RIAA loses big, Dutch cort adds to sting [Archive]

Chuck

December 19th 03, 10:25 PM

"George" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > In a major court decision the riaa can't have names of file sharers:
> >
> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031219/D7VHI7400.html
> >
> > In a Dutch court, Kazaa found not liable for what it's users does with
it.
> >
> > The music biz needs to face facts, the old technology on which monopoly
> > and forced feeding of music product was standard practice, is no longer
> > the reality. Apple showed that people will pay for the music people
want,
> > absent the "filler" on a cd. With downloading people pay exactly the
> > going price for a music biz cd; nothing; people have voted with their
> > mouse. The monoply standing greedily between artist and consumer has
been
> > broken. No more invented "talent" who are all image, no more
doorkeepers
> > who decide what music is recorded, no more fat bloated music biz
> > structures that add not one note to the output of the artist but suck
the
> > profits only for having the monoply.
>
> you truly can find feel your right on this?
> God, please save us from this mentality.
> next they will want free rent and food
> just beacuse a technology can accomadate the stealing of a artists work
> and income source, does not make it morally right to do so
> do you actually think people are going to pay for what they feel they
> are entitled to for free?
> and where does this feeling of entitlment stem from? the only root I cn
> see is the greed of the downloader coupled with a complete lack of

American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. It is up to
the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of
MP3s downloaded from the internet. As long as that value leans tilted
towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. I personally
have no problem downloading tracks to check out stuff I haven't heard. I'm
the exeception, but if I like it, I'll end up buying records from that
artist. Other products I can take back to the store if I don't like them,
and while I still end up spending too much of my money on music, at least if
I can download it I can check it out in the privacy in my own home (which is
a big part of it for me, I don't have to hear my friends copy, I don't have
to check it out on some listening station, etc, I can do it from the chair I
sit in right now) before I make that commitment, and be happier with the
product. The only money the industry loses from me is the cash I would have
wasted on CDs I regretted buying, and that's something for which I'm just
not going to feel guilty.

EggHd

December 19th 03, 10:44 PM

<< American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. >>

And steal what they don't? Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not.
It's taking them without buying them that is the problem.

<< It is up to
the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of
MP3s downloaded from the internet. >>

Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How so?
"Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****.

<< As long as that value leans tilted
towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. >>

Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record and
promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a person
who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Andrew M.

December 20th 03, 12:10 AM

EggHd wrote:
> << American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. >>
>
> And steal what they don't? Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not.
> It's taking them without buying them that is the problem.
>
> << It is up to
> the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of
> MP3s downloaded from the internet. >>
>
> Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How so?
> "Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****.
>
>
> << As long as that value leans tilted
> towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. >>
>
> Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record and
> promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a person
> who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Now that the damage is done we need to stop trying to get back what was
stolen and get on with making money again. The courts are not the place
to solve this problem. We just need to move on before we are all
completely out of work.

I am working with a band right now and we aren't even going to release
the new album on CD. It's going straight to DVD with tons of extra
content. We are also going to provide mp3's of the stereo mixes and I am
going to encode them as big as I can get them. We are going to make sure
the files are so big that even if you want to share them you will need a
really fast connection (or a hell of a lot of patience and time) and
most people don't have those yet. Luckily most programs don't allow you
to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway). It's
not copy protection but it will be a hassle for most people out there to
rip us off. We are just trying to motivate people to WANT to buy it
because they can't get it like this anyplace online. You can't STOP
people completely from doing it but there are ways to minimize it.

Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without
resorting to complex copy protection schemes?

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 12:18 AM

> Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without
> resorting to complex copy protection schemes?
>

yes on you down loadable copy place a 10 second 400hz tone in the middle
or voice over some of it with
"sample--sample--sample" "not to be shared or distributed"

when I put together press packages for bands I tell them 45 seconds ea of 4
songs
no whole songs
not from a stealing pov more of a "who has time to listen to a 45 minute
demo" POV
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 01:37 AM

"Andrew M." wrote:

> Anyone have any clever ideas to thwart ripping and sharing without
> resorting to complex copy protection schemes?

People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. Well, most
do, anyway. Then there are people who like people but "steal" their
music, simply because they could not have afforded to buy the CD to
begin with. In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
it helps with publicity.

So let's focus on those people who _could_ have afforded buying the
CD. We've got a psycholigical problem here. I would assume that most
people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made
by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. Music has
become a product, a commodity. There are too many layers of
abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between
musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. As far as I am
concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small label
scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as
well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the
top 40 market. There still is a higher probability that people
tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_
the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike
stealing from people they like.

I would assume that a band that _communicates_ with their fans has
a far better chance of falling into the category of people people
dislike stealing from. Communication is a two way process, though.
Involves honesty, transparency and stuff like that to make people
believe they're buying CD's from human beings after all.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

EggHd

December 20th 03, 01:53 AM

<< People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. >>

So they steal what they don't like? Sure.

<< In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
it helps with publicity. >>

How so?

<>

You assume? Nice.

<< Music has become a product, a commodity. >>

And when was this not so?

<< There are too many layers of
abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between
musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. >>

So please tell who is this music industry? How do the people who steal the
music even know to steal it? You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's
party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks that
caught on with the public.
<< As far as I am concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small
label
scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as
well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the
top 40 market. >>

You are assuming again?

<< There still is a higher probability that people
tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_
the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike
stealing from people they like >>

If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of
crap, by the way.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Rob Adelman

December 20th 03, 02:19 AM

EggHd wrote:

> << There still is a higher probability that people
> tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_
> the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike
> stealing from people they like >>
>
> If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of
> crap, by the way.

A very large load. A thief is a thief. Makes no difference if you "like"
the victim.

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 02:21 AM

EggHd wrote:
>
> << People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. >>
>
> So they steal what they don't like? Sure.

They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
_need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it.

> << In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
> it helps with publicity. >>
>
> How so?

They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
either way.

> < people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made
> by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. >>
>
> You assume? Nice.

Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you
happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome
to put it on the table and I will stand corrected.

> << Music has become a product, a commodity. >>
>
> And when was this not so?

If you happen to believe human history began 100 years ago, you are
right.

>
> << There are too many layers of
> abstraction, commonly referred to as "The Music Industry" between
> musicians and those wo enjoy listening to music. >>
>
> So please tell who is this music industry?

Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from. It's got no
personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp?

> How do the people who steal the
> music even know to steal it?

Doesn't compute. Please elaborate!

> You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's
> party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks that
> caught on with the public.

.... top 40 stuff. Am I right or not?

> << As far as I am concerned, I would assume that within the independent/small
> label
> scene the percentage of people buying CDs with stuff they could as
> well have ripped/downloaded is significantly higher than in the
> top 40 market. >>
>
> You are assuming again?

You have any hard evidence to the contrary, again?

> << There still is a higher probability that people
> tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_
> the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike
> stealing from people they like >>
>
> If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load of
> crap, by the way.

It's simple. It costs almost nothing so why not have it? This is typical
human behavior since the stone age, at least.

Thanks for the judgemental statement, by the way. I "assume" ...not...
I'm effing certain you do not understand the concept of communication
I mentioned in the posting you were so kind to take your time
responding to.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 02:50 AM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...
> EggHd wrote:
> >
> > << People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. >>
> >
> > So they steal what they don't like? Sure.
>
> They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
> _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
> to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it.
>
> > << In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
> > it helps with publicity. >>
> >
> > How so?
>
> They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
> either way.
>

yeah they spread the word alright, that word is, that stealing is OK and
that here is where and how you can do it>

advretizing is telling me I would"die" without a SUV but I can't afford one
and Iwould buy one so I guess it is ok to go steal one

> > < > people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made
> > by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. >>
> >
> > You assume? Nice.

I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I
turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG

Stealing is wrong
I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

EggHd

December 20th 03, 03:12 AM

<< They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
_need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. >>

Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet Boys
because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines I
don't read. Right.

<< They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
either way. >>

"Hey Bill, check this out. You can find all the tracks you want on Kazaa.
Here, let me show you how to do it."

<< Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. >>

You didn't say "in my opinion".... You said "I assume."

<< If you happen to believe human history began 100 years ago, you are
right. >>

When people stole sheet music becsue after all what was a piece of paper worth.
In fact, "I'll steal the piano too as it's just some old wood and metal.

<< Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from. It's got no
personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp? >>

You believe that people are thinking this deeply about it or it's right there
in front of them on their computer so why not take it?

<< How do the people who steal the
> music even know to steal it?

Doesn't compute. Please elaborate! >>

If it isn't "famous" they don't even know to go look for it.

<< ... top 40 stuff. Am I right or not? >>

There is plenty of Tom Waits being stolen as well.

<< You have any hard evidence to the contrary, again? >>

Meaning do I know if there has been 50K downloads of my nephews ****ty band and
the downloader bypassed 3 Doors Down to get that?

<< It's simple. It costs almost nothing so why not have it? This is typical
human behavior since the stone age, at least. >>

But people are stealing the "nice" stuff. The hit records. Those cost money
even to make the theif aware of the product. How would you know to go steal a
Gucci bag if it wasn't well marketed and made?

<< Thanks for the judgemental statement, by the way. I "assume" ...not... >>

Whatever

<< I'm effing certain you do not understand the concept of communication >>

A bit judgemental?

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 03:12 AM

George Gleason wrote:
>
> "Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
> ...
> > EggHd wrote:
> > >
> > > << People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. >>
> > >
> > > So they steal what they don't like? Sure.
> >
> > They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
> > _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
> > to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it.
> >
> > > << In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
> > > it helps with publicity. >>
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
> > either way.
> >
>
> yeah they spread the word alright, that word is, that stealing is OK and
> that here is where and how you can do it>
>
> advretizing is telling me I would"die" without a SUV but I can't afford one
> and Iwould buy one so I guess it is ok to go steal one

You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no
circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is
done. A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in
your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end.

> > > < > > people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made
> > > by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. >>
> > >
> > > You assume? Nice.
>
> I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I
> turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG

I'm not here to defend taking things without permission. The original
question was whether there are any intelligent ways other than even
more elaborate copy protection schemes to keep people from ripping/
downloading music instead of buying it. Moralizing isn't going to
help, IMHO, you have to face reality.

> Stealing is wrong

Sh*t happens, you know?

> I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> George

Excellent straw man. I'm not here to defend "stealing". See above! I
was making a suggestion in response to a specific question that was
not particlurly soliciting a collective chanting of:

Stealing is WRONG
Stealing is WRONG
Stealing is WRONG

No, as far as _my_ reading comprehension, he was asking for opinions
WRT what can be done to prevent "stealing". Believe me or not, just
shouting "Stealing is wrong" does not answer that question!

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

EggHd

December 20th 03, 03:14 AM

<< You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no
circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is
done. >>

That's not true.

<< A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in
your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. >>

A weak rationalization for theft.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

George

December 20th 03, 03:51 AM

I hope to give lurkers and thieves a moments pause to reflect on the
crime they are about to commit, and that in my own way is helping stop
theft
to sit by in silence is equalivent to endorsing the act of stealing

George

George

December 20th 03, 03:57 AM

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> << You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no
> circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is
> done. >>
>
> That's not true.
>
> << A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in
> your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. >>
>
how come when behringer "cloned" a aphex design it was stealing, yet
cloning someone elses protected work it isn't?
or do you condone reverse engineering as well
after all a unit was bought and then copied
I don't see any diffrence
george

Bob Cain

December 20th 03, 04:03 AM

Michael Tippach wrote:
>
> Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you
> happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome
> to put it on the table and I will stand corrected.

He who states a thesis is traditionally burdened with its
proof. Until then it has no more standing than the
reputation of he who states it.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

reddred

December 20th 03, 04:15 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << American consumers will only pay for things they find value in. >>
>
> And steal what they don't?
>Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not.

Couldn't an attitude like that be a problem in and of itself?

The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating' as the
music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They
don't have problems with sales growth.

jb

> It's taking them without buying them that is the problem.
>
> << It is up to
> the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of
> MP3s downloaded from the internet. >>
>
> Make it worth more so what.... People then don't download anymore? How
so?
> "Giev me better songs and I will buy them?" Bull****.
>
>
> << As long as that value leans tilted
> towards illegally obtained discs, downloaded music will thrive. >>
>
> Value? of course free stolen good have "value". Someone paid to record
and
> promite something you went to take for free. yes that has value to a
person
> who just saved 10 bucks by stealing it.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 20th 03, 04:27 AM

<< Who gives a **** if you want to buy the CDs or not.

Couldn't an attitude like that be a problem in and of itself? >>

Not in this case. If you don't like the music or an artist, don't buy it or go
out and tell everyone it stinks. But to steal it under the bull**** of "I
wouldn't have bought it anyway" is ****ed up.

Even if you choose to steal the music that is such a bull**** excuse.

<< The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating' as the
music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They
don't have problems with sales growth. >>

So what? And stocks go up and down. Whoopie.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 20th 03, 04:41 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << People generally dislike stealing from poeple they like. >>
>
> So they steal what they don't like? Sure.
>
> << In the latter case, no harm is done. Quite the contrary,
> it helps with publicity. >>
>
> How so?
>
> < people falling into this category have a problem seeing art as made
> by human beings who they have sort of a relationship with. >>
>
> You assume? Nice.
>
> << Music has become a product, a commodity. >>
>
> And when was this not so?
>

It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how cynical
you were. Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock'
got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it, they
made it a part of their lives.

As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act like
one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or
illegally).

> You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's
> party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks
that
> caught on with the public.

How do you know that, Egg? Not those 'consultants' the RIAA hired to type in
the name of the top forty artists into Kazaa and see how many copies showed
up! That's what they call multimillion dollar market research - the RIAA
letting itself get ripped. Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or
listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period.

