Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

As a musician, I feel this is a good thing. It means more potential exposure. The more exposure, the more you are likely to find potential fans who will go to your concerts which is how you make a living making music.

reply to post by crazydaisy


If you embed a Personal Marker on your Images, or actually Copyright them , then you have plainly Identified yourself as the Legal Owner of those Images and are intitled to Monatary Compensation for the use of those Images by others . If you choose not to do this , IMO you are giving the Public those Images Freely for whatever reason they might use them for . Pretty simple Logic to me , or am I mistaken ?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

For harm to be caused wouldnt the downloader have had the intention of making the purchase to begin with?

If an item would have never sold in the first place then not selling the item couldnt be considered harm, could it?

If I go into a grocery store with no intention of buying anything, do I get to eat the food they have? Can I just take it? Look at those cans of creamed corn over there! There sure is an awful lot of dust and grime on those cans of creamed corn. Those cans of creamed corn are never going to sell! I'll just help the grocery store out and take them off their hands...and some of those grapes too. What? Have you seen those grapes? They're like minutes away from fermentation. If people wanted fermented grapes they would buy wine, right? Yep. I'm going to take a couple of pounds of those soon to be rotten grapes off their hands. See? I'm just helping. I'm not hurting anyone.

Wanting to listen to something or view something isnt the same as a decision to buy something.

For instance, I live in a rural area with no theater under a two hours drive away. I havent been to the theater since I've lived here and have no plans on ever going. Say I downloaded a movie, watched half of it then deleted it.

Wanting to taste food, or lick it to check out the texture, is not the same as a decision to buy something.

For instance, I live in a metropolis filled with theater's, supermarkets, malls, and lot's and lot's of buildings, but there are no farms. Farmers markets, but no farms. It is at least a two hour drive to the nearest farm. So, how do I know that the corn used to make those cornflakes was healthy, suitable corn? I cannot possibly know this, and no way am I going to drive more than two hours to consult with a farmer over the matter. I'll just open the box of corn flakes and grab a handful and taste them, to investigate on the quality of the corn. Maybe I'll have another handful, just to make sure. No more than half the box, though, because I wouldn't want to steal the corn flakes...just taste them.

I was never going to drive two hours to see it. I was never going to purchase a DVD of it. At most I may have rented it or borrowed it from a library. Have I caused quantifiable harm?

Let me move away from the grocery store analogy and the obsession with corn, and use a different analogy. If you harbor fugitives, are you causing any quantifiable harm? If you accept stolen food from a friend, does this cause quantifiable harm? If you accept stolen computers, televisions, and other electronic items from a friend, does this cause quantifiable harm? If you stand by and watch your friend rape a woman, does that cause quantifiable harm? After all, you're just viewing, with no intention of "buying". Just how comfortably distanced from the actual crime does one have to be before that criminality becomes "legal"?

reply to post by pause4thought

Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else. It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?

actually people who make the real money from music are the producers, not the artists themselves. beyonce is the highest paid singer, and she got around $1 per cd. the other $14 went to producers.

there would be less music "piracy" and artists would make more if they released the music online charging a few bucks per album.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by BadNinja68

 

Isnt that the way it is today?
If you aren't popular with the public, you won't pull crowds.. which happens today.

Naturally. But if you're a relatively successful artist producing music of a non-mainstream genre, say, a significant proportion of your income is going to come from media sales, is it not?

You should go ask the remaining members of TLC how much income they got from media sales. Let us not forget they had to declare bankruptcy after selling 10 million records, having a sold out world tour, and having a record reach #1 for 7 consecutive weeks (Waterfalls), which is also the #8 song on VH1's list of the top 100 greatest songs of the 1990's. None of it was the fault of people downloading their music. The truth is, downloading music does not hurt the artist it hurts the record companies. Feel free to watch the video below for an idea of the math involved, you can start the video at 3:22.



For those too lazy to watch the video, let me give you the reader's digest version.

TLC sold 10 million records. There is 100 points to an album and TLC had 7 points. Every point is equal to 8 cents. So for each record sold TLC was making 56 cents. So 10 million records at 56 cents is 5.6 million dollars. From that 5.6 million, the band was contractually obligated to pay back the record and production companies for expenses incurred on their behalf which included recording, travel, promotion and music videos. On the "Crazysexycool" album this cost was around 3 million. So now deduct that from the 5.6 million and that leaves you with 2.6 million to split with 3 members of the group. Unfortunately that puts them into a higher tax bracket which after taxes left them with 1.3 million dollars. Now you can subtract more money for Managers, Attorneys and Accountants. By the end of it all, TLC took home $50,000 each for 1993 and 1994.

