Filesharing - Give us a chance!

[Spivonious]

I have created things, but i`m not sure of your point. If your saying, how would i like it as the creator if someone copied what i`d created, then tbh i`d be stoked. I`d be flattered someone somewhere liked it enough to deem it worth copying. Granted i`m not making my living from it, but it seems from the survey results posted earlier, that most musicians don`t actually mind file sharing as they see it as positive publicity.

Well, for me personally, and the person who started this thread, filesharing takes away from what I've created. Sure it's neat that people like it, but that doesn't put food on the table.

Jumping off a cliff, i don`t file share because others do it, i do it because it works for me no other reason. My point was more that, copyright breaches of one kind or another have been happening for years, and will continue to do so in the future, and hey, the companies still make damn good profits and the worlds not ended.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying there.

Regarding the next point. Actually, these are breaches, here in the UK (and i`m sure in the US too) your only legally allowed to retain a copy of a recording for a set period of time, 3 months i beleive, tho i`m sure someone will come along and correct me. After that time, your committing a copyright offense (although to the best of my knowledge, no ones been prosecuted for this) Regarding lending of books/cd`s the copyright usually states, they must not be lent or hired to others. Some say may not re-sell, presumably because the publisher gains no profit, and technically loses a sale.

As far as I know, time-shifting is not limited in the U.S. I've also never seen a product that forbade me from reselling it, unless it was part of some bundle, like a computer game that came with a video card.

The next point you`ve misinterpreted me, i`m not suggesting that making copies of something and selling it is ok, i`m saying i should be able to sell what i bought, and not be constrained by a copyright agreement that says i cannot. No copies at all, just the original. To use your example, its like Jackson saying ok, the guitar you just bought your not allowed to sell, because your depriving us of a sale.

Again, maybe things in the UK are like this, but I've never seen a product with that sort of agreement across the pond.

Figures, see http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040903-4156.html usually the same every year, bleeding hearts for 11 months, then the last month patting themselves on the back saying how well they`ve done.

BMI is not a record company. They exist to collect and distribute royalties.

Capitalism i have no problems with at all All i`m saying is the reason i pirate is greed, and the reason the publishers want to cutout piracy is greed. Nothing wrong with it, but thats what it is.

$1 songs, my point was the FULL cd should be $1 or film, program whatever. $1 per song is still potentially $16 for a full cd. Far too much imo and the reason alot pirate.

While I agree that $16 for something that cost 5 cents to produce is a lot, there are many hidden costs beyond the cost of material. They have to pay the producer, the engineers, the studio, the artist, the marketing team, the distributor, the delivery truck driver, the employees of the record store, etc., etc. Paying $16 for something I can listen to as many times as I want to is fine with me. Now, $10 to go to the cinema, that's highway robbery.

Prices, we`ve had price rises here in the UK, time was a vinyl album cost you £7, then cd`s came along and where £10. Now cd prices are nearer to £17 at some places, inflation? could well be, tho the publishers blame piracy for price rises not inflation.

I honestly haven't seen CD prices rise from when they were introduced. Maybe it's all VAT?

Fully agree, music is a luxury, and one we can live without, but i`m not gonna buy something unheard, plain and simple. If i like it, i`ll pony up the cash, if not, well the money is better off in my pocket rather than thiers, especially in todays economic climate with price rises everywhere. The publishers actually get more sales from me downloading not less, they should be grateful lol

You are the exception. The majority of piraters I know will download something and never buy it, even if it's their favorite album of all time.

Don't the Virgin Megastores have those listening stations where you can scan a CD and listen to some samples?


This is all a fun debate to me, please don't take anything personally!

[Hellbat]

Im not for stealing music BUT this little bit of info is something Lars and the RIAA dont want you to know. The highest cd sales have ever been was during the Napster time.

You have to temper that with the fact that at the time napster was big it was exceedingly rare to have portable mp3 players or car stereo systems capable of playing MP3 discs., so if people wanted to have the music in their cars they had to either burn a CD or buy them.

Personally I buy CD's and rip them myself so I can control the compression on them and not have to worry about DRM. Unfortunately the specialist music stores are pretty much dying these days so it's getting harder and harder to find good music outside of top 40 artists.

[wibble]

Well, for me personally, and the person who started this thread, filesharing takes away from what I've created. Sure it's neat that people like it, but that doesn't put food on the table.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying there.
As far as I know, time-shifting is not limited in the U.S. I've also never seen a product that forbade me from reselling it, unless it was part of some bundle, like a computer game that came with a video card.

Again, maybe things in the UK are like this, but I've never seen a product with that sort of agreement across the pond.

BMI is not a record company. They exist to collect and distribute royalties.
While I agree that $16 for something that cost 5 cents to produce is a lot, there are many hidden costs beyond the cost of material. They have to pay the producer, the engineers, the studio, the artist, the marketing team, the distributor, the delivery truck driver, the employees of the record store, etc., etc. Paying $16 for something I can listen to as many times as I want to is fine with me. Now, $10 to go to the cinema, that's highway robbery.

I honestly haven't seen CD prices rise from when they were introduced. Maybe it's all VAT?