> << There still is a higher probability that people
> tend to _identify_ themselfs with the artists, they tend to _like_
> the artists and, as pointed out above, people in general dislike
> stealing from people they like >>
>
> If you don't like an artist why would you want their music? What a load
of
> crap, by the way.
>

I think he means 'like and respect as people'. Sounds kind of Utopian, but
I've heard it again and again. I went to a party at a law students house,
who not only copied and downloaded music voraciously, she owned about 500
cd's. I asked why she bought those particular cd's and she said 'those are
the ones by people I like and respect'. The fact that she didn't really know
the people is irrelevant. She felt a connection. You can call the idea crap
if you want, but it has gained a lot of currency.

Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates sales.
But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not.

jb

EggHd

December 20th 03, 04:45 AM

<< It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how cynical
you were. >>

Don't understand.

<< Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock'
got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it, they
made it a part of their lives. >>

Popular music was big when Rudy Valee was a crooner too. many gernations before
you. Don't believe that your generation or your personal view of pop music is
the only one.

<< As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act like
one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or
illegally). >>

Music was never a commodity? When was this? When ever mersy beat bands from
Liverpool and Blues bands from London were part of the British Invasion? When
they made the Monkees? frankie and Annette? Fabian? Rick nelson? Elvis?

<< How do you know that, Egg? >>

How do I know that it's the "famous" songs being downloaded in the most % of
downloads? Gee I don't know. You must know that there are titles being tracked
and not 40 riaa people looking a shared drives.

<< Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or
listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period. >>

the fact the noby gave a rats ass about the unsigned acts on MP3 or any of
those sites should let you see a glimpse of what going on.

<< Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates sales.
But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not. >>

That's not correct. I don't give rat's ass if that poster buys CDs or not. I
believe it a bull**** excsue to say I don't like this CD enough to buy it, but
I like it enough to take it.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 20th 03, 04:46 AM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...

> (Music Industry) Thats the entity people believe they are "stealing" from.
It's got no
> personality associated with it. Is that so hard to grasp?
>

See, the problem is that, what little money artists have managed to wrangle
from those leeches is getting stolen also. So it goes. Best not to sign,
ever.

jb

EggHd

December 20th 03, 04:46 AM

<< See, the problem is that, what little money artists have managed to wrangle
from those leeches is getting stolen also. So it goes. Best not to sign,
ever. >>

You don't know obivously.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Rob Adelman

December 20th 03, 05:08 AM

Michael Tippach wrote:

> They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
> _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear

Yawn...

reddred

December 20th 03, 05:28 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << It depended on which side of the transaction you were on and/or how
cynical
> you were. >>
>
> Don't understand.
>

Well, attitude. There were some in the industry that were idealistic about
thier products. But a whole lot of customers invested ideas in music.

> << Popular music got as big as it did because of 'Rock', and 'Rock'
> got big because people invested ideas in it. They felt connected to it,
they
> made it a part of their lives. >>
>
> Popular music was big when Rudy Valee was a crooner too. many gernations
before
> you. Don't believe that your generation or your personal view of pop
music is
> the only one.
>

Just look at sales growth, year over year, for the overall industry and for
individual genres. The definition of a 'hit' in 1957 was far different than
in 1997.

> << As far as music being a commodity, it wasn't. It is starting to act
like
> one, now that it is largely electronically distributed (legally or
> illegally). >>
>
> Music was never a commodity? When was this? When ever mersy beat bands
from
> Liverpool and Blues bands from London were part of the British Invasion?
When
> they made the Monkees? frankie and Annette? Fabian? Rick nelson? Elvis?
>

Sorry, wrong group... yeah, it's a commodity in that sense, the general
sense, and people have always made a profit off of it in one way or another
(though for the longest time, it was only the musicians making money off
music, they were poor then, too) what I was getting at is that music and
other products that are distributed digitally start to resemble things like
oil, grain, gold, etc., in the way they are bought and sold. We'll see.

> << How do you know that, Egg? >>
>
> How do I know that it's the "famous" songs being downloaded in the most %
of
> downloads? Gee I don't know. You must know that there are titles being
tracked
> and not 40 riaa people looking a shared drives.

So which ones are they tracking? The ones they want to publicize as 'most
downloaded'? And there are plenty of the same files that they didn't put
there for the purpose of tracking them later. As I said, essentially
unknowable.

>
> << Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or
> listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period. >>
>
> the fact the noby gave a rats ass about the unsigned acts on MP3 or any of
> those sites should let you see a glimpse of what going on.
>

Sure, but what about back catalogue and indies? Nobody knows.

> << Speaking of currency, I wouldn't call anything 'crap' that generates
sales.
> But I forgot, you don't care if people buy cd's or not. >>
>
> That's not correct. I don't give rat's ass if that poster buys CDs or
not. I
> believe it a bull**** excsue to say I don't like this CD enough to buy it,
but
> I like it enough to take it.
>

Fair enough, I see the logic there. But I find it telling that there was one
guy in this thread who actually is looking for a way to sell product, asked
for help, and everybody just kept yelling about morality, whether they are
in the business or not.

jb

reddred

December 20th 03, 05:34 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...

> << The video game industry has just as much of a problem with 'pirating'
as the
> music industry, and they have been dealing with it for far longer. They
> don't have problems with sales growth. >>
>
> So what? And stocks go up and down. Whoopie.
>

You did NOT miss my point. They have a product that people still buy, even
though they know they can get it free and can easily do so. So what is it
about games that they would rather buy than steal? Or steal first, and then
buy?

The other thing in there is that piracy, in and of itself, is not an excuse
for crappy sales. The product is not interesting enough to people, or
doesn't come in a package that they want to own.

To top it off, the music industry has a bigger PR problem than microsoft
does, further contributing to the decline in sales.

jb

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 10:23 AM

Bob Cain wrote:
>
> Michael Tippach wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you
> > happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome
> > to put it on the table and I will stand corrected.
>
> He who states a thesis is traditionally burdened with its
> proof. Until then it has no more standing than the
> reputation of he who states it.
>

Someone quoting Einstein should know that one never can prove
anything beyond any doubt. A thesis has credibility if it is
falsifyable, which mine is.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

John

December 20th 03, 10:57 AM

>"Andrew M." >

>Luckily most programs don't allow you
>> to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway).

Save as .wav, no appreciable quality loss.. Re-encode the mp3. No big deal.

-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

Mike Rivers

December 20th 03, 11:30 AM

In article . net> writes:

> American consumers will only pay for things they find value in.

Then how come there are so many CDs sold to people who only like a
couple of cuts? I guess they're just to stoopid to download the parts
they like.

Consumers buy what the manufacturers give them. That's why nobody uses
DOS any more. It's why people who never used anything but a throw-away
camera are buying digital cameras so fast the manufacturers have to
come out with new models every few months. (why are they buying
digital cameras? to take pictures that they can e-mail to people who
they would never bother sending prints to, or to sell their old
consumer junk on eBay)

> It is up to
> the record companies to make their products worth $16 more than a bunch of
> MP3s downloaded from the internet.

When there are so many records available (free or not) how can any of
them really be worth $16? Maybe if there were 90% fewer records
available we might see the value in those remaining.

> I personally
> have no problem downloading tracks to check out stuff I haven't heard.

Suppose they came up with a system that prevented you from downloading
them. Would you listen to them on line in real time, or would you
bitch that your rights were being violated?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Andrew M.

December 20th 03, 12:54 PM

John wrote:

>>"Andrew M." >
>
>
>>Luckily most programs don't allow you
>>
>>>to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway).
>
>
> Save as .wav, no appreciable quality loss.. Re-encode the mp3. No big deal.
>
>
> -John Vice
> www.summertimestudios.com

My point being that MOST people don't know how or ever care to kow how
to do that. It will slow most people down. The more you slow them down
the quicker you get to making back your money before it's available for
free.

George

December 20th 03, 01:52 PM

In article >,
Michael Tippach > wrote:

> EggHd wrote:
> >
> > << They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
> > _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
> > to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. >>
> >
> > Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet
> > Boys
> > because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines
> > I
> > don't read. Right.
>
> If I hate the Backstreet Boys's music frankly I do not listen to
> it. Most people do not hate it (except when force fed), they just
> don't like it. We are talking of groups like teenagers here with like
> 10000 songs on their hard drives each. That's like 1000 CDs at $16 each
> - by the logic of the RIAA. Since P2P isn't around for too long you can
> do the math, taking into account the average per capita income (not just
> in the United States) and then tell me how many percent of the
> population
> could have afforded 16k worth of CDs in a rather short time span

and how does the fact they could not afford it justify stealing it?.

maybe you should be a lawyer or a politician.

If a president can say a blow job isn't sex then perhaps you could make
a case that taking something that you do not own, nor have permission
to take is not stealing

you still have not resolved the core issue , the fact you are stealing
this music
you dance around it and try to rationalize it away
but the fact remains
copying copyrighted material with out expressed permission of the
copyright owner is against the law
it doesn't matter if it is downloaded or you copy a book on a copy
machine
it is stealing
do you support plagerism as well?
grow the frick up , you are old enough and civilized enough to know I am
speaking the truth

G

Mike Rivers

December 20th 03, 02:05 PM

In article > writes:

> They wouldn't have bought it anyway.

The classic argument for stealing something that doesn't cost anything
to make - But you're not helping the artist either, so why not just
get out out of his business? Do you **** whores without paying because
you wouldn't pay for it anyway, and besides, they can always sell it
to someone else?

> They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
> either way.

Depends on the word that they spread. If the word is "this is a cool
band and you can get their music by downloading from ****** (wink,
wink, nudge, nudge) how does that help? Now if you had great
credibility as a critic, and were respected as a trusted businessman,
you could tell people that YOU think the music is good enough to buy,
and that if they buy it from YOU (so you'll know that they're paying
for it) you'll send 85% of the money to the artist, taking a modest
15% commission for your trouble. Just like an independent distributor.
Now THAT would be helping the artist. But just downloading for free
and spreading the word doesn't help anyone.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

December 20th 03, 02:05 PM

In article > writes:

> > You may notice that nobody is steal Mrs Chinook's
> > party favorites sing alongs. they are stealing the most well known tracks
> that
> > caught on with the public.
>
> How do you know that, Egg? Not those 'consultants' the RIAA hired to type in
> the name of the top forty artists into Kazaa and see how many copies showed
> up! That's what they call multimillion dollar market research - the RIAA
> letting itself get ripped. Because nobody knows what is being downloaded, or
> listened to, it is essentially unknowable. Period.

There's a threshold for everything, and the RIAA's threshold is pretty
high. You don't see Mrs. Chinook's CD climbing the charts, so the RIAA
doesn't care about it. But the people in her community that don't get
a Christmas party this year because she didn't make enough money from
album sales might care.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 04:21 PM

EggHd wrote:
>
> << You are making a category error here. If someone who would under no
> circumstances have bought the CD is "stealing" the music, no harm is
> done. >>
>
> That's not true.

How so?

> << A SUV is a differnt matter. If I would just "clone" the SUV in
> your driveway, you probably wouldn't give a rat's rear end. >>
>
> A weak rationalization for theft.

Quite the contrary. A violation of copyright law is a violation of
copyright law. Theft is theft and not the same thing as a violation
of copyright law. Both share the property of an unlawful act. But
they differ in at least as far as the amount of actual damage done.

If A takes $16 out of B's pocket, the monetary damage to B is $16,
while A now is unlawful possession of $16.

OTOH, If A, who is in possession of $0, downloads the contents of
a CD of B (assuming that this is an unlawful act under the
juristdiction of A and B), what is the actual monetary damage to
B? It is the amount A would otherwise have been prepared to give
B in exchange for the CD. Which is exactly zero since A only is
in possession of $0. Still, A is listening to a copy of B's music
obtained by unlawful means. A's quality of life has improved while
B's was not damaged at all.

Admittedly this is a bit oversimplified but it might serve to point
out what I originally thought would be obvious anyway.

IMHO it would be more reasonable to use the model of an accumulated
budget society would be spending on music if the only means of
access to music would be buying it.

Once this budget is spent, you cannot sell any more music because
simply the budget has been depleted. This creates a situation where
not everyone has access to the music sold, but no more money can be
made from it. At that point you can have everyone have access to
the music without losing anything but adding value to people's lives.

The problem with this approach is that neither current legislation
nor the concept of market place economy are prepared to handle
this kind of scenario. Well, except maybe for the U.S. constitution
which stipulates furtherment of art and science for the benfit of
society as a whole. Profit motivation is seen as a means of
achieving that goal, an incentive for people to make music, write
software... stuff like that. But still it is assumed to be a
secondary measure of achieving the primary goal of benefitting
human society. If profit motivation gets in the way of achieving
the primary goal OTHO, it could be argued that, as far as the, U.S.
it would even be unconstitutional. So much about moralizing.

The current model neither serves people who enjoy music nor does
it serve musicians, producers... etc. It alienates artists from
their audience and the other way around. It even serves to
alienate artists from the very art they create by turning it into a
commodity. (That the concept of alienation is from Marx does not
automatically make it wrong just because it is from Marx. He might
even have recycled it from someone else's ideas who knows)

The only entity that would not benefit if the current model is
being changed is the music industry, unless they re-prioritize
their business towards adding value to music instead of acting
as a barrier between artists and their audience like mere toll
collectors. I have very little hope here.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 04:52 PM

George wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Michael Tippach > wrote:
>
> > EggHd wrote:
> > >
> > > << They wouldn't have bought it anyway. And if, then not because they
> > > _need_ it or even _like_ it but because advertizing has made it clear
> > > to them that they they are going to die if they don't have it. >>
> > >
> > > Right. I am going to look on P2P for something I hate like the Backstreet
> > > Boys
> > > because they are on a radio station that I don't listen to and in magazines
> > > I
> > > don't read. Right.
> >
> > If I hate the Backstreet Boys's music frankly I do not listen to
> > it. Most people do not hate it (except when force fed), they just
> > don't like it. We are talking of groups like teenagers here with like
> > 10000 songs on their hard drives each. That's like 1000 CDs at $16 each
> > - by the logic of the RIAA. Since P2P isn't around for too long you can
> > do the math, taking into account the average per capita income (not just
> > in the United States) and then tell me how many percent of the
> > population
> > could have afforded 16k worth of CDs in a rather short time span
>
> and how does the fact they could not afford it justify stealing it?.