At this point, downloading music was not even really an issue. We can totally remove it from this example because the internet was still in it's infancy. However it highlights the real problem which is the Record and Production companies who make huge profits off the back and hard work of the artist.

Also since someone brought up start up musicians, I know plenty. Many of them put out their music so people can download it for free. Why? The answer is simple, they are not known. By putting their music out for people to stumble upon they are actually promoting themselves and creating an opportunity for people to hear their music who otherwise would not have. This then translate into revenue from doing live shows. The fact is, if you have fans they will come out to see your show and they will pay for doing so. Do not even get me started on potential revenue from Merchandising, personal appearances, and a lot of general marketing.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Regarding the corn, that is a set finite product. The material and time that went into producing that box of corn is gone. It will take more material and time to produce corn to replace what you have sampled. Digital media doesnt expend the same material and time. If anything the material, being storage space, and the time, being transfer rate, belong to the downloader. Making the local digital material more a product of the downloader than the publisher or even the file hoster at that point.

That corn which you had no intention of buying yet ate perhaps would not have been sold but at least it could have been sold until you sampled from it.
So I guess the idea is that the movie I didnt buy perhaps could of at some time been bought by me had I not downloaded it?

I dont think harboring a fugitive or standing idly by during an assault quite equate to media sharing. To do either would be extending the damage of the crime by being accessory to it. Maybe downloading media is extending the crime if the source of the media is criminal but wouldnt "first-sale" negate that? If I buy a CD and I decide to rip it to a hard drive and share it isnt that my first-sale prerogative?

I have to add this...

Every time this debate pops up I am always reminded of an episode of South Park. At the very least, even if you disagree, it is worth a good laugh.

This video can not be embedded but it is only 2 mins long.

South Park priracy episode

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


However, consider this, whether I choose to download one track or 10,000 other people choose to download that track, that track will still be there regardless of whether I download it or not. If I go to a grocery store and start taking items I deem "harmless", I'm still taking a physical item that someone else could pay for, and therefore stealing property and leaving the cost in the hands of the grocer to cover. Downloading music is much different than sticking my hand in a pie and taking a bite. I am not tainting this one track or album for anyone else by the act of downloading it and listening to it.

reply to post by Resonant

yes, exactly. downloading music lets the owner have his pie, AND you also get to eat it. it's like....the pie is replicating or something O.o. *plays twilight zone music*

In the end they'll want us to pay for every time we open a book to read. They'll chip either books or chip us

I can only imagine how much I'd have to pay for listening to one particular song from Bob Dylan... Millions

No kidding. This is where they would like to get if allowed.

reply to post by DangerDeath


No chips. What's coming is the "cloud."

Everything will be loaded with self destructing DRM and we'll have a choice to either temporarily rent or subscribe to books, shows, music, games and software.

Owning media will be a thing of the past. Accessing media is the future.

Rather than DRM being a developed nuisance it will be an ever evolving and constantly updating entity much like many software titles are today. The battle between DRM and the hacks will be perpetual and constant rather than the slow occasional struggle we see now.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Regarding the corn, that is a set finite product. The material and time that went into producing that box of corn is gone. It will take more material and time to produce corn to replace what you have sampled. Digital media doesnt expend the same material and time. If anything the material, being storage space, and the time, being transfer rate, belong to the downloader. Making the local digital material more a product of the downloader than the publisher or even the file hoster at that point.

Make no mistakes about it, when songs were being sold on vinyl records, it was not the actual material that went into making vinyl records that was being purchased, it was the songs recorded onto that vinyl that was being purchased. The raw materials that went into making the vinyl record are much like how you describe corn. Digital has nothing to do with it. In the world of vinyl recordings, the songs being sold have the same mystical powers you ascribe to them in the digital age. What you are arguing is that technology has facilitated plunder, thus plunder is "legal".

Further, it is arguable that those who purchased vinyl records of their favorite recording artists, and upon taking that vinyl record home, the material, the storage space, time it took to purchase the record and all the time it takes to take the record out of its sleeve and put it on a turn table and finally placing the needle of that turntable on the record, which makes that product one belonging to the purchaser. Hey! How about that! See how that works? Everything you just described, only difference is that in the scenario I presented someone actually made a purchase of music, and in your scenario someone plundered for it.

