Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 23103	2002-08-07 07:50:00	mp3 downloads	Downtown_Brown (1336)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
69008	2002-08-07 09:17:00	> When people "pirate" > music, the recording companies would like us to > think it is hurting the artists. It would be, if > the recording companies lower the artists commission > to deal with the revenue lost through piracy (the > recording companies don't give a toss about the > artist, just the bottom line). They don't however. > Artists commissions have not been lowered > d dramatically, the recording companies have taken > the hit, and where possible, hiked prices. you're missing the point here though GP :) it is still a commission. Therefore the more albums that are sold, the more money the artists are paid. The more albums that are downloaded instead of sold, the less money the artists make. There are many people out there that would buy the album if they couldn't get it for free over the internet. That is lost revenues for the recording companies, and in turn, lost income for the artists. That does hurt the artists. > Why is it you think that the recording industry is > kicking up all the fuss and not the artists. Those Ever heard of Metalica? :D Basically the recording companies make the fuss because they are a lot bigger, have more money to throw around in making the fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're acting as agents for the artists they represent. > It is this reason why people steal music, and why > they don't feel guilty about it. They do it because > of the hugely restrictive prices that music companies > demand for the cd's, and they don't care because they Who says that they are hugely restrictive prices? In the States CDs are much cheaper than here, due to lower manufacture costs, yet it's still a big problem over there. > feel they are stealing off a large company that can > afford it, not the artist. The same reasoning > follows with software piracy - the consensus is that > people would pay if the prices were realistic. The > music and software is simply not worth the price > charged. Value is defined as the amount agreed > between a willing buyer and a willing seller. The > fact that people are not willing to pay the sellers > price indicates that the price is too high. Who is to say the prices aren't realistic? How can we go and say that MS (or any other software company) is over charging for their software - we didn't make it, we don't know how much they spent in R&D, salaries etc. etc. to make it. > Piracy over the internet also plays an important role > in a kind of backwards way. Artists that cannot > afford to go to a record company can release their > work on the internet, and get them selves heard and > known which eventually translates to sales. I have So let them do that - its not up to us to decide to put their works on the net though, its up to them. Most music on the net though isn't put up by the artist in this way. > When the greedy corporations realise that ripping off > the little guy, and acting anti-competitively (read > Micro$oft anti-trust) then piracy can be dealt with > in an effective manner, and the restrictions may be > effective as casual pirates will feel their > conscience. Whilst the conscience of casual pirates > is clear, piracy will continue. MSs antitrust etc. lawsuits have never had anything to do with how much they charge for their products. > I know I am going to be flamed, but may I just > qualify what I have said: LOL I'm not flaming :) I'm just picking holes in what you have to say :D > I do not promote illegal activity, and do not want to > encourage anyone (esp. on this forum). I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like promoting illegal activity :) Mike.	Mike (15)
69009	2002-08-07 10:35:00	Funny how this thread should start the very day that I have been thinking about the way we get our music these days as opposed to how I expected to get it . A few years ago (ten or more, maybe?) I read an article in the newspaper about the future of music . They predicted that one day we would go to the music store, pick out a handful of songs from whichever artist/s we liked and have the shop compile a CD for us (or was it tape? whatever) . At the time I thought this was going to be really neat because I was so sick of buying records and tapes after hearing the singles on the radio and then finding that I didn't like the remaining third to a half of the album's songs . My opinion on this hasn't changed a bit since then . I am still fed up with getting half of my money's worth when buying expensive CDs, to the extent that I now usually go without . Recently I joined the multitudes downloading music . Because I feel it is stealing I usually download music that I have previously paid for . I download old songs that I have already got on records and tapes and put them on CDs so that I can play them in my PC and the portable CD player . Most of the songs wouldn't be available in the shops now anyhow, and if they are, they are on CDs full of songs that I don't like, so why should I buy them? My daughter likes to get her favourite artist's songs and if she likes enough of the album she will buy the CD . If not, the songs usually "disappear" after a few weeks ;-) What I'd like to know is why that old prediction never came true? Probably because the record companies are too greedy .	Susan B (19)