They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
point out the difference?

> maybe you should be a lawyer or a politician.

What do the court lottery and politics have in common with logic?
What about adressing the message, instead of the messenger?

> If a president can say a blow job isn't sex then perhaps you could make
> a case that taking something that you do not own, nor have permission
> to take is not stealing

Unlawfully copying music isn't taking something. It is getting
_access_ to something in an unlawful way. Music is not 'things'.
It is language as yours that creates a mindset to the contrary i.e.
music seen as a commodity. It is exactly this mindset which makes
it easy for people to not feel bad about what they are doing when
ripping music, which brings us back to my first contribution to this
thread.

> you still have not resolved the core issue , the fact you are stealing
> this music
> you dance around it and try to rationalize it away

Now stuff is getting really interesting. What in the world supports
your assertion that _I_ would be 'stealing' or even unlawfully
getting access to music? Have I stated anything in this regard?

So why the ad hominem? Attacking the messenger is not exactly the
same as addressing the message, leave alone resolving any sort of
a 'core issue'. Plus, since moralizing appears to so popular in
this place, I shall rephrase:

LIBEL is both UNLAWFUL and WRONG.

> but the fact remains
> copying copyrighted material with out expressed permission of the
> copyright owner is against the law

Not everywhere. Fair use clauses vary from juristdiction to
juristdiction.

> it doesn't matter if it is downloaded or you copy a book on a copy
> machine it is stealing

No. It is a violation of copyright law if, and only if it violates
applicable copyright law. (Remember Fair Use!)

> do you support plagerism as well?

....as well as what?

> grow the frick up , you are old enough and civilized enough to know I am
> speaking the truth

While I agree with you as far as I think that I'm "old enough and
civilized enough", I do not necessarily agree with other statements
of yours. What's 'the truth' anyway? Quite a claim to be made by a
faillable human being, methinks.

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 04:58 PM

Upon careful and thoughtful review of your response
I find your post full of self-serving bull**** and avoidence
address the FACT that theft is takeing place, how do you justify stealing?
Taking what is not yours is STEALING
copying copyrighted material without expressed permission of the copyright
holder is theft
This is the collective "you" I have no idea if you personally are stealing
but if you are I condem it
if you are not I commend you
Peace
george

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

Rob Adelman

December 20th 03, 04:59 PM

Trond Ruud wrote:

> Probably, but that's mostly because CDs are losing out to .mp3s as music
> medium, I suspect
> If, instead, the price of paid .mp3 downloads dropped from $1 to 50 cents, I
> believe it would make a difference however - provided the supply of mp3s
> titles for paid download are increased to meet the demand.

Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will
take the free one.

And there are plenty of costs associated with the mp3 distribution. 50
cents is not enough to pay everyone involved and leave ANTHING for the
artist. In fact even at 1 dollar there is not really enough. So, who
should be working for free in the process?

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 05:24 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > They wouldn't have bought it anyway.
>
> The classic argument for stealing something that doesn't cost anything
> to make - But you're not helping the artist either, so why not just
> get out out of his business? Do you **** whores without paying because
> you wouldn't pay for it anyway, and besides, they can always sell it
> to someone else?

I hate repeating myself, but theft of goods and services is not the
same as violating copyright laws. I shall repeat myself once more:
If it _were_ the same there would be no need for copyright laws in the
first place, because common property righs law would suffice.

If you cool down a bit and re-read my article you may discover that
at no point I did say that it was o.k. that things are the way they
are. I was rather _describing_ things the way I think they are.

He who describes <stuff> cannot be held responsible for <stuff>.
He only can be held responsible for his _description_. Got that?

> > They spread the word. As I said, they wouldn't have bought the CD
> > either way.
>
> Depends on the word that they spread. If the word is "this is a cool
> band and you can get their music by downloading from ****** (wink,
> wink, nudge, nudge) how does that help?

The RIAA is currently doing an excellent job in making sure everyone
on the planet learns about the existence of P2P, if they didn't know
already.

> Now if you had great
> credibility as a critic, and were respected as a trusted businessman,
> you could tell people that YOU think the music is good enough to buy,
> and that if they buy it from YOU (so you'll know that they're paying
> for it) you'll send 85% of the money to the artist, taking a modest
> 15% commission for your trouble. Just like an independent distributor.
> Now THAT would be helping the artist. But just downloading for free
> and spreading the word doesn't help anyone.

Now that would be what I call adding value to music. Unfortunately,
this does not describe the current state of affairs as far as the
music industry in a particularly accurate fashion.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

Trish

December 20th 03, 05:39 PM

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
>
> I thought that way , I would steal from stores but not people , then I
> turned 12 and finally understood STEALING IS WRONG
>
> Stealing is wrong
> I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> George

I take it you have never recorded anything from TV onto your VCR.
Unfortunately that doesn't hold true for most of us. So I have lots of
movies on tape. But for the ones I really like I do go out and buy the
DVD.

Of course there is also the problem of taping my CDs onto cassette
mixes. Technically I should go out and buy that artist's individually
sold cassette. And wait for K-Tel to come out with a prefabricated mix
maybe 10 years from now. We can't be sticklers in one area. We must
re-examine all our illegal activities.

I'm debating whether TIVO is a ripoff of the networks. I think it must
be. They provide free television in exchange for running commercials.
We zap the commercials. The networks lose money, and all because we've
found a technological way around the system. (Of course the old
fashioned way is hitting the bathroom or the refrigerator during
commercials)

It used to be that musicians made money touring and performing. Then
technology came along -- you could record albums! And charge people
for them! Cool. Then 8-tracks and cassettes came along. People wanted
the new technology. They got charged again for the same music! Then
came the CD. Charged again! Then came the MP3. Whoops. Now the
consumer is getting for free what they were charged 2-3 times for
already. Double whoops.

What's a musician to do? Tour.

Trish

Michael Tippach

December 20th 03, 05:50 PM

George Gleason wrote:
>
> Upon careful and thoughtful review of your response
> I find your post full of self-serving bull**** and avoidence

Of course you are entiteled to your own opinion and your right to
speak out is protected by the constitution in most countries.

> address the FACT that theft is takeing place, how do you justify stealing?

Vioaltion of copyright law is taking place. And no, I do not justify
stealing. (Or was that one of your 'general' "you"'s not directed at a
specific person as your argumentation below leaves me uncertain of
what you mean if you write 'you')

Neither do I justify violating copyright law. I merely
think that current copyright legislation is based too much on the
(non existing) commodity aspect of art and science and therefore
unsuitable for paving the way to a solution that would be acceptable
to either side.

> Taking what is not yours is STEALING

Taking _away_ what is not yours is stealing. Gaining unlawful access
to something protected by copyright is a violation of copyright law.
What is taken _away_ in the latter case is the revenue a sale would
have generated, ...but only if a sale had taken place otherwise!

That's apples and oranges for you.

> copying copyrighted material without expressed permission of the copyright
> holder is theft

Not theft. Violation of copyright law it is.

> This is the collective "you" I have no idea if you personally are stealing

Even so, I'm not part of the collective you were addressing with
'you'. Given that, whom do you think you are talking to? Excuse
me, but to me this seems a bit ...weird.

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 06:09 PM

Quote
dec 20th syracuse post standard running a associated press repot on a
appeals court ruling against the riaa and thier efforts to force iSP's to
turn over bulk lists of subscribers to witch hunt for download violators

a unnamed judge says

"this ruling does not legalize the distibuting of copyrighted songs over the
internet"
these are not 'my " words
to say this does not legalize can be turned to say, this continues to keep
illegal the distribution of copyrighted songs over the internet.
it can't be much plainer or simpler
george

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

EggHd

December 20th 03, 08:08 PM

<< Just look at sales growth, year over year, for the overall industry and for
individual genres. The definition of a 'hit' in 1957 was far different than
in 1997. >>

And the population grew and so did the global market. the costs of exposing
music today is incredible with so many radio formats, MTV.....

Let me address a couple of posts here.

Every talks about how the music biz is now all ****ed up so that's why they
steal music.

Here's the rub. They are taking the music from the era they are saying was so
much better when they had relationships with the artists.

Let's take a hypothetical situation.

The group Bowevil has a few big albums in the '70's and continue to get classic
airplay, film usage and sales through re discovery over the years. They still
tour and sell 2 to 3K tickets to core fans.

Each member of the group that was in the lineup during the "hit" years still
made around 75K a year in royalties from continued CD sales (not including
publishing).

As the next set of younger fans discover bowevil, a good % of them start to
download the files instead of going out and buying the CD. Now there is a
huge commercial tie in and everyone wants Bowevil but there is so many
downloads instead of purchases, now this artist is receiving 20% less income
every year even though there is more demand.

There is money being taken out of people's pockets.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 20th 03, 08:11 PM

<< So which ones are they tracking? The ones they want to publicize as 'most
downloaded'? >>

It's not the RIAA tracking files. There are many companies with files sharing
"solutions" that haven't been put into place for various legal reasons and they
know what's going in and out of the college dorm rooms where 60% of P2P is
taking place.

<< Sure, but what about back catalogue and indies? Nobody knows. >>

They have a very good idea.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 08:35 PM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << So which ones are they tracking? The ones they want to publicize as
'most
> downloaded'? >>
>
> It's not the RIAA tracking files. There are many companies with files
sharing
> "solutions" that haven't been put into place for various legal reasons and
they
> know what's going in and out of the college dorm rooms where 60% of P2P is
> taking place.
>
> << Sure, but what about back catalogue and indies? Nobody knows. >>
>
> They have a very good idea.
>
>
penn state is so concerned they are now providing a "free" music download
service to thier dorms
Paid for out of student actitvity fees
so even students that do not download are paying the freight for those that
do
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

ryanm

December 20th 03, 09:38 PM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...
>
> Excellent straw man. I'm not here to defend "stealing". See above! I
> was making a suggestion in response to a specific question that was
> not particlurly soliciting a collective chanting of:
>
> Stealing is WRONG
> Stealing is WRONG
> Stealing is WRONG
>
> No, as far as _my_ reading comprehension, he was asking for opinions
> WRT what can be done to prevent "stealing". Believe me or not, just
> shouting "Stealing is wrong" does not answer that question!
>
Just so you know, the "stealing is wrong" chant is about the closest
thing to intelligent discussion you'll get on this topic in this newsgroup.
I've tried, it's hopeless. They see copyright law as only serving the music
industry, and are unable to understand that their desperately clinging to
the old regime is not only not helping them in any way, but is actually
damaging to other industries, where 100 year copyrights and forcing ISPs to
rat out their customers (in direct violation of their common carrier status)
tends to stifle innovation and create distrust between consumers and the
companies that depend on them.

ryanm

Chuck

December 20th 03, 09:57 PM

>
> Stealing is wrong

Wow, great argument. If this is the cornerstone of your position, you do
know that stealing is sometimes morally justifiable, right? Would it be
wrong for a mother to steal food for her children if she had no other means?
So many posts on this subject regurgitate the same thing. It's a lousy
argument.

> I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> George

My father is in his mid 50's. A disabled veteran, he lives in an SRO in San
Francisco. He gets about $800 a month, a third of which goes for rent. He
recieves no money from the government for food (well, he does get $10, if
you can believe that!). I have in the last year or two re-established a
relationship with him, and last year I gave him one of my old computers. He
has always been very into music, and one of the things he was most excited
about was file sharing, because he barely has enough money for food, and can
spend no money on music.. He's downloaded probably 500 tracks, mostly
classic rock, blues, and roots country. Yes he is stealing - but who gives a
****? When you get off your self-righteous, idealistic stump, tell me who he
is hurting, who is losing money because of this, since he could never buy
any of the music to begin with.

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 10:32 PM

"Chuck" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> >
> > Stealing is wrong
>
> Wow, great argument. If this is the cornerstone of your position, you do
> know that stealing is sometimes morally justifiable, right? Would it be
> wrong for a mother to steal food for her children if she had no other
means?
> So many posts on this subject regurgitate the same thing. It's a lousy
> argument.
>
>
> > I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> > George
>
>
> My father is in his mid 50's. A disabled veteran, he lives in an SRO in
San
> Francisco. He gets about $800 a month, a third of which goes for rent. He
> recieves no money from the government for food (well, he does get $10, if
> you can believe that!). I have in the last year or two re-established a
> relationship with him, and last year I gave him one of my old computers.
He
> has always been very into music, and one of the things he was most excited
> about was file sharing, because he barely has enough money for food, and
can
> spend no money on music.. He's downloaded probably 500 tracks, mostly
> classic rock, blues, and roots country. Yes he is stealing - but who gives
a
> ****? When you get off your self-righteous, idealistic stump, tell me who
he
> is hurting, who is losing money because of this, since he could never buy
> any of the music to begin with.
>
and what here midigates the fact he is stealing something?
If he had tapped into vable TV would this be justifed to you?
if he sneaks into movies is this ok?
how about if he just take one of the thousands of pairs of shoes from
wal-mart
or perhaps he steals a car that nobody is using
being old and poor is not justification for stealing

what you actually mean
is He is not stealing FROM ME so I don't give a ****

George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

reddred

December 20th 03, 10:36 PM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << So which ones are they tracking? The ones they want to publicize as
'most
> downloaded'? >>
>
> It's not the RIAA tracking files. There are many companies with files
sharing
> "solutions" that haven't been put into place for various legal reasons and
they
> know what's going in and out of the college dorm rooms where 60% of P2P is
> taking place.
>

I'm telling you, there are firms taking money to try and find out, but it is
impossible, they know that, and they are getting paid to come up with
desirable results. Kind of like most market research, except p2p makes the
situaution even more inscrutable.