That corn which you had no intention of buying yet ate perhaps would not have been sold but at least it could have been sold until you sampled from it.

That movie you downloaded is having a harder time reaching actual customers because people like you not only plunder the movie, you then use internet forums as a place to recruit more pirates to help you plunder. Perhaps, if you never plundered that movie you downloaded but only watched half, it never would have been seen buy actual paying customers, but because you and others like you do plunder, and then write propaganda pieces for recruiting more thieves, the makers of that movie will sell less tickets and DVD's than they would have without you and your band of pirates gleeful plundering.

I dont think harboring a fugitive or standing idly by during an assault quite equate to media sharing.

Let's be clear here. If you make a little film and want to get that film to the largest audience possible without regard for any profit or recoup of expense, then using the digital technology as a method of "media sharing" is perfectly lawful. Downloading, on the other hand, someone's pirated version of a the most recent Clint Eastwood movie is not "media sharing", it is theft. At best, it is aiding and abetting thieves. Either way, it is plunder.

Maybe downloading media is extending the crime if the source of the media is criminal but wouldnt "first-sale" negate that?

The First Sale doctrine protects those individuals who are selling used copies of any copyrighted products they've purchased. If you buy (as in actually spend money and purchase the product) a book from a book store and years later sell that book, the First Sale doctrine relieves you of any obligation to honor the copyright on that book. The first sale satisfied that copyright, and any subsequent sales - or even loaning or giving that product away - are free and clear of copyright law. However, it is one thing to give a friend your copy of the new Lady Gaga album that you purchased. It is another thing entirely to post the songs of that album digitally on the internet providing a download feature that allows millions to have your purchased copy of that song.

The label that put out the most recent Lady Gaga album has a distribution department hard at work at selling as many copies of Lady Gaga's new album as they can. You are not a part of their distribution department and are harming them by posting your copy of Lady Gaga's new album to be downloaded for free. You are sabotaging that labels efforts in the name of plunder.

If I buy a CD and I decide to rip it to a hard drive and share it isnt that my first-sale prerogative?

No. You have not purchased any license to record the copy you purchased and repackage it and distribute it yourself, and this is not what the First Sale doctrine applies to. If you want to give the very same copy of the CD you purchased, you have the right to do so. If you want to sell that specific copy you purchased, you have the right to do so.

Originally posted by Resonant
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

However, consider this, whether I choose to download one track or 10,000 other people choose to download that track, that track will still be there regardless of whether I download it or not. If I go to a grocery store and start taking items I deem "harmless", I'm still taking a physical item that someone else could pay for, and therefore stealing property and leaving the cost in the hands of the grocer to cover. Downloading music is much different than sticking my hand in a pie and taking a bite. I am not tainting this one track or album for anyone else by the act of downloading it and listening to it.

Sabotaging a company's distribution method in the name of plunder is unlawful. No amount of deflections and qualifications will change this. If you have a song you wrote, and you can afford to record it yourself and then distribute it as a free download on the internet, then this is your right. Taking a song someone else wrote who is clearly and undeniably trying to sell that song to customers and a fan base and undermining their efforts to do that by giving that song away to as many who want for free is not okay. It is unlawful because it most assuredly causes harm. You may not like the people you're harming, but that doesn't make it "legal".

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

She must live in a fantasy world where photographers get royalties every time someone uploads their picture to photobucket...

Not exactly.

I worked in publishing.

Well that explains it then.

You work for the man, and if the man don't get paid, neither do you.

I am a writer and I have used torrent to get my message out there before. I self published a book and then went on a dozen radio talk shows to publicize it. I ran a web site and did every effort I could to get it out there. I sold maybe 500-600 books in print format.

I then put the book out as a free torrent download and under creative commons license. In the first week it was downloaded over 5,000 times. So in 2 years of self promotion I got only about 600 in sales. In less than one week the book was downloaded over 5000 times.

The next book I release I will forgo the cost of print and go straight to download of the free ebook and include some ads in the file. This will pay by the download just like the shareware model that is ad supported.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Resonant
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

However, consider this, whether I choose to download one track or 10,000 other people choose to download that track, that track will still be there regardless of whether I download it or not. If I go to a grocery store and start taking items I deem "harmless", I'm still taking a physical item that someone else could pay for, and therefore stealing property and leaving the cost in the hands of the grocer to cover. Downloading music is much different than sticking my hand in a pie and taking a bite. I am not tainting this one track or album for anyone else by the act of downloading it and listening to it.