69010	2002-08-07 10:47:00	> you're missing the point here though GP :) it is > still a commission . Therefore the more albums > that are sold, the more money the artists are paid . > The more albums that are downloaded instead of sold, > the less money the artists make . There are many > people out there that would buy the album if they > couldn't get it for free over the internet . > That is lost revenues for the recording > g companies, and in turn, lost income for the > artists . That does hurt the artists . I made the assumption that most people do not download the entire album, but rather individual songs . Those that download (and make available for download) entire albums are not "casual" pirates, and are the ones causing the problem . > Basically the recording > companies make the fuss because they are a lot > bigger, have more money to throw around in making the > fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're > acting as agents for the artists they represent . That is how they try to make it out . Ever wondered why they are so big? Why is it so hard to start up a record label? It is due to the size of the others - you are not competitive as a small label as larger labels will keep offering the artists more money in order to stamp you out . This is anti-competitive behaviour, and although the artists see the short term benefit, the long term benefits of more competition are lost . Consumers are also losers in this situation . > Who is to say the prices aren't realistic? How can > we go and say that MS (or any other software company) > is over charging for their software - we didn't make > it, we don't know how much they spent in R&D, > salaries etc . etc . to make it . > Take the cost of windows XP - $700approx . C'mon, be honest with yourself! There is no way M$ is making the kind of profits they are and only just paying for the cost of the product . They charge because they can as there is no real competition . No-one is brave enough to provide an alternative . Those that are (all the others excluding Mac OS which can't be counted as it doesn't run on a PC platform) struggle to gain market share . Not because they don't make quality products (eg Netscape and Linux) but because of M$ ability to overpower them . This is why M$ is in trouble . Not because of price, but because of their behaviour towards competitors . > So let them do that - its not up to us to > decide to put their works on the net though, its up > to them . Most music on the net though isn't put up > by the artist in this way . True > MSs antitrust etc . lawsuits have never had anything > to do with how much they charge for their products . See above . > LOL I'm not flaming :) I'm just picking holes in > what you have to say :D Thankyou - I love healthy debate, and do not consider posts of this type of post to be a flame . > I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like promoting > illegal activity :) I have not suggested anyone conducts piracy . I have conceded that those that do have flawed reasoning are wrong and are stealing, and I beleive that other methods of dealing with huge global corporations (eg legislation) are better solutions as no company is going to stop trying to suceed because of piracy - piracy really only hurts smaller businesses that cannot sustain such an attack . This is against my principles . What I am doing is trying to give DB an answer to why people do it . My personal opinion on piracy is irrelevant, but it is almost impossible to comment without my opinion shining through . Even so - stealing is stealing . If you do it, be prepared to pay the consequences . I am not promoting piracy, but neither am I discouraging it (even if I was, my sentiments would fall on deaf ears) . Summary People pirate music and software . These people realise it is illegal, but do not feel that they are committing a great qrong . In fact they would likely to rate shoplifting a $1 chocolate bar to be more serious than the $100's of music they have stolen . These people are likely to be good, honest people . The reason they do this is because of the unlikelyhood of being caught, and the fact that they do not feel like they are hurting anyone (it doesn't matter if this premise is true, as long as they beleive it) . The free-flow of information spawned by p2p sharing has created some benefits that would not of occurred if p2p's popularity hadn't been boosted by illegal music sharing . It will happen and continue to happen until prices drop dramatically, or copyright enforcement is toughened . Large corporations such as Microsoft have been given a free reign for far to long - the consumer has suffered, and so has MS's competitors . Look forward to your reply G P PS To use a good example, Susan B (most definitely not the only one, just a good example) would be considered by most as honest and trustworthy even though none (few?) of us have actually met her . She is a mother and would consider herself to be a good person . She would be horrified if one of her children was caught shoplifting, yet she has been known to "steal" music on the internet by her own admission . No offence to Susan - I admit downloading copyrighted mp3's also - but this is an indication of the acceptance of society of these actions . Perhaps one day society will not find this activity to be unacceptable . Since our law is derived from the rules of society, perhaps one day copyright law will change t allow free distribution of such material . G P	Graham Petrie (449)