As far as p2p networks knowing what is on the network, no, they don't. For
the same reasons that nobody else does.

> << Sure, but what about back catalogue and indies? Nobody knows. >>
>
> They have a very good idea.
>

You say that, but there is no method available that is 'very good' or
anyhting of the sort. If I want to test a subset, something specific, I can
get an idea based on limited information and extrapolate (that is, guess)
but other than that, the technology itself makes it unknowable.

jb

reddred

December 20th 03, 10:37 PM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << Just look at sales growth, year over year, for the overall industry and
for
> individual genres. The definition of a 'hit' in 1957 was far different
than
> in 1997. >>
>
> And the population grew and so did the global market. the costs of
exposing
> music today is incredible with so many radio formats, MTV.....
>
> Let me address a couple of posts here.
>
> Every talks about how the music biz is now all ****ed up so that's why
they
> steal music.
>
> Here's the rub. They are taking the music from the era they are saying
was so
> much better when they had relationships with the artists.
>
> Let's take a hypothetical situation.
>
> The group Bowevil has a few big albums in the '70's and continue to get
classic
> airplay, film usage and sales through re discovery over the years. They
still
> tour and sell 2 to 3K tickets to core fans.
>
> Each member of the group that was in the lineup during the "hit" years
still
> made around 75K a year in royalties from continued CD sales (not including
> publishing).
>

More likely, they only get publishing split five ways. They haven't
recouped.

jb

> As the next set of younger fans discover bowevil, a good % of them start
to
> download the files instead of going out and buying the CD. Now there is
a
> huge commercial tie in and everyone wants Bowevil but there is so many
> downloads instead of purchases, now this artist is receiving 20% less
income
> every year even though there is more demand.
>
> There is money being taken out of people's pockets.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 20th 03, 10:43 PM

"George" > wrote in message
...
> none of this justifies stealing
> if the artists wanted you to have it free
> you should just email them and have them send you one
> or better yet
> have them give you a license to copy thier music, and distribute it

blah blah blah

Who the hell even wants to talk about that? There is a crisis. It needs
solutions. There are ways to fix it, things to do to try and get a working
model, and debating right and wrong is not solving anything.

The RIAA's campaign in that regard is ludicrous. Purveying stuff like '50
cent' and then appealing to people to have a conscience about petty theft?
Not likely.

jb

> free on the net,
> think of all the publicity
> maybe the bank will take publicity instead of money next month on thier
> mortgage as well
> they are after all ,only in it for the artistic expression, not the
> money, so they would have no problem with that , Right?
> why do people have to steal it
>
>
> >
> >
> >

reddred

December 20th 03, 10:53 PM

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trond Ruud wrote:
>
>
> > Probably, but that's mostly because CDs are losing out to .mp3s as music
> > medium, I suspect
> > If, instead, the price of paid .mp3 downloads dropped from $1 to 50
cents, I
> > believe it would make a difference however - provided the supply of mp3s
> > titles for paid download are increased to meet the demand.
>
> Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will
> take the free one.
>

And this is why people are paying a dollar apiece for songs they want? Sure.
They're all doing it becasue they don't know they can get it for free?

jb

> And there are plenty of costs associated with the mp3 distribution. 50
> cents is not enough to pay everyone involved and leave ANTHING for the
> artist. In fact even at 1 dollar there is not really enough. So, who
> should be working for free in the process?
>

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 10:54 PM

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George" > wrote in message
> ...
> > none of this justifies stealing
> > if the artists wanted you to have it free
> > you should just email them and have them send you one
> > or better yet
> > have them give you a license to copy thier music, and distribute it
>
> blah blah blah
>
> Who the hell even wants to talk about that? There is a crisis. It needs
> solutions. There are ways to fix it, things to do to try and get a working
> model, and debating right and wrong is not solving anything.
>
> The RIAA's campaign in that regard is ludicrous. Purveying stuff like '50
> cent' and then appealing to people to have a conscience about petty theft?
> Not likely.
>
since wrong is now right and right is just for fools and chumps
I gladly consider myself a fool or a chump for standing up for Right

you stand up for Wrong as tall as you want you will still be in my shadow
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

reddred

December 20th 03, 10:57 PM

"Andrew M." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John wrote:
>
> >>"Andrew M." >
> >
> >
> >>Luckily most programs don't allow you
> >>
> >>>to reencode mp3's to make them smaller(I am pretty sure anyway).
> >
> >
> > Save as .wav, no appreciable quality loss.. Re-encode the mp3. No big
deal.
> >
> >
> > -John Vice
> > www.summertimestudios.com
>
> My point being that MOST people don't know how or ever care to kow how
> to do that. It will slow most people down. The more you slow them down
> the quicker you get to making back your money before it's available for
> free.
>

But you have to be careful not to **** off your potential customers. Every
downloader is a buyer waiting to get a job.

jb

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 11:01 PM

"reddred" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Trond Ruud wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Probably, but that's mostly because CDs are losing out to .mp3s as
music
> > > medium, I suspect
> > > If, instead, the price of paid .mp3 downloads dropped from $1 to 50
> cents, I
> > > believe it would make a difference however - provided the supply of
mp3s
> > > titles for paid download are increased to meet the demand.
> >
> > Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will
> > take the free one.
> >
>
> And this is why people are paying a dollar apiece for songs they want?
Sure.
> They're all doing it becasue they don't know they can get it for free?
>
> jb
I work in the colleges and with the kids forming bands at 16 to 24 Yo I
have not found a single one who is paying
yet Most are stealing
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 11:03 PM

it is not helping cross posting to 6 other groups
please check and trim the cross posts or this thread will never find any
middle ground
G

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

Joel

December 20th 03, 11:31 PM

"George Gleason" > wrote:

>Please trim the cross posts
>this is getting into other groups where cross posting is not welcome
>Thanks

And that gives you the right to crosspost that ****-faced bull**** to
the other groups, as if they are all in totality responsible for the
crossposting, you bitch? Go **** yourself, dweeb. If you don't like
the wild frontier, get to a ****in' Web forum, reject.

--
Joel Crump

George Gleason

December 20th 03, 11:57 PM

"Joel" > wrote in message
...
> "George Gleason" > wrote:
>
> >Please trim the cross posts
> >this is getting into other groups where cross posting is not welcome
> >Thanks
>
> And that gives you the right to crosspost that ****-faced bull**** to
> the other groups, as if they are all in totality responsible for the
> crossposting, you bitch? Go **** yourself, dweeb. If you don't like
> the wild frontier, get to a ****in' Web forum, reject.
>
> --
> Joel Crump

thanks for not cross posting
happy holidays
george

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

ryanm

December 21st 03, 12:38 AM

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are not "all" paying a dollar. There will always be some that will
> take it for free as long as it is possible to do so. The only thing that
> will stop those will be catching them and stopping them, or bringing the
> threat of prosecution so close they can no longer deny it. Lowering the
> price won't stop them.
>
Wait a minute... I thought the death penalty wasn't an effective
deterrent to violent crime? So, what makes you think that "threat of
prosecution" for a crime that any ambulance chaser can get you out of is
going to deter anyone?

ryanm

EggHd

December 21st 03, 01:10 AM

<< damaging to other industries, where 100 year copyrights and forcing ISPs to
rat out their customers (in direct violation of their common carrier status)
tends to stifle innovation and create distrust between consumers and the
companies that depend on them. >>

So when the mall puts in security guards and has to have anti theft tags this
is hurting their business?

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 21st 03, 01:12 AM

<>

Correct and in the last couple of years this has eroded as people are now
downloading the music. A couple years is a long time.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Hannibul Artese

December 21st 03, 01:14 AM

In article . net>,
"Chuck" > wrote:

> > I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> > George
>
>
> My father is in his mid 50's. A disabled veteran, he lives in an SRO in San
> Francisco. He gets about $800 a month, a third of which goes for rent. He
> recieves no money from the government for food (well, he does get $10, if
> you can believe that!). I have in the last year or two re-established a
> relationship with him, and last year I gave him one of my old computers. He
> has always been very into music, and one of the things he was most excited
> about was file sharing, because he barely has enough money for food, and can
> spend no money on music.. He's downloaded probably 500 tracks, mostly
> classic rock, blues, and roots country. Yes he is stealing - but who gives a
> ****? When you get off your self-righteous, idealistic stump, tell me who he
> is hurting, who is losing money because of this, since he could never buy
> any of the music to begin with.

You could have given him a radio......

EggHd

December 21st 03, 01:32 AM

<< More likely, they only get publishing split five ways. They haven't
recouped. >>

That's not true. I am giving an example of at least 10 artists from the era
and later I have worked with and seen the royalty statements and turning it
into a generic example.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 21st 03, 01:33 AM

<< I'm telling you, there are firms taking money to try and find out, but it is
impossible, they know that, and they are getting paid to come up with
desirable results >>

This is not what I am talking about. These firms aren't hired by the RIAA nor
are they sharing their data. they are trying to find a market for themsleves
and have servers hooked to some big colleg lan systems.

They know what's going in and out.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 21st 03, 01:50 AM

<< Why don't the record companies provide the
customers with what the customer wants, instead of what the record
companies want to provide? They might find the "piracy issue" to not
be as big as they though if they did so. >>

What is it that you, 1 of the millions of record company customers want?

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd

December 21st 03, 02:01 AM

<< (BMG makes a profit at $7.50/CD
including shipping, and music downloads are almost pure profit so 25c
to 50c/track is more than enough IMO) >>

How do you arrive at these numbers?

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

mslinda

December 21st 03, 02:18 AM

Wizard Prang wrote:
> Perhaps, perhaps not.. There are people out there who will steal no
> matter how cheap the music is. No money will be made from them either
> way, so it's a non-issue.

Yeah, back in my day we had to actually get up and leave the house and
drive all the way to the record store to steal music. Those kids todya
have it easy. ;-)

Like the kids of yesteryear who used to tape
> off the radio, the RIAA should start courting them as future music
> buyers instead of trying to string 'em up.
>
No ****. The RIAA is engendering just about the same respect among the
current crop of schoolkids that baby boomers developed for narcs.

Linda c.

EggHd

December 21st 03, 02:21 AM

<< Like the kids of yesteryear who used to tape off the radio, the RIAA should
start courting them as future music buyers instead of trying to string 'em up.
>>

Copying files is manufacturing the product.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 21st 03, 03:19 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << More likely, they only get publishing split five ways. They haven't
> recouped. >>
>
> That's not true. I am giving an example of at least 10 artists from the
era
> and later I have worked with and seen the royalty statements and turning
it
> into a generic example.
>

I know there must be cases on both sides of this... but many more artists
aren't seeing anything, nor do they own the tapes they payed for. I'm not
sure what the predatory labor practices of the big five has to do with p2p
anyway.

My argument isn't whether downloading helps or hurts anyone, that's not even
an issue to me. The question is, what are solutions - what are people doing
to make money, what is good for music and musicians, and what can be done
within the current environment to move forward. Because there is no going
back, you see, it's a done deal. It's time to adapt, or die trying.

jb

reddred

December 21st 03, 03:22 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << I'm telling you, there are firms taking money to try and find out, but
it is
> impossible, they know that, and they are getting paid to come up with
> desirable results >>
>
> This is not what I am talking about. These firms aren't hired by the RIAA
nor
> are they sharing their data. they are trying to find a market for
themsleves
> and have servers hooked to some big colleg lan systems.
>
> They know what's going in and out.
>

Every college in America? Even then, it'd be a fraction of the downloading
that's going on. But I'll grant you that they have a better idea than most.

jb

reddred

December 21st 03, 03:32 AM

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> reddred wrote:
>
> > And this is why people are paying a dollar apiece for songs they want?
Sure.
> > They're all doing it becasue they don't know they can get it for free?
>
> They are not "all" paying a dollar. There will always be some that will
> take it for free as long as it is possible to do so. The only thing that
> will stop those will be catching them and stopping them, or bringing the
> threat of prosecution so close they can no longer deny it. Lowering the
> price won't stop them.
>

So don't stop them. The point of lowering the price is not to get them to
stop anything, it's to get them to start something - to buy the CD. If it's
an impulse buy price, they might be more likely.