Sabotaging a company's distribution method in the name of plunder is unlawful. No amount of deflections and qualifications will change this. If you have a song you wrote, and you can afford to record it yourself and then distribute it as a free download on the internet, then this is your right. Taking a song someone else wrote who is clearly and undeniably trying to sell that song to customers and a fan base and undermining their efforts to do that by giving that song away to as many who want for free is not okay. It is unlawful because it most assuredly causes harm. You may not like the people you're harming, but that doesn't make it "legal".

And what do you say to the labels and artists who intentionally "leak" their albums to the internet. This is an actual marketing strategy that many artists use. It builds hype when an album gets leaked weeks or even days before it's supposed to. This happened most recently with the new Kanye West/Jay-Z album, "Watch the Throne", and within hours, radio stations across the country were playing it. If the actual industry is purposefully releasing material like this, knowing that it will be downloaded and listened to, how is anyone supposed to navigate through the maze? Isn't it essentially sabotaging itself and asking for people to "rip them off"?

reply to post by Resonant

And what do you say to the labels and artists who intentionally "leak" their albums to the internet. This is an actual marketing strategy that many artists use. It builds hype when an album gets leaked weeks or even days before it's supposed to. This happened most recently with the new Kanye West/Jay-Z album, "Watch the Throne", and within hours, radio stations across the country were playing it. If the actual industry is purposefully releasing material like this, knowing that it will be downloaded and listened to, how is anyone supposed to navigate through the maze? Isn't it essentially sabotaging itself and asking for people to "rip them off"?

I just spoke to this. If someone wants to intentionally give away their product, this is their right to do so. Why are you pretending that the download issue is about stopping people from intentionally giving away their product?

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by pause4thought

 

It's so easy and tempting... but we wouldn't accept it in any other form...you expect to pay for your tv and you side against those who don't... this is the same thing.

Sure you can argue about the record labels being the oneswho horde all the money, but once again you downloading music hurts the artist more because of it.

Not really. If you are smart you can still make money.

1.)Release free usic ep's along with LP's that way fans can still get updated new music from you without having to pay and if they really like your stuff they can also buy it.

2.) If you record it yourself and maintain all the masters then nobody can leak it duh ! ......then you can drop your cd on whatever date you want and it will become available then and only then. That could help sales a little bit.

3.) If you are known then it helps more. ^ ......but also, if you haven't released an LP in a while and you say you are working on some new stuff and then one day out of nowhere you just start announcing you re-leased a new CD today and just keep marketing it hard for a week or 2.

That way your songs are initial only available for purchase until somebody HAS to buy it before they can leak it.

4.) IF it is truly good enough and somebody is enough of a fan, they will go and buy the physical copy or pay for the online download even.


People still buy cds, but are just more picky about spending on them. It used to be you just bought your fave artists next cd because you were a fan. Had no way of previewing what was to come you just hoped it was going to be awesome.

Now with audio previews, people can choose and pick what they want, when they want it.



People just need to learn how to work WITH people, WITH Fans, and WITH the current culture and tech. and they will be ok.


I'm releasing a cd in a couple months probably. I'm going to release it for free probably because right now, nobody knows who I am. but I'm not signed so any money I did make would be 100% profit and all mine because I have no overhead cost for studio time payments and making of physical cd's.

Just 35-50$ for copywrite and I can mix and master myself as good as possible. ( went to school for it a bit ) so it's not like I'm a noob at it. So yea just learn to do as much as you can yourself and you will have to pay for other people to do stuff for you way less.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Technically the artist can be held liable for leaking their music by the Record Companies. The Artist do not actually own the rights to the music they created, the Record companies do. Unless specified through other contractual agreements. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my understanding.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

Artists have a thing called "touring" which nets them more money than any album could.

Good point. But can you really imagine a world where every band on the planet either pulls big crowds or is reduced to music-making as a hobby? The only music to succeed would be mainstream - hardly a suitable crucible for creativity...

That is why I want to invent a real music tv where it's all artists playing live concerts. So you have the channel and sub channels within it. You can then go to whatever genre you want and watch whatever live concerts are scheduled to play.

That way artist make money off of people watching that couldn't make it to the concert, and people can do live shows from smaller venues and even private homes and recording studios for a more intimate look at the band you like.