You are the exception. The majority of piraters I know will download something and never buy it, even if it's their favorite album of all time.

Don't the Virgin Megastores have those listening stations where you can scan a CD and listen to some samples?


This is all a fun debate to me, please don't take anything personally!

I`ll start here, "This is all a fun debate to me, please don't take anything personally! " me too, piracy/downloading is something as you`ve no doubt gathered i`ve a strong opinion on, i just don`t beleive it to be the carnal sin its made out to be, so i enjoy this kind of debate and theres no offence taken or meant with my posts (sometimes i could word shit a bit better)

I can see where both yourself and the original poster are coming from, i`m not blind or blinkered to the other side of the coin, i just don`t beleive it makes a huge difference in the grand scheme of things, if anything i beleive the opposite, more listeners is good regardlesss where it comes from. If your band was gonna be played on a national radio station you`d be over the moon about it, all those extra potential sales, filesharing i see as the same kinda thing. Granted not all will buy when they can download, but some will, and thats revenue created that wouldn`t be otherwise.

Again fully agree that theres alot of hidden costs in producing a cd, but the way i see it, is that the publishers blame piracy for high prices but my argument is, if the prices where low, no one would bother pirating. How many more cd`s would you buy a year if the full cd only cost $1? I honestly beleive it`d be good for the industy and would make them more money than them keeping prices high. And yes BMI isn`t a publisher but the publishers are producing the same profits, you see it on BBC news each year.

Ya, the Virgin stores do allow you to listen before you buy etc, but i`ll be honest here, i`m lazy, and would far prefer to check out new tunes in the comfort of my own home and in my own time rather than in business hours in a store

In my opinion, the reason the music industry isn`t making the money it would like, isn`t because of piracy, its more to do with the bands they back. They spend millions fabricating shit boy bands (and girl bands, lets not be sexist here) that end up being one hit wonders for the popular audience and don`t spend enough on grass roots bands and music. The majority of REAL musicians, like those that frequent these forums just don`t get heard. If the record companies took more notice of talent and promoted it the industry would be alot better off. Most of todays bands have no longevity, no one will remember them in 5 years time, but go back to the 60`s & 70`s, the bands from then are still popular, why because good music never gets old, and will continue to sell and thats where money comes from, continues sales long after the recording has broken even, not flash in the pans. Its not that there aren`t great talented bands about today, its just that the publishers want to make a quick million, and don`t want to spend the time building up a brand name.

Oh forgot to add, not sure if many saw this, but here`s the publishers trying to crack down on someone selling promotional copies they bought (wheren`t given) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7450112.stm I can understand them not being happy if they where being sold BEFORE release, but after the release and by a 3rd party who`d paid for them himself privately? just plain nuts.

[shobet]

If you are talking about the overprocessed crap you hear now then you have a point, but you are using the best equipment and professionals in your example. Most bands don't have the resources to get that level of perfectionism (if you want to call it that), especially newer or less popular bands. So that argument is without merit. You can definitely get good (lets call it "professional") results with less expensive (lets call it home studio) level gear. Will the recording win Grammys for its production value? Probably not, but if its a metal/hard rock recording that it won't matter anyway.

Especially when the end product is most likely to get ripped at 128 or 256kbps!

[Accept2]

Using the law to argue a moral or ethical way of behavior is feeble. At one time in the US it was illegal to drink. At one time in some countries, it was your legal duty to report peoples of certain religious faiths and orientation so that they could be rounded up. At one time in the US it was the law that American citizens of Japanese heritage were to be held in camps. Right now its against the law to smoke grass, yet perfectly legal to smoke tobacco. Just because a law exists, doesnt make it the moral or ethical choice, nor the right choice of behavior. If you want to make an argument, do not use the law as your base, because laws are always fucked. File sharing is a sign to the industry that it is time to change. All industries come to a point like this, where they have to change the way they do things. Some in the music industry are in denial about this fact, but others see it clearly. At one time it was illegal to profess the earth as being round and rotating around the sun. Eventually people opened their eyes and looked that maybe it was time for them to accept a new idea and change with the times. We arent in the 1970s anymore. You can accept that file sharing is here to stay, and adapt to it, or you can bury your heads in the sand and be in total denial............

[toejam]

Why do these fucking idiots always want to call me out over some bullshit?

They love you, so they choose you! :ROTF:


Love,
Ralph Wiggum

[Endrik]

We always hear how piracy is killing the music industry, bullshit, its thriving. The record companies are making bigger and bigger profits each year so how is it being harmed?.

bullshit... some of the biggest labels are in huge depts... those who are making money... definetly not from the record sales..

[thetroy]

mp3 files are generally lesser quality than CD's, but how much difference there is depends on many factors such as:

Bitrate of the encoding (higher is better - though there are also variable bit rate algorithms)

Algorithms used to encode (most popular is called LAME)

Source playing back the files (not all mp3 players or soundcards are created equal)

DAC converting the files to analog before the amplifier (again, not all are equal)

Amplifier driving your speakers (as we all know, different amps sound different)

Speakers themselves obviously make a HUGE difference

The placement of speakers and construction of room

Placement of the listener within that room

The ears of the listener (I bet most people, even us musicians, would have a hard time telling a good mp3 from a CD in a blind test)

Also, not everyone is sharing mp3's. That is by far the most popular, but for awhile I was downloading in various other formats, some of which are entirely lossless (meaning all of the original data from the CD is still there).