Downloaders may be customers already, too. They might buy something later,
they might not. 99.9 percent of the time, they wouldn't have bought the CD's
they are downloading - the reason they want the music and collect it is
because it's free and abundant, and that's a novelty right now.... But
everybody on the p2p networks is a potential customer, a convert. As my
daddy said, you catch flies with honey, not vinegar.

jb

reddred

December 21st 03, 03:43 AM

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
>
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > none of this justifies stealing
> > > if the artists wanted you to have it free
> > > you should just email them and have them send you one
> > > or better yet
> > > have them give you a license to copy thier music, and distribute it
> >
> > blah blah blah
> >
> > Who the hell even wants to talk about that? There is a crisis. It needs
> > solutions. There are ways to fix it, things to do to try and get a
working
> > model, and debating right and wrong is not solving anything.
> >
> > The RIAA's campaign in that regard is ludicrous. Purveying stuff like
'50
> > cent' and then appealing to people to have a conscience about petty
theft?
> > Not likely.
> >
> since wrong is now right and right is just for fools and chumps
> I gladly consider myself a fool or a chump for standing up for Right
>
> you stand up for Wrong as tall as you want you will still be in my shadow
> George

You missed the point again. While you bitch about morality, while this whole
thing is made into some kind of sunday school debate, the window for
effective change is closing rapidly. So whine away, do nothing, as far as
I'm concerned the sooner AOLTW cuts off the dying recording arm the better,
maybe the stock will go up.

jb

reddred

December 21st 03, 03:49 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << damaging to other industries, where 100 year copyrights and forcing
ISPs to
> rat out their customers (in direct violation of their common carrier
status)
> tends to stifle innovation and create distrust between consumers and the
> companies that depend on them. >>
>
> So when the mall puts in security guards and has to have anti theft tags
this
> is hurting their business?
>

The mall is not a communications network.

jb

George Gleason

December 21st 03, 07:43 AM

"Hannibul Artese" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> "Chuck" > wrote:
>
> > > I invite you to make your strongest argument why this is not so
> > > George
> >
> >
> > My father is in his mid 50's. A disabled veteran, he lives in an SRO in
San
> > Francisco. He gets about $800 a month, a third of which goes for rent.
He
> > recieves no money from the government for food (well, he does get $10,
if
> > you can believe that!). I have in the last year or two re-established a
> > relationship with him, and last year I gave him one of my old computers.
He
> > has always been very into music, and one of the things he was most
excited
> > about was file sharing, because he barely has enough money for food, and
can
> > spend no money on music.. He's downloaded probably 500 tracks, mostly
> > classic rock, blues, and roots country. Yes he is stealing - but who
gives a
> > ****? When you get off your self-righteous, idealistic stump, tell me
who he
> > is hurting, who is losing money because of this, since he could never
buy
> > any of the music to begin with.
>
>
> You could have given him a radio......

or you could actually provide for his comfort
by buying him the music
geoprge

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 11:32 AM

In article > writes:

> I hate repeating myself, but theft of goods and services is not the
> same as violating copyright laws.

Maybe we should just stop using the word "theft." It's convenient and
it gets the point across that people are doing something they
shouldn't. You're just talking about technicalities.

The ultimate damage is that a musician will not be able to make a
living with music and he'll have to change jobs. I don't think
there's anything wrong with that. It happens to programmers all the
time.

But musicians are sensitive artists.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 11:32 AM

In article > writes:

> They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> point out the difference?

And there's nothing wrong with this?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

George

December 21st 03, 01:42 PM

In article <znr1071950676k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
> > They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> > current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> > point out the difference?
>
> And there's nothing wrong with this?
>
no officer I am not driving drunk, I am driving with a blood/achohol
level in excess of current law
lol
Mike I can't argue with people who insist wrong is right anymore
it is clear they are not able to be productive members of society
instead they perfer to leech and steal from the hard working musicians
a really sad way to go through life, but in this world there will alway
be honor and there will always be a slimy underbelly
remember Cornyphone records?
these "filesharers " are just low life scum sponging off productive men
and women everywhere
Happy holiday
I out of this thread
Peace
George

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 01:55 PM

In article > writes:

> > It's not the RIAA tracking files. There are many companies with files
> sharing
> > "solutions" that haven't been put into place for various legal reasons and
> they
> > know what's going in and out of the college dorm rooms where 60% of P2P is
> > taking place.

> I'm telling you, there are firms taking money to try and find out, but it is
> impossible, they know that, and they are getting paid to come up with
> desirable results. Kind of like most market research, except p2p makes the
> situaution even more inscrutable.

Everyone wants to find a way to make money with music on the Internet.
This is just one more. It doesn't matter how much data they
accumulate, or how accurate it is. They've made a sale, probably the
only one they'll have to make.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 01:55 PM

In article > writes:

> > Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will
> > take the free one.

> And this is why people are paying a dollar apiece for songs they want? Sure.
> They're all doing it becasue they don't know they can get it for free?

Some don't, some do but prefer to pay more to get consistent quality,
and some just feel that it's a more moral thing to do.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 01:55 PM

In article > writes:

> Yeah, back in my day we had to actually get up and leave the house and
> drive all the way to the record store to steal music. Those kids todya
> have it easy. ;-)

They also had to be more creative to steal music. The reason why CDs
are shink-wrapped is because too many people were removing them from
the cases and slipping them out of the store. It's also why they came
up with the "spaghetti box" long package.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

George

December 21st 03, 02:58 PM

In article <znr1072009140k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
> > Yeah, back in my day we had to actually get up and leave the house and
> > drive all the way to the record store to steal music. Those kids todya
> > have it easy. ;-)
>
> They also had to be more creative to steal music. The reason why CDs
> are shink-wrapped is because too many people were removing them from
> the cases and slipping them out of the store. It's also why they came
> up with the "spaghetti box" long package.
>
>
I always thought the long box was so they would fit (2 wide) in
exisiting lp display cases
and shrinkwrap never stopped me :-)
George

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 04:30 PM

George wrote:
>
> In article <znr1071950676k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> > In article > writes:
> >
> > > They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> > > current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> > > point out the difference?
> >
> > And there's nothing wrong with this?
> >
> no officer I am not driving drunk, I am driving with a blood/achohol
> level in excess of current law
> lol

Either way it is one and the same unlawful act. Theft and copyright
infringement are two different unlawful acts and covered by different
laws. Unfortunately I don't know how to express this using only
one-syllable words.

> Mike I can't argue with people who insist wrong is right anymore

Well, let's agree to not waste any more bandwidth, then. I do not
see the world comprised of good and evil, wrong and right... but
rather I chose to see problems in need of solutions. You seem to
be unable to understand the fundamental difference in our
approaches already, so there really is no point arguing.

> it is clear they are not able to be productive members of society
> instead they perfer to leech and steal from the hard working musicians
> a really sad way to go through life, but in this world there will alway
> be honor and there will always be a slimy underbelly
> remember Cornyphone records?
> these "filesharers " are just low life scum sponging off productive men
> and women everywhere

They are your potential customers. I've yet to see this form of
'marketing' work.

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 04:34 PM

George wrote:
>
> In article <znr1072009140k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> wrote:
>
> > In article > writes:
> >
> > > Yeah, back in my day we had to actually get up and leave the house and
> > > drive all the way to the record store to steal music. Those kids todya
> > > have it easy. ;-)
> >
> > They also had to be more creative to steal music. The reason why CDs
> > are shink-wrapped is because too many people were removing them from
> > the cases and slipping them out of the store. It's also why they came
> > up with the "spaghetti box" long package.
> >
> >
> I always thought the long box was so they would fit (2 wide) in
> exisiting lp display cases
> and shrinkwrap never stopped me :-)
> George

Oops is that you, the right and wrong guy? Just to give you
soemething to think about: _I_ have never stolen a CD in my entire
life.

George Gleason

December 21st 03, 06:07 PM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> George wrote:
> >
> > In article <znr1072009140k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >
writes:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, back in my day we had to actually get up and leave the house
and
> > > > drive all the way to the record store to steal music. Those kids
todya
> > > > have it easy. ;-)
> > >
> > > They also had to be more creative to steal music. The reason why CDs
> > > are shink-wrapped is because too many people were removing them from
> > > the cases and slipping them out of the store. It's also why they came
> > > up with the "spaghetti box" long package.
> > >
> > >
> > I always thought the long box was so they would fit (2 wide) in
> > exisiting lp display cases
> > and shrinkwrap never stopped me :-)
> > George
>
> Oops is that you, the right and wrong guy? Just to give you
> soemething to think about: _I_ have never stolen a CD in my entire
> life.

I have never stolen a cD either
I did steal a few record when I was 10 or 11 (34 years ago)by slipping two
or three in one cover
I also never claimed sainthood only that I try to live right
i have committed many many wrongful acts , and I will commit some more, many
more, before I leave this earth
But I will not rationalize that they were in fact rightful acts
that is the diffrence between me and people who insist that they have some
sort of justification to steal music via p2p networks or other illegal
downloading schemes
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

George Gleason

December 21st 03, 06:10 PM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...
> George wrote:
> >
> > In article <znr1071950676k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article > writes:
> > >
> > > > They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> > > > current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> > > > point out the difference?
> > >
> > > And there's nothing wrong with this?
> > >
> > no officer I am not driving drunk, I am driving with a blood/achohol
> > level in excess of current law
> > lol
>
> Either way it is one and the same unlawful act.
not correct
some people are NOT drunk at .08 gac but will still get charged and
convictted
that is why there are often two chgarges when arrested
one is DUI the other is driving with bac over .08
Two diffrent crimes
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

George Gleason

December 21st 03, 06:14 PM

and DUI for me is .04 as I hold a cdl license
..04 is 1/2 the bac that a 90 lb woman would get arrested for
I am a 230lb man
i doubt I would even think DUI at .04
George

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 06:21 PM

George Gleason wrote:

[...]

Weren't you stating that you're out of this thread just hours ago?

George Gleason

December 21st 03, 06:28 PM

"Michael Tippach" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Weren't you stating that you're out of this thread just hours ago?

am I discussing downloading, NO
george

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

EggHd

December 21st 03, 06:28 PM

<>

In all cases there are artists who have done well and artists that have not.
BUt the artists that contiune to sell catalog from Elvis, to the beatles to the
stones to the dead to hendrix to journy to the sex pisols to rush to yes to the
police to bowie to queen to styx to loretta lynn to whomever and acts inbetween
still get royalty checks.

Does Tommy Tutone? I doubt it.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Bob Cain

December 21st 03, 07:42 PM

Michael Tippach wrote:
>
>
> They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> point out the difference?

Your point of view is that there is a real difference. Mine
is that copyright law was developed to establish a value on
copies of intellectual and artistic property and rights with
respect to it precisely so that the concept of theft could
be applied.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Mike Rivers

December 21st 03, 07:46 PM

In article > writes:

> > The problem with this model is that it's quite unrealistic.
>
> How is that so? Music does not fall into the same category as food
> and shelter where people would pay for with any percentage of their
> income.

Why not? If I make $3000/month and I need $1500 of that to pay the
rent, $150 to pay utilities, $200 for the car payment, $150 for
gas so I can get to work, and $50/month for my high speed Internet
connection, I have $1000 of discretionary income left over. I need to
eat, but I could go to my girlfriend's house for dinner a few times a
month, go to my mother's a few times a month, and still have money
left to buy one or two CDs even if I have a couple of
steak-and-lobster dinners. On those months when I'm on the outs with
my girlfriend or my mother has gone to Florida for the winter, I can
eat burgers instead of steak and still buy CDs, or decide that I don't
like any new CDs that have come out that month and not buy any.

But if I still feel like listening to music, I can always turn on the
radio locally or log on to an Internet radio program - or I suppose I
could go to a p2p web site and download some free music.

> If the only way to access music was to buy it from the record
> store, the overall amount of money spent in the record store would
> be finite and not be exactly 100% of the average per capita income
> multiplied by head count. This is the overall amount society would
> be prepared to spend on music.

No, that would be the exact amount spent on music, not the amount that
society would be prepared to spend on music. Perhaps you could use a
long term average as representative of what the music industry can
expect, but it can vary a lot depending on what else people are
spending their money on. Either you're nuts or you're not making
yourself clear.

> Which has no influence on the fact that even under the most sales
> friendly circumstances people will spend less than 100% of their
> income on music.

I don't think anyone will argue with you on that. However, there are
some exceptions. The kid who gets $3/day lunch money (representing
100% of his income) might choose to beat up the school wimp every day
for a week and then on Friday take the $15 he didn't spend for lunch
and buy the newest Cd fron his favorite gangsta rap artist (or go
without lunch, which he can do without terribly serious consequences
since he no doubt gets a good breakfast and dinner at home, and buy
they latest Enya CD.) But then he's stealing from his schoolmate or
his parents - but he's not stealing music so that doesn't hurt the
music industry.

> Further, a CD has a per item cost associated with
> it, while the per item cost of a digital copy is virtually nil and
> always paid for by s/he who does the copy. What this means is that
> for CD sales, the classic laws of market place economy apply,
> meaning that as far as large scale economy a market price will
> establish which ideally would maximize the profit made buy everyone
> involved in the sale of CDs as far as determining the number of
> units shipped.

That estimate is based on the number they expect to sell. The fixed
costs are the same whether they sell one or a million (taking into
account that they aren't likely to sell a million without some
advertising, and with no advertising, they're more likely to sell far
less than a million. But every one that they sell IS A COPY just like
a copy that you make yourself. The difference is that copies that the
record company make are on their books as assets. Copies that you make
are not.

> This market has a finite volume that is considerably smaller than the
> number of songs produced multiplied with the number of people on earth
> multiplied by $16 divided by ten.

So you're saying that they're putting too many records on the market?
I'll go along with that.

> Given a model could be established that guarantees adequate
> compensation for authors while allowing to maximize the benefit
> to society by allowing free access for everyone to (published)
> works, who would complain? The RIAA would. And this is what I
> think that entire development is about.

Why would they complain?

I've always had the thought in the back of my mind that a song should
have a fixed price. The author would be free to charge whatever the
traffic will bear. If he has a track record of big sales, he can
charge the record company $10,000 for each of his songs they want to
buy. If he's just starting out, or has fell down on sales, he may only
be able to get $100, or $500. But he shouldn't get zilch until the
record starts selling, and then get a portion of each sale. In other
words, do away with the royalty system. But I don't think any of the
parties concerned (not just the RIAA) wouild go along with that.

> But granting access to music is not a service. Making music is.

Service? Perhaps, but for those who do it professionally, it's a
businesss first.

> The problem with selling a song is that the supply is exactly one,
> but able to meet unlimited demand. Thus, the only economic solution
> that would make sense is to sell the song to the whole of society.

Or to sell it to someone who will market it. And that's the way it
works now. It's not the song that the record companies are selling,
it's the success of their marketing.

> What causes me headache, however, is that a large number of authors
> do not seem to be willing to think of and lobby different models.
> Instead I hear them shouting "Stealing is wrong", which solves
> nothing.
>
> And yes, I am an author myself.