69011	2002-08-07 10:47:00	I remember those compilations Susan... they were called Solid Gold Hits. Actually, I think there is a retail outlet in Auckland where you can record a CD compilation from a library / selection they have. I use the internet for music exactly as you do Susan.... My favourite Joe Walsh albumn never came out on CD, but most the tracks are available on Kazaa	Baldy (26)
69012	2002-08-07 10:51:00	Susan, sorry, your post was not there when I started typing. I will assume that you post holds true (ie you do not download music you have not owned at some stage) - although I do question it. Even so, my analogy holds true for many contributors on this forum. Most "Pirates" are not people who consider themselves criminals. Anti-piracy advocates need to change this mood before they can hope to halt piracy. G P	Graham Petrie (449)
69013	2002-08-07 10:56:00	Hi D_B, The "Artists' are bleeding because of volume of music dowloaded free from the Internet?Wakey-Wakey! Sales in the Music Industry was down 6.6% from the previous years turn-over of [b]$48 BILLION[b]World-wide. This drop is only partly due to piracy(the percentage I would not know)as well as the prices charged for CD's that the consumer thinks are too high OK! The turnover is not all in CD sales, but by the same token an artist only gets a percentage of production costs,not a percentage of the Recording Companies profits! Long live P2P! Cheers,Kiwitas,;-) PS;Now watch the flaming!	Kiwitas (514)
69014	2002-08-07 11:04:00	OOOOps,Sorry I forgot to shut of theBOLD Cheers again,Kiwitas,;-)	Kiwitas (514)
69015	2002-08-07 11:27:00	I read somewhere that the year before had a 6 . 6% sales drop in music . Last year was only 5% . So much for the 'poor' record companies . The fact is, people do it cos they can . And as long as they can, they will . And if they can't, they will try . And they will succeed . Piracy has been happening for years . I bet everyone over of a decent age will remember copying a mate's tape, or even taping songs off the radio . What's the difference between then and now? And what's the difference between downloading copyrighted MP3s, wares, cracks, movies and books? Anybody remember the sneaker net and SEX partys? :^O Only speed and quantity has changed I guess . . .	Elwin Way (229)
69016	2002-08-07 13:42:00	This would still be illegal. But you could always pirate the music anway and give the difference (or part of) to the artist directly :D Also a lot of music is sold from the ability to pirate it. Not everyone gets pirated stuff because it is cheaper. But because they can "try before they buy". Who want's to spend ~$40 on a CD when they have never heard the artist. But when you randomly come across an artist that you haven't heard of. So you download it and find out that they are really good so then purchase the CD.	-=JM=- (16)
69017	2002-08-07 22:45:00	> I made the assumption that most people do not > download the entire album, but rather individual > songs. Those that download (and make available for > download) entire albums are not "casual" pirates, > and are the ones causing the problem. ummm... what's the difference here? If I download 12 songs off 12 albums, or 12 songs off 1 album, I've still downloaded 12 songs... because I got them all off 1 album that makes me worse? :) > > Basically the recording > > companies make the fuss because they are a lot > > bigger, have more money to throw around in making > the > > fuss, and are more likely to be heard - they're > > acting as agents for the artists they represent. > > That is how they try to make it out. Ever wondered > why they are so big? Why is it so hard to start up a > record label? It is due to the size of the others - > you are not competitive as a small label as larger > labels will keep offering the artists more money in > order to stamp you out. This is anti-competitive > behaviour, and although the artists see the short > term benefit, the long term benefits of more > competition are lost. Consumers are also losers in > this situation. Rubbish! The recording companies are not anti-competitive just because they are big! They're big because they have many many many artists signed with them, and this is the reason it is hard to start your own label, but it can still be, and is, done. The bigger recording companies don't offer more money to artists to sign with them - they don't need to. Artists go to the bigger companies because they are more likely to get heard and make it into stores. > Take the cost of windows XP - $700approx. C'mon, be > honest with yourself! There is no way M$ is making > the kind of profits they are and only just paying for > the cost of the product. They charge because they What kind of profits are MS making? As far as I'm aware, they're not making huge profits - and definitely aren't paying huge dividends to shareholders. Much of what they make on software sales goes back into the company, into research, into development, into