the 'gimme' brigade.

For, example, in a much less contentious context, despite the unceasing altruism of the open source developers out there, there are very very few people involved in its creation who dont make their money from other, commercial, work. In fact there's often a parasitical/symbiotic relationship with the very industries they are competing against.

For example the expectation that people have of getting software for free is directly responsible for even open source developers abandoning projects; their altrusim isnt met with altruism on the parts of those using the stuff to save themselves money.
Thats why the founder of GenToo linux just took a job with Microsoft, by the way.
And I'm quite sure that if some people here found that someone was regularly ripping off their tracks, and flogging them to advertising and film companies and the like and making a ton of cash off it; they'd be kind of pissed. And the only way to stop that is quit, ie get to the 'die' stage.

Its all very well to say 'its all got to change' but I see far too many people who are saying that doing so from a position of relative security within a more protected enclave of that which they seek to undermine. And its an ecological balance, IMO. The problem is that they have no concern about changing things, or making them better. Not poor people, not underpriveleged people; people with well-paid jobs and nice houses, and fast cars and all that stuff. And they're reasoning is not to change things, its to get stuff for free, so they can spend their money on bigger houses still and faster cars and more exotic holidays.

The opportunity to get commercial commodities for free, for most people, appeals to greed. I find it highly amusing that so many people justify their greed on the grounds that someone else in a record company or software company might be greedier.

And whatever some of the 'revolutionaries' here protest, greed is the motivating factor for most people. Adapt or die? Without questioning it?

No thanks.