[thetroy]

bullshit... some of the biggest labels are in huge depts... those who are making money... definetly not from the record sales..

Are they in debts because of file sharing? I've yet to see any data supporting that hypothesis.

[Endrik]

Oh yea to the delusional man who said he heard home studio stuff sound just as well as a professional cd you are nuts. Most pro cds are tracked thru a million dollar SSL 9000J . No protools rig I have ever worked on can sound as well as a SSL 2 bus compresser. They can have a plug in but its not the same. Pro studios use gear like Genelec,API,Universal audio,Neve,Neuman mics,AKG414 mics,Pultec EQs etc. You cant get as good a mix in a home studio unless you have high end gear and the room has been tuned by an acoustic engineer. That process aint cheap.

You cant get good tracks to tape with home studio gear. These pros use very expensive mic pres and mics in a tuned room designed for tracking. There is NO WAY you can get a quality mastered cd from a protools rig. The pro cds are mastered by guys who have been trained and have expert ears in a perfectly tuned room with 10s of thousands of dollars in gear. Id love to see a home studio miz come even close to Chris Lord Alges mixes or Chuck Ainleys or Bob Bullocks. Justin Niebank is a grammy award winning engineer. Id love to see someone come even close to the quality he gets in a professional mixing studio thru there piddly home rig. Its not gonna happen.

Just because you have Peak or Wavelab doesnt mean your a mastering engineer. Just because you have Pro Tools and an Mbox or some other DAW doesnt make you a mixing engineer. Most pro guys have been thru schooling and have many years of mixing experience. There is a reason they get as much as $300 hr to mix. Chris Lord Alge gets $15000 a song for major label stuff.

but home engineering "wizards" are saying that they just brought an SSL plug-in and it sounds just as good... and they also have a plug in that sounds exactly like 2" tape

If you are talking about the overprocessed crap you hear now then you have a point, but you are using the best equipment and professionals in your example. Most bands don't have the resources to get that level of perfectionism (if you want to call it that), especially newer or less popular bands. So that argument is without merit. You can definitely get good (lets call it "professional") results with less expensive (lets call it home studio) level gear. Will the recording win Grammys for its production value? Probably not, but if its a metal/hard rock recording that it won't matter anyway.

good rock'n'roll sounds good if it's done well.

I love listnening to old AC/DC records... that fat, warm and powerfull drum sound wich you can only get with 2 inch tape and analog consoles blows away any today's home made crap. It sounds so huge and natural. Cheap recording just sound lifeless... rock is all about sounding live.

[Endrik]

Are they in debts because of file sharing? I've yet to see any data supporting that hypothesis.

then do a research or ask people who are involved with the buisness.

[thetroy]

If people in the business knew how to fix their problems, then they would do so.

They don't know what the deal is, it's just easy to blame it on filesharing.

Besides, your mere assertion holds no weight with anyone with a brain. If you want anyone to believe you, try using some supporting facts.

[Spivonious]

The ears of the listener (I bet most people, even us musicians, would have a hard time telling a good mp3 from a CD in a blind test)

Also, not everyone is sharing mp3's. That is by far the most popular, but for awhile I was downloading in various other formats, some of which are entirely lossless (meaning all of the original data from the CD is still there).

With the exception of lossless, any form of compression (mp3, wma, aac, whatever) is going to go way down in quality regardless of the bitrate used.

A standard audio CD is encoded at about 1400kbps. Even at 320Kbps you're still missing almost 80% of the data. With 24-bit CDs, you're missing even more. Of course, if you're listening on $2 earbuds that came with the iPod, you're not going to hear a difference. But even stepping up to a nice car stereo will expose large differences in sound quality, even with 320Kbps LAME-encoded MP3s.

[thetroy]

I still hold that most people, even here, would not be able to tell the difference very reliably in a blind test. Unfortunately I don't really have a good way to put you guys to the test. Maybe I'll think of something.

Sidenote: Most car stereos suck, even the "nice" ones.

[yard dawg]

If people in the business knew how to fix their problems, then they would do so.

They don't know what the deal is, it's just easy to blame it on filesharing.

Besides, your mere assertion holds no weight with anyone with a brain. If you want anyone to believe you, try using some supporting facts.

I'll give you some real world numbers you thief!!

Avrils song girlfriend has been LEGALLY downloaded 7.3 million times. This will generate her $584,000 if she has the standard royalty rates which is .8 cents a download. Downloads fall under the new tech clauses in most artists contracts. Thats less than a cent a song. Now if you and 7 million others steal her song then you just cost her over a half a million dollars. If someone were costing you that amount of money youd be pissed and you know it!! I'd be after all of you thieves if I was an artist or a label. That money adds up. This is why the artists have to charge outrageous prices for concerts. They have to earn a living somehow.