So what do you do to assure that you get what's due you? My writing
for Recording Magazine is on a fixed-price basis. They pay me once for
the article regardless of whether they sell 100 copies of that issue
or 30,000. When I suggest that someone order a back issue containing
one of my articles, that doesn't put any more money into my pocket.
I'm satisfied with the arrangement because this isn't my sole source
of income. It's $300 or so every few months in my pocket with which I
usually buy toys, or spend to travel to a trade show (for which I
write a report for free because nobody has offered to pay me for that
work).

> If you apply what I wrote above not just to music but any field of
> art and science, engineering... where stuff is created that can be
> copied at virtually no cost, you'll soon realize that everyone in
> society is making use of it by merely being a member of society.

I'm sorry, but I'm not an economist and I'm getting tired of trying to
figure out what you're saying.

> You dont't pay the army per person per use do you?

We (the government) sort of do. In peacetime, the army is smaller and
it's less expensive to do what they do. But, no, we don't put $2
million in the Army till every time a ruler we don't like is
captured.

> Wrong. They do not buy the music. They pay for _access_ to it, while
> the supply is either exactly one per song or virtually unlimited,

Technicality! They buy a piece of plastic that gives them access to
the music. It may even give them the right to listen to it an
indefinite number of times. But it doesn't (or shouldn't) give them
the right to duplicate it for others.

> I would like to disagree. The packaging problem may be one face of
> the issue, but the problem is at the core, not just on the surface.

I don't mean "package" in the sense of a plastic or cardboard case, I
mean a collection of 16 songs. Many people say that the problem
(whatever problem they're talking about) would be solved if they
didn't have to buy 15 songs they didn't like to get the one they
really wanted. However, this would make for a much smaller industry
and a much smaller income. Remember that even if you never play those
other 15 songs, the publisher gets his royalties, which means that the
songwriter (who is often the artist, because that's how they make
their money) gets his share. So he writes one good song, fifteen
crappy songs, puts out a full CD, and makes 16 times the money he'd
make if he put out a single. And don't tell me that there would be 16
people who would buy a single for every one who buys a full CD. I'd go
for five, five would download the single for free, and the other five
wouldn't even know that either the album or the single existed.

> To make a moral statement: It should not be left up to the record
> companies to control who makes music for whom. This choice should
> be given back to musicians and their audience. Record companies are
> free to offer services to both, musicians and their audience, and,
> if the price is right, these services will be bought.

Sounds like a good deal to me. Let the musicians pay the record
companies for marketing and distribution, give them a percentage, and
the better the marketing and the better the product the more everyone
makes. Unfortunately, musicians don't initially have the money to pay
for marketing services, and loans aren't usually available from
conventional sources. So in essence the record company makes the loan,
and there you have "the major label deal."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 08:51 PM

Bob Cain wrote:
>
> Michael Tippach wrote:
> >
> >
> > They do not 'steal'. They violate the artist's rights under the
> > current copyright law in several countries. How often do I need to
> > point out the difference?
>
> Your point of view is that there is a real difference. Mine
> is that copyright law was developed to establish a value on
> copies of intellectual and artistic property and rights with
> respect to it precisely so that the concept of theft could
> be applied.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries; "

Assuming you are in the U.S., _this_ would be the correct answer.
Please note how the _goal_ is stated first, the means thereafter.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

EggHd

December 21st 03, 08:54 PM

<< But the labels brought in enough off of tommy, and are still bringing in
money (yes he is on compilations), that the project was paid for long ago.
If tommy has to pay for the project out of his royalties, then ownership of
the properties he paid for should revert to him when he recoups. >>

How can you decide what ownership should revert? many artists had that in
their contarcs many most didn't. You can't decide now what should have been.

How do you know the labels have made enougth off Tommy Tutone? They had one
hit song and then gone. I don't even know how much they sold then. We don't
know if in fact Tommy Tuntone makes royalytoes or not. It was an expample. Are
you arguing just to argue or can you please get into an area you understand?

You do know that when a song like 8573210 (or whatever it wad called) is
licensed 50% flows through to the band right? That's standard.

<<which is what may or may not have happened - but I am
certain of one thing, people made money off of the recordings tommy is
paying for, and are making money now, everybody except tommy. This is
exploitative. >>

Do you knw what the band's roginal advance was? Do you know how much they
renegotiated fror album 2 or 3? how much tour support ect?

You don't and I don't. The books are there to be audited at any time.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 21st 03, 08:54 PM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> < aren't seeing anything, nor do they own the tapes they payed for. >>
>
> In all cases there are artists who have done well and artists that have
not.
> BUt the artists that contiune to sell catalog from Elvis, to the beatles
to the
> stones to the dead to hendrix to journy to the sex pisols to rush to yes
to the
> police to bowie to queen to styx to loretta lynn to whomever and acts
inbetween
> still get royalty checks.
>
> Does Tommy Tutone? I doubt it.
>

But the labels brought in enough off of tommy, and are still bringing in
money (yes he is on compilations), that the project was paid for long ago.
If tommy has to pay for the project out of his royalties, then ownership of
the properties he paid for should revert to him when he recoups. Otherwise,
the label sucks it up, which is what may or may not have happened - but I am
certain of one thing, people made money off of the recordings tommy is
paying for, and are making money now, everybody except tommy. This is
exploitative.

jb

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 08:59 PM

Bob Cain wrote:
>
> roddelaar wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean, I am a thief???
>
> Yep. You are copying something without paying for the right
> to do it.

Which does not make him a thief but rather someone copying something
without paying for the right to do it, except in countries where the
right to privately copy stuff is backed by legislation and paid for
by surcharges put on VCRs, CD-Rs..., in which case he is just someone
copying something.

Crossposting trimmed down to just R.A.P.

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

reddred

December 21st 03, 09:00 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1072007973k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > > It's not the RIAA tracking files. There are many companies with files
> > sharing
> > > "solutions" that haven't been put into place for various legal reasons
and
> > they
> > > know what's going in and out of the college dorm rooms where 60% of
P2P is
> > > taking place.
>
> > I'm telling you, there are firms taking money to try and find out, but
it is
> > impossible, they know that, and they are getting paid to come up with
> > desirable results. Kind of like most market research, except p2p makes
the
> > situaution even more inscrutable.
>
> Everyone wants to find a way to make money with music on the Internet.
> This is just one more. It doesn't matter how much data they
> accumulate, or how accurate it is. They've made a sale, probably the
> only one they'll have to make.

On that level sure, if they can make money for nothing, it's their right.
Kind of like the guys EMI hired to do copy protection. But my point was that
the data is innacurate by nature, so claiming to understand that people are
mostly downloading 'outkast' or J-lo based on that information is
misleading. The Billboard awards this year had a category for 'most
downloaded'. What the hell does that mean? Maybe from the legit music
services, I'd guess, or some select group of them, but it doesn't reflect
what people are listening to.

jb

EggHd

December 21st 03, 09:00 PM

<< Which does not make him a thief but rather someone copying something
without paying for the right to do it, except in countries where the
right to privately copy stuff is backed by legislation and paid for
by surcharges put on VCRs, CD-Rs. >>

Thata's just to copy something you own or paid for. Taking a file and
uploading it or downloading to your hard drive has not the same.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

reddred

December 21st 03, 09:20 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1072008513k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > > Same thing, if they can get the file for free vs: 5 cents, they will
> > > take the free one.
>
> > And this is why people are paying a dollar apiece for songs they want?
Sure.
> > They're all doing it becasue they don't know they can get it for free?
>
> Some don't, some do but prefer to pay more to get consistent quality,
> and some just feel that it's a more moral thing to do.

I imagine there are students with ten thousand files they've downloaded, but
they don't buy cd's. But I think mostly it's a mixed bag - I think they do
both, which doesn't necessarily mean they are downloading a cd instead of
buying it.

I eavesdropped on some barristas this morning talking about music (this aint
no scientific survey) and one was high school age, and one was in her
twenties. The high school age coffeeslinger had just spent roughly fifty
bucks on cd's, but regretted buying the new John Mayer cd (who is that?)
because it wasn't as good as the old one and she wished she had bought the
new (something something) instead. She had downloaded some bootleg type John
Mayer stuff before buying the new cd and she liked that stuff better (I get
the impression she would have bought it if it were available). So Barrista
#1 definately does buy and download in an interactice process, and I imagine
that fifty bucks seems like a lot of money to her. But she spent the money
while she has access to free. She talked about how the new Dave Matthews
triple cd was only sixteen bucks, and roughly five dollars a cd made sense
to her as a purchase.

Barrista #2 was in her twenties, and was talking about how great itunes was
and how ahe was buying records for ten bucks, which seemed about right to
her, and how she didn't care about the art - she specifically said that it
wasn't worth the 8 bucks extra to have the booklet. I don't know if she was
kazaa-ing or not, but she liked to buy from itunes, so that makes her a
customer too.

My point here is that most of what I hear in real life pretty much supports
what people are saying around the net. People don't seem to behave all that
different than they did when it was all about cassette tapes, except that
now they have the new option of buying stuff online.

jb

reddred

December 21st 03, 09:40 PM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...

> How can you decide what ownership should revert? many artists had that in
> their contarcs many most didn't. You can't decide now what should have
been.
>

As the man said, 'Egghd, you're going to pay for this, and then I'm going to
own it'. Yeah, who are you to decide what's fair? Somebody signed a
contract! Give me a break, and stop apologizing for these creeps. A hundred
years of exploitative labor practices and at least twenty of price gouging
and fixing, and they leave a bad taste in my mouth.

> How do you know the labels have made enougth off Tommy Tutone? They had
one
> hit song and then gone. I don't even know how much they sold then. We
don't
> know if in fact Tommy Tuntone makes royalytoes or not. It was an expample.
Are
> you arguing just to argue or can you please get into an area you
understand?
>
> You do know that when a song like 8573210 (or whatever it wad called) is
> licensed 50% flows through to the band right? That's standard.

> Do you knw what the band's roginal advance was? Do you know how much they
> renegotiated fror album 2 or 3? how much tour support ect?
>

Give me a break. You brought Tommy Tutone into it as an artist that
proabably isn't making money. That song is pervasive enough that someone
sure is, and they did at the time, as well, because costs were subsidized by
the artists and profit went to the coffers. Do some basic math.

jb

Bob Cain

December 21st 03, 10:45 PM

Michael Tippach wrote:
>
> > Your point of view is that there is a real difference. Mine
> > is that copyright law was developed to establish a value on
> > copies of intellectual and artistic property and rights with
> > respect to it precisely so that the concept of theft could
> > be applied.
>
> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> respective Writings and Discoveries; "
>
> Assuming you are in the U.S., _this_ would be the correct answer.
> Please note how the _goal_ is stated first, the means thereafter.

Well, yes, but so what? The means is to define it as
something to which the concept of theft can apply. I'm just
arguing against your position that it is inappropriate to
use the word "theft" in regard to this kind of material.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Michael Tippach

December 21st 03, 11:39 PM

Hi Mike!

This is getting loooooong, so I took the fredom to cut it down a bit.

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > > The problem with this model is that it's quite unrealistic.
> >
> > How is that so? Music does not fall into the same category as food
> > and shelter where people would pay for with any percentage of their
> > income.
>
> Why not? If I make $3000/month and I need $1500 of that to pay the
> rent, $150 to pay utilities [...]

But you would also pay $2500 for the rent and $500 for food if that
was the minimum price at which food and shelter were available to
you. Not true for music. You simply wouldn't buy it.

> > If the only way to access music was to buy it from the record
> > store, the overall amount of money spent in the record store would
> > be finite and not be exactly 100% of the average per capita income
> > multiplied by head count. This is the overall amount society would
> > be prepared to spend on music.
>
> No, that would be the exact amount spent on music, not the amount that
> society would be prepared to spend on music.

What I was trying to say is that the market for music has a limited
volume which may vary over time but which is fairly constant in the
short run. Thus, the only way to sell more is to sell it for less and
the only way to sell for more is to sell less. You seem to agree as
far as this.

> > Given a model could be established that guarantees adequate
> > compensation for authors while allowing to maximize the benefit
> > to society by allowing free access for everyone to (published)
> > works, who would complain? The RIAA would. And this is what I
> > think that entire development is about.
>
> Why would they complain?

Because authors would not be forced to sign up with them in order
to have a chance of receiving some sort of compensation, selling
themselfs out in the process and only complaining afterwards. If
law makes it impossible for anyone to lay exclusive claim to the
rights of an author while providing alternative ways for
compensation, the kind of service most needed by the audience
would be the services provided by sepcialized music magazines,
reviewers etc. to wade trough millions and millions of 'masterpieces'
in order to pick out the gems. Think mp3.com on a larger scale and
payed for by public funds according to the ratings each song
achieves. Spice up with a bit of DRM technology, not to bill the
individual but in order to get more accurate ratings and there you
go.

The kind of 'services' the RIAA would make us want to believe no
one could live without, mostly advertizing, would not play a role
as much as they currently do since it makes less sense advertizing
something you do not have the exclusive rights to. If you want to
make money, that is.

This is just my private opinion, but I think this world is not
hurt if there is a little less advertizing. And the concept of
advertizing 'sponsoring' anything is complete bull, IMHO. Because
it is the _consumers_ paying for the advertizing, not some obscure,
altruistic entity.

I'd rather see marketdroids having to 'restructure' their carriers
than I'd see musicians having to.

> I've always had the thought in the back of my mind that a song should
> have a fixed price. The author would be free to charge whatever the
> traffic will bear.

Getting somewhere. The value of a service performed is determined
by the impact, not by the effort spent. This may be tough for some
but this is the way any competitive system works. I have no problem
with competition amongst authors.

> If he has a track record of big sales, he can charge the record
> company $10,000 for each of his songs they want to buy.

But why sell it to the record company who in turn will charge the
audience per copy? Oh I forgot, there is no other entity to sell it
to. But that doesn't mean that there can't be.