design, into upgrading their own equipment so they can go the next step. If they weren't making a little on what they sell, they'd have gone downhill a long time ago because they wouldn't have been able to afford to keep up. Don't compare Microsofts money with Bill Gates' money - they're completely seperate. He didn't make all his money from Microsoft paying him - he is a major (think major!) shareholder, and most of his wealth is held in the value of the company. > can as there is no real competition. No-one is brave > enough to provide an alternative. Those that are > (all the others excluding Mac OS which can't be > counted as it doesn't run on a PC platform) struggle > to gain market share. Not because they don't make > quality products (eg Netscape and Linux) but because > of M$ ability to overpower them. This is why M$ is > in trouble. Not because of price, but because of > their behaviour towards competitors. The reason MS is in trouble is not because they are a huge company. They worked bloody hard to get there. They are in trouble because a while ago they included something in one of their operating systems that disabled features in other companies software (eg netscape). That is initially what got them in trouble. This "feature" has since been removed, hence our ability to run netscape in Windows. This is anti-competitive behaviour, but has nothing to do with the price we have to pay for their products, but more to do with the fact that generally when anybody buys a PC it comes with Windows pre-installed - not because they've been anti-competitive to make sure that their OS is pre-installed, but because they've done really well to make theis OS the standard that everyone works off. They're not pushing Linux from the market - that would be anti-competitive - but the fact that MS has the dominant market share just makes it harder for any competitor to break into the market. There's nothing wrong with that. > > MSs antitrust etc. lawsuits have never had > anything > > to do with how much they charge for their > products. > > See above. See above :) > > I'm afraid it certainly sounded to me like > promoting > > illegal activity :) > > I have not suggested anyone conducts piracy. I have > conceded that those that do have flawed reasoning are > wrong and are stealing, and I beleive that other > methods of dealing with huge global corporations (eg > legislation) are better solutions as no company is > going to stop trying to suceed because of piracy - > piracy really only hurts smaller businesses that > cannot sustain such an attack. This is against my > principles. > > What I am doing is trying to give DB an answer to why > people do it. Nobody does it to fight huge "anti-competitive" corporates. They do it to get free music. > My personal opinion on piracy is irrelevant, but it > is almost impossible to comment without my opinion > shining through. Even so - stealing is stealing. If > you do it, be prepared to pay the consequences. I am > not promoting piracy, but neither am I discouraging > it (even if I was, my sentiments would fall on deaf > ears). So if you downloaded music, you'd be doing it to fight the global corporates? Or just to get free music easily? > The reason they do this is because of the > unlikelyhood of being caught, and the fact that they > do not feel like they are hurting anyone (it doesn't > matter if this premise is true, as long as they > beleive it). exactly. It's there, so why not? :) > The free-flow of information spawned by p2p sharing > has created some benefits that would not of occurred > if p2p's popularity hadn't been boosted by illegal > music sharing. > > It will happen and continue to happen until prices > drop dramatically, or copyright enforcement is > toughened. No, it'll continue to happen even if CDs dropped to $5 each. It's the convenience of downloading what you want when you want - you can delete the ones you don't like. You can't do that off a CD. > Large corporations such as Microsoft have been given > a free reign for far to long - the consumer has > suffered, and so has MS's competitors. I disagree. They are large because they've worked to get there. They don't have a free reign - in fact they're more likely to be targetted than smaller companies. But the fact that they're big make it more likely that people will buy their products. That's GOOD for competition. I cannot see how the consumer has suffered. The only way that MS's competitors have suffered is that they can't sell enough to compete. Think about this example. Telecom. They were up and running long before any competitor could enter the scene. It took a long time, and a LOT of government help to get competition up and running, and they still struggle to compete with Telecom. Telecom isn't doing anything wrong just because they're big; they're a very successful company that makes it difficult to compete with them just because they were here first and a lot bigger than the others. They have the major market share (like Microsoft) and in most places people sign up with Telecom because that's generally what people do. Nothing anti-competitive about that. Mike. PS In no way am I supporting MS or Telecom - I'm completely unbiases with regards to MS, although personally I don't like Telecom, for various reasons :)	Mike (15)
1 2 3 4