> If he's just starting out, or has fell down on sales, he may only
> be able to get $100, or $500. But he shouldn't get zilch until the
> record starts selling, and then get a portion of each sale. In other
> words, do away with the royalty system. But I don't think any of the
> parties concerned (not just the RIAA) wouild go along with that.

And this is just ridiculous. If you could make just one cent per
copy given to people in the third world as opposed to $0 from CDs
offered there at $16 apiece... do the math!

> > But granting access to music is not a service. Making music is.
>
> Service? Perhaps, but for those who do it professionally, it's a
> businesss first.

Businesses not offering the goods and services worth the money they
draw are called scams. But I think you were rather referring to a
service being performed professionally, which still makes it a
service (or a number of services) being performed.

> > And yes, I am an author myself.
>
> So what do you do to assure that you get what's due you?

Mixed mode. Some stuff I do for money the good old way: wholesale.
because the system is at it is revolutionary changes are not in
sight anytime soon.

On the other hand, I give away stuff that would very well have
created a seizable amount of revenue if I had fed it into the
marketing chain. Then I give away stuff that probably would have
not ;-)

If there is any profit motivation for this at all, then this is the
idealistic belief that this may contribute a little to a different
mind set. If the RIAA's actions are to convey one message above all,
than this would be the message that maximizing profit was the main
point in life (as long as it's _their_ profits, at least), while
at the same time blaming others for living that very mindset for
themselfs by going P2P.

But life's supposed to be about maximizing _fun_. Creating stuff
for others is _fun_, especially if they like what I'm doing and
think that I'm cool ;-P

Creating stuff for others (I mean everyone) _and_ getting paid for
it would be fun squared, because I would not have to worry about
those mundane things in life like food and shelter and would be
able to allocate even more of my time creating stuff for everyone
who wants it...

Last but not least, I dare speaking up in support of alternatives
in public and in return get accused of possibly being nuts and
supporting or even committing theft.

> > If you apply what I wrote above not just to music but any field of
> > art and science, engineering... where stuff is created that can be
> > copied at virtually no cost, you'll soon realize that everyone in
> > society is making use of it by merely being a member of society.
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not an economist and I'm getting tired of trying to
> figure out what you're saying.

Simple. Just because you are alive you benefit from certain services
being provided. It's not a matter of choice but rather you would have
to move to an island and cease any contact with society in order to
be able to claim that you're not benefitting from those services.

> > You dont't pay the army per person per use do you?
>
> We (the government) sort of do. In peacetime, the army is smaller and
> it's less expensive to do what they do. But, no, we don't put $2
> million in the Army till every time a ruler we don't like is
> captured.

You've got that wrong. What I meant is that you are not billed every
month or so for the particular amount of service the army thinks it
provided to you, as a person in particular, as in: 'my army bill this
month was just $50 because they only had to shoot .000003 people on
_my_ behalf but they had to shoot .000009 people on my neighbour's
behalf, which makes his army bill a whopping $150. Or maybe: I do
not want the army killing anyone, thus I shall not have to pay for
the army at all. I realize that this is a bit in bad taste, so I ask
you to file it under 'sarcasm', while still taking notice of the
actual point I was trying to make.

> > Wrong. They do not buy the music. They pay for _access_ to it, while
> > the supply is either exactly one per song or virtually unlimited,
>
> Technicality! They buy a piece of plastic that gives them access to
> the music.

Obviously, it doesn't even need that piece of plastic any more for a
number of people. If the author has been adequately compensated once,
it doesn't matter how many copies are being made. Which brings us
back to the question of how to adequately compensate the author. But
I made several suggestions already and I am just a single person, not
capable of having _all_ the good ideas in this world...

> > I would like to disagree. The packaging problem may be one face of
> > the issue, but the problem is at the core, not just on the surface.
>
> I don't mean "package" in the sense of a plastic or cardboard case, I
> mean a collection of 16 songs. Many people say that the problem
> (whatever problem they're talking about) would be solved if they
> didn't have to buy 15 songs they didn't like to get the one they
> really wanted.

Albeit I think there is some truth in it. Pay Per Song would help to
dramaticallly reduce the amount of music out there while increasing
the quality level of what is left in the short term. In the long run I
would expect prices per song to go up, because it is cheaper to
write/perform/produce a filler track but requires some more effort
to come up with something that makes people think 'whow!'. Hence,
given the cost of 10 current tracks being $16 does not make a track
cost just $1.60 if you let the audience be selective.

> However, this would make for a much smaller industry
> and a much smaller income.

Not necessarily a smaller income. If the market has a certain volume,
the size of the pie is pretty much the same. Just makes for bigger
slices of the pie per song.

> makes. Unfortunately, musicians don't initially have the money to pay
> for marketing services, and loans aren't usually available from
> conventional sources. So in essence the record company makes the loan,
> and there you have "the major label deal."

It's the lack of alternatives. Which doesn't mean that there can't
be any. If everything was supposed to remain the way it always was,
we'd still be living in caves... not even that!

Best reagrds,

Michael Tippach

Michael Tippach

December 22nd 03, 12:11 AM

Bob Cain wrote:
>
> Michael Tippach wrote:
> >
> > > Your point of view is that there is a real difference. Mine
> > > is that copyright law was developed to establish a value on
> > > copies of intellectual and artistic property and rights with
> > > respect to it precisely so that the concept of theft could
> > > be applied.
> >
> > "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
> > limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
> > respective Writings and Discoveries; "
> >
> > Assuming you are in the U.S., _this_ would be the correct answer.
> > Please note how the _goal_ is stated first, the means thereafter.
>
> Well, yes, but so what? The means is to define it as
> something to which the concept of theft can apply.

Very much like 'no law' means 'no law', 'securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries' means JUST THAT; Making it an offence
for anyone to infringe on those rights is the way U.S. congress
has chosen to exercise its power under Section. 8. Clause 8.

Very much like why you would not call murder a theft only
because you discovered the power of equivocation by asserting
someone's 'stealing' someone's life (by unlawfully taking it away
from them.)

> I'm just arguing against your position that it is inappropriate
> to use the word "theft" in regard to this kind of material.

The power of equivocation, again. What's 'material' about music?

Best regards,

Michael Tippach

mslinda

December 22nd 03, 12:20 AM

Trond Ruud wrote:
> "mslinda" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Trond Ruud wrote:
>>
>>>"croft" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>Check out EMusic.com. They have tons of vintage stuff.
>>
>>Linda C.
>>
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for the tip
> EMusic.com looked interesting, except that they demand I pay them a monthly
> "membership" fee to allow me to to buy music from them. And at $10/month
> ($120/yr) the fee alone is more than I usually spend on CDs. I seriously
> doubt that such pay-to-buy schemes will make much of a dent in the present
> P2P filesharing. But for the most avid music buffs, those who buy several
> CDs every month, it might perhaps be an interesting and economical
> alternative. A working alternative to p2p filesharing, however, will
> probably have to be a comprehensive .mp3 music database, where one pays per
> download(s) only, and where you can find all those "out of print" CDs you're
> hunting around the p2p communities for.
> Trond
>
>

I subscribed for a year when it was unlimited downloads for $10 a month.
I have hundreds of albums from that year. I unsubed when they went to 40
downloads per month for $10. But it was nice while it lasted. I have
Macs so I can't use the services that are PC-only. I used it a lot
before iTunes launched.

Linda C.

Bob Cain

December 22nd 03, 12:52 AM

Michael Tippach wrote:
>
>
> > I'm just arguing against your position that it is inappropriate
> > to use the word "theft" in regard to this kind of material.
>
> The power of equivocation, again. What's 'material' about music?

Equivocation is right! :-)

I see it in the same light as software of which I am a
developer. If someone copies my work to use without paying
for it I very much see it as theft of my work. It matters
not to me that there is nothing material involved in the
theft or in the hollow argument that "he wouldn't have
bought it anyway."

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

EggHd

December 22nd 03, 01:03 AM

<< As the man said, 'Egghd, you're going to pay for this, and then I'm going to
own it' >>

It kinda works that way but you don't have it right. As in any business the
label takes the risk and puts up a lot of money to "own" that particular
recording. Not the song or any other performances after the contract is up but
they have in fact bough that perfromaqnce. If it does well and recoups, they
have a deal inplace.

What's so difficult about that? Some people make better deals than others.
You don't have to sing with anybody.

This is a differtent argument than file sharing.

<< Yeah, who are you to decide what's fair? Somebody signed a
contract! >>

What in the hell are you getting at?

<< Give me a break, and stop apologizing for these creeps. >>

I'm not. The problem is there are no creeps per se. Most labels have a
turnover every 5 years or so.

<< A hundred
years of exploitative labor practices and at least twenty of price gouging
and fixing, and they leave a bad taste in my mouth. >>

So what? So you steal from the mouths of the artists you are standing up
for??? Whaever!

<< Give me a break. You brought Tommy Tutone into it as an artist that
proabably isn't making money. >>

They most likely don't have a back catalog that is selling. that doesn't mean
they aren't making money.

<< That song is pervasive enough that someone
sure is, and they did at the time, as well, because costs were subsidized by
the artists and profit went to the coffers. Do some basic math. >>

I have no idea what you are talking about. Help me with the math.

---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Mike Rivers

December 22nd 03, 01:53 AM

In article > writes:

> Which does not make him a thief but rather someone copying something
> without paying for the right to do it

Not exactly, if you want to stick to the quoted purpose of copyright.
Someone has copied something without securing the right to do it.
Paying has nothing to do with the definition of what's protected under
the law.

Compusory license allows a vehicle for paying for a license to copy,
but I don't see a license granted here.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 02:31 AM

>We are going to make sure
>the files are so big that even if you want to share them you will need a
>really fast connection (or a hell of a lot of patience and time) and
>most people don't have those yet.

I don't know where you live but every person I know has DSL or a cable modem.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 02:40 AM

>I would assume that a band that _communicates_ with their fans has
>a far better chance of falling into the category of people people
>dislike stealing from. Communication is a two way process, though.
>Involves honesty, transparency and stuff like that to make people
>believe they're buying CD's from human beings after all.
>

Are these fans that buy or download? I've had clients that no amount of
communicating
with had any effect on their moral behavior. I personally know of a lot of
local bands who spend a ton of time "kabitzing" on websites and local message
boards, a playing few if any career forwarding shows because they should have
spent more time writing good songs.
Are you saying that character matters in the appeal of an artist? What TV
stations are you watching? Write a good song..shut up and sing..and I'll be a
legal customer..but I was already a legal customer anyway. I know stealing is
wrong...I am having a little bit of a hard time with the concept of action
only because of opportunity...anyway..

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 02:48 AM

>It's simple. It costs almost nothing so why not have it? This is typical
>human behavior since the stone age, at least.
>

Not if "IT" belongs to another..sheesh

>Thanks for the judgemental statement, by the way. I "assume" ...not...
>I'm effing certain you do not understand the concept of communication
>I mentioned in the posting you were so kind to take your time
>responding to.

You logic is flawed dude...you are trying to justify the viewpoint of a person
ignorant of the facts. I can frame any situation in a way so that an ignorant
bystander may make an inappropriate or even illegal choice...this does not
accurately describe any business model that I would subscribe to.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 02:52 AM

>Moralizing isn't going to
>help, IMHO, you have to face reality.

And heres the rub...we..everyone...creates reality..you..yes you are the cause
of the actions you take. In some philosophies the awareness of this "reality"
is considered to be man's most basic responsibility. Accepting this..while
following a moral code..is what persuades you not to steal..not the
availability of things to steal.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 02:59 AM

>Once this budget is spent, you cannot sell any more music because
>simply the budget has been depleted. This creates a situation where
>not everyone has access to the music sold, but no more money can be
>made from it

You are forgeting all the other mediums that use that music for promotional
purposes. Advertising is endless...TV and Radio are endless...and a lot of
people make their livings from these things.

>At that point you can have everyone have access to
>the music without losing anything but adding value to people's lives.
>

Adding value to the downloaders life but limiting the success of the artist.
This is like letting someone gamble but limiting the betting...winning big is
the motivation for the creation in amanner that can be commercially successful.
I agree it's a tough spot for everyone but if noone is making any money what
happens then? That's like expecting drug companies to research new drugs and
then refusing to pay for them.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Luke Kaven

December 22nd 03, 03:14 AM

Michael Tippach > wrote:

[...]
>OTOH, If A, who is in possession of $0, downloads the contents of
>a CD of B (assuming that this is an unlawful act under the
>juristdiction of A and B), what is the actual monetary damage to
>B? It is the amount A would otherwise have been prepared to give
>B in exchange for the CD. Which is exactly zero since A only is
>in possession of $0. Still, A is listening to a copy of B's music
>obtained by unlawful means. A's quality of life has improved while
>B's was not damaged at all.
>
>Admittedly this is a bit oversimplified but it might serve to point
>out what I originally thought would be obvious anyway.

The error here is that the argument has to be "counterfactual
supporting". You have to prove that B *would* not have received
anything otherwise. And you also have to prove that A does not cause
further such damages by providing people who *would have paid* with
the product, which *would have* otherwise been paid for.

Luke

Blind Joni

December 22nd 03, 03:14 AM

>I take it you have never recorded anything from TV onto your VCR.
>Unfortunately that doesn't hold true for most of us. So I have lots of
>movies on tape. But for the ones I really like I do go out and buy the
>DVD.

Difference is the TV show or movie has been paid for by advertisers ..who are
taking a chance on a return.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Luke Kaven

December 22nd 03, 03:18 AM

"Chuck" > wrote:

If we were to allow your father free music as an act of charity (one
that I wouldn't be against in his case), that doesn't justify the
claim that people shoudl *generally* be allowed to download. You
could have provided him privately with digital copies, and I'm sure
nobody would have batted an eye.

Luke

Luke Kaven

December 22nd 03, 03:27 AM

Michael Tippach > wrote:
>Bob Cain wrote:
>>
>> Michael Tippach wrote:
>> >
>> > Incidentally my opinion is based on... well... ...opinion. If you
>> > happen to have any hard evidence to the contrary you are welcome
>> > to put it on the table and I will stand corrected.
>>
>> He who states a thesis is traditionally burdened with its
>> proof. Until then it has no more standing than the
>> reputation of he who states it.
>>
>Someone quoting Einstein should know that one never can prove
>anything beyond any doubt. A thesis has credibility if it is
>falsifyable, which mine is.

A misappropriation of Popper isn't any better. Proof is of course not
the relevant support needed. The ethical argument is a metaphysical
one, which involves reasoning about unobservables, and hence, isn't
(wholly) supported or refuted by observation. You do need to give
reasons Michael. We're looking for Wittgenstein's Ladder here, not a
priori proofs.

reddred

December 22nd 03, 04:02 AM

"EggHd" > wrote in message
...
> << As the man said, 'Egghd, you're going to pay for this, and then I'm
going to
> own it' >>
>
> It kinda works that way but you don't have it right. As in any business
the
> label takes the risk and puts up a lot of money to "own" that particular
> recording. Not the song or any other performances after the contract is
up but
> they have in fact bough that perfromaqnce. If it does well and recoups,
they
> have a deal inplace.

The artist pays for the recording. This is simple. The artist pays for the
recording, and all manner of other things, out of royalties while the label
makes a profit. Just because the artist might not recoup and the label has
to suck up some fraction of it doesn't make this essential inequity 'right'.
By any definition, it is a predatory and unfair labor practice.

The really cool thing for them in this practice is that they can put all
those 'advances' in the credit column. In other words, it shows up as
profit, because it is money owed to them. So you can see why it is in their
interest to 'spend' as much on recording, videos, etc. as possible. They
aren't 'really' spending the money, they are moving it into credit owed,
which they can count as profit right away even if the artist never recoups.
It is a way to count money you have already made twice.

>
> What's so difficult about that? Some people make better deals than
others.
> You don't have to sing with anybody.
>

Say you want to buy a house. You go shopping for a mortgage, and all the
banks (all five of them in the world) say the same thing - you will pay us
back, and we will still own your house. Either you sign, or you don't 'own'
a house.

> This is a differtent argument than file sharing.
>

Yes.

> << Yeah, who are you to decide what's fair? Somebody signed a
> contract! >>
>
> What in the hell are you getting at?
>

See above. The idea that people need not sign, which you like to dust off
and bring out, has been shot down in labor courts over and over again in the
last century.

> << Give me a break, and stop apologizing for these creeps. >>
>
> I'm not. The problem is there are no creeps per se. Most labels have a
> turnover every 5 years or so.
>

If they maintain the same practices, well, they just have a lousy culture.
I'm sure some of them are nice guys.

> << A hundred
> years of exploitative labor practices and at least twenty of price gouging
> and fixing, and they leave a bad taste in my mouth. >>
>
> So what? So you steal from the mouths of the artists you are standing up
> for??? Whaever!
>

Why do you assume I download anything? 'you wit me or agin' me' kind of
thing? Have I said 'illegal downloading is AOK and I do it all the time'?
Nope. I don't like it, really, it would be nice if it went away. It won't.

> << Give me a break. You brought Tommy Tutone into it as an artist that
> proabably isn't making money. >>
>
> They most likely don't have a back catalog that is selling. that doesn't
mean
> they aren't making money.
>
> << That song is pervasive enough that someone
> sure is, and they did at the time, as well, because costs were subsidized
by
> the artists and profit went to the coffers. Do some basic math. >>
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Help me with the math.
>

You do know what I'm talking about. The artist has to recoup the expenses
out of a tiny fraction of the price of a cd. The label recoups thier
investment and counts it as profit, all of it, including what is being payed
back to them by the artist, much sooner then the artist finishes paying back
the label. It is a simple ratio. And as I said, they can count it twice,
because the artist owes them.

jb

Bob Cain

December 22nd 03, 04:49 AM

Luke Kaven wrote:
>
> >Someone quoting Einstein should know that one never can prove
> >anything beyond any doubt. A thesis has credibility if it is
> >falsifyable, which mine is.
>
> A misappropriation of Popper isn't any better. Proof is of course not
> the relevant support needed. The ethical argument is a metaphysical
> one, which involves reasoning about unobservables, and hence, isn't
> (wholly) supported or refuted by observation. You do need to give
> reasons Michael. We're looking for Wittgenstein's Ladder here, not a
> priori proofs.

Yeah, what he said! :-)

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain

December 22nd 03, 04:55 AM

Michael Tippach wrote:
>
> Bob Cain wrote:
> >
> > roddelaar wrote:
> > >
> > > What do you mean, I am a thief???
> >
> > Yep. You are copying something without paying for the right
> > to do it.
>
> Which does not make him a thief but rather someone copying something
> without paying for the right to do it,...

You want to distinguish something called "copyright
violation" from theft. I don't think that can be legally
supported but just who the hell am I anyway. I see the term
"copyright violation" as just a specific type of theft.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ciberratt

December 22nd 03, 01:38 PM

Commie <grin>

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:39:59 +0100, Michael Tippach >
wrote:

>Hi Mike!
>
>This is getting loooooong, so I took the fredom to cut it down a bit.
>
>Mike Rivers wrote:
>>
>> In article > writes:
>>
>> > > The problem with this model is that it's quite unrealistic.
>> >
>> > How is that so? Music does not fall into the same category as food
>> > and shelter where people would pay for with any percentage of their
>> > income.
>>
>> Why not? If I make $3000/month and I need $1500 of that to pay the
>> rent, $150 to pay utilities [...]
>
>But you would also pay $2500 for the rent and $500 for food if that
>was the minimum price at which food and shelter were available to
>you. Not true for music. You simply wouldn't buy it.
>
>> > If the only way to access music was to buy it from the record
>> > store, the overall amount of money spent in the record store would
>> > be finite and not be exactly 100% of the average per capita income
>> > multiplied by head count. This is the overall amount society would
>> > be prepared to spend on music.
>>
>> No, that would be the exact amount spent on music, not the amount that
>> society would be prepared to spend on music.
>
>What I was trying to say is that the market for music has a limited
>volume which may vary over time but which is fairly constant in the
>short run. Thus, the only way to sell more is to sell it for less and
>the only way to sell for more is to sell less. You seem to agree as
>far as this.
>
>> > Given a model could be established that guarantees adequate
>> > compensation for authors while allowing to maximize the benefit
>> > to society by allowing free access for everyone to (published)
>> > works, who would complain? The RIAA would. And this is what I
>> > think that entire development is about.
>>
>> Why would they complain?
>
>Because authors would not be forced to sign up with them in order
>to have a chance of receiving some sort of compensation, selling
>themselfs out in the process and only complaining afterwards. If
>law makes it impossible for anyone to lay exclusive claim to the
>rights of an author while providing alternative ways for
>compensation, the kind of service most needed by the audience
>would be the services provided by sepcialized music magazines,
>reviewers etc. to wade trough millions and millions of 'masterpieces'
>in order to pick out the gems. Think mp3.com on a larger scale and
>payed for by public funds according to the ratings each song
>achieves. Spice up with a bit of DRM technology, not to bill the
>individual but in order to get more accurate ratings and there you
>go.
>
>The kind of 'services' the RIAA would make us want to believe no
>one could live without, mostly advertizing, would not play a role
>as much as they currently do since it makes less sense advertizing
>something you do not have the exclusive rights to. If you want to
>make money, that is.
>
>This is just my private opinion, but I think this world is not
>hurt if there is a little less advertizing. And the concept of
>advertizing 'sponsoring' anything is complete bull, IMHO. Because
>it is the _consumers_ paying for the advertizing, not some obscure,
>altruistic entity.
>
>I'd rather see marketdroids having to 'restructure' their carriers
>than I'd see musicians having to.
>
>> I've always had the thought in the back of my mind that a song should
>> have a fixed price. The author would be free to charge whatever the
>> traffic will bear.
>
>Getting somewhere. The value of a service performed is determined
>by the impact, not by the effort spent. This may be tough for some
>but this is the way any competitive system works. I have no problem
>with competition amongst authors.
>
>> If he has a track record of big sales, he can charge the record
>> company $10,000 for each of his songs they want to buy.
>
>But why sell it to the record company who in turn will charge the
>audience per copy? Oh I forgot, there is no other entity to sell it
>to. But that doesn't mean that there can't be.
>
>> If he's just starting out, or has fell down on sales, he may only
>> be able to get $100, or $500. But he shouldn't get zilch until the
>> record starts selling, and then get a portion of each sale. In other
>> words, do away with the royalty system. But I don't think any of the
>> parties concerned (not just the RIAA) wouild go along with that.
>
>And this is just ridiculous. If you could make just one cent per
>copy given to people in the third world as opposed to $0 from CDs
>offered there at $16 apiece... do the math!
>
>> > But granting access to music is not a service. Making music is.
>>
>> Service? Perhaps, but for those who do it professionally, it's a
>> businesss first.
>
>Businesses not offering the goods and services worth the money they
>draw are called scams. But I think you were rather referring to a
>service being performed professionally, which still makes it a
>service (or a number of services) being performed.
>
>> > And yes, I am an author myself.
>>
>> So what do you do to assure that you get what's due you?
>
>Mixed mode. Some stuff I do for money the good old way: wholesale.
>because the system is at it is revolutionary changes are not in
>sight anytime soon.
>
>On the other hand, I give away stuff that would very well have
>created a seizable amount of revenue if I had fed it into the
>marketing chain. Then I give away stuff that probably would have
>not ;-)
>
>If there is any profit motivation for this at all, then this is the
>idealistic belief that this may contribute a little to a different
>mind set. If the RIAA's actions are to convey one message above all,
>than this would be the message that maximizing profit was the main
>point in life (as long as it's _their_ profits, at least), while
>at the same time blaming others for living that very mindset for
>themselfs by going P2P.
>
>But life's supposed to be about maximizing _fun_. Creating stuff
>for others is _fun_, especially if they like what I'm doing and
>think that I'm cool ;-P
>
>Creating stuff for others (I mean everyone) _and_ getting paid for
>it would be fun squared, because I would not have to worry about
>those mundane things in life like food and shelter and would be
>able to allocate even more of my time creating stuff for everyone
>who wants it...
>
>Last but not least, I dare speaking up in support of alternatives
>in public and in return get accused of possibly being nuts and
>supporting or even committing theft.
>
>> > If you apply what I wrote above not just to music but any field of
>> > art and science, engineering... where stuff is created that can be
>> > copied at virtually no cost, you'll soon realize that everyone in
>> > society is making use of it by merely being a member of society.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I'm not an economist and I'm getting tired of trying to
>> figure out what you're saying.
>
>Simple. Just because you are alive you benefit from certain services
>being provided. It's not a matter of choice but rather you would have
>to move to an island and cease any contact with society in order to
>be able to claim that you're not benefitting from those services.
>
>> > You dont't pay the army per person per use do you?
>>
>> We (the government) sort of do. In peacetime, the army is smaller and
>> it's less expensive to do what they do. But, no, we don't put $2
>> million in the Army till every time a ruler we don't like is
>> captured.
>
>You've got that wrong. What I meant is that you are not billed every
>month or so for the particular amount of service the army thinks it
>provided to you, as a person in particular, as in: 'my army bill this
>month was just $50 because they only had to shoot .000003 people on
>_my_ behalf but they had to shoot .000009 people on my neighbour's
>behalf, which makes his army bill a whopping $150. Or maybe: I do
>not want the army killing anyone, thus I shall not have to pay for
>the army at all. I realize that this is a bit in bad taste, so I ask
>you to file it under 'sarcasm', while still taking notice of the
>actual point I was trying to make.
>
>> > Wrong. They do not buy the music. They pay for _access_ to it, while
>> > the supply is either exactly one per song or virtually unlimited,
>>
>> Technicality! They buy a piece of plastic that gives them access to
>> the music.
>
>Obviously, it doesn't even need that piece of plastic any more for a
>number of people. If the author has been adequately compensated once,
>it doesn't matter how many copies are being made. Which brings us
>back to the question of how to adequately compensate the author. But
>I made several suggestions already and I am just a single person, not
>capable of having _all_ the good ideas in this world...
>
>> > I would like to disagree. The packaging problem may be one face of
>> > the issue, but the problem is at the core, not just on the surface.
>>
>> I don't mean "package" in the sense of a plastic or cardboard case, I
>> mean a collection of 16 songs. Many people say that the problem
>> (whatever problem they're talking about) would be solved if they
>> didn't have to buy 15 songs they didn't like to get the one they
>> really wanted.
>
>Albeit I think there is some truth in it. Pay Per Song would help to
>dramaticallly reduce the amount of music out there while increasing
>the quality level of what is left in the short term. In the long run I
>would expect prices per song to go up, because it is cheaper to
>write/perform/produce a filler track but requires some more effort
>to come up with something that makes people think 'whow!'. Hence,
>given the cost of 10 current tracks being $16 does not make a track
>cost just $1.60 if you let the audience be selective.
>
>> However, this would make for a much smaller industry
>> and a much smaller income.
>
>Not necessarily a smaller income. If the market has a certain volume,
>the size of the pie is pretty much the same. Just makes for bigger
>slices of the pie per song.
>
>> makes. Unfortunately, musicians don't initially have the money to pay
>> for marketing services, and loans aren't usually available from
>> conventional sources. So in essence the record company makes the loan,
>> and there you have "the major label deal."
>
>It's the lack of alternatives. Which doesn't mean that there can't
>be any. If everything was supposed to remain the way it always was,
>we'd still be living in caves... not even that!
>
>Best reagrds,
>
>Michael Tippach