Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

File sharing

Unauthorized file sharing is not good for the music world.
[ 8 ] (15.1%)
Unauthorized file sharing is good for the music world.
[ 28 ] (52.8%)
Tough to say, it probably equals out.
[ 17 ] (32.1%)

Total Members Voted: 70

Topic: What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music? (Read 25295 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #25 –
I changed it to "file sharing".  If you want to distinguish between illegal and legal then this can be amended.  I personally think it's better that we don't distinguish and leave it as part of the argument.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #26 –
It might be worth noting that Wikipedia's article on media "piracy" redirects to copyright infringement.

I do not think that even if mass-reproduction of music was ruled completely legal that musical artists would cease to exist, nor would some have difficulty making a good living.

These are just my opinions. It is clear that they are not shared here and so I shall cease to share them on this topic.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #27 –
I'll gladly withdraw from the argument too since they are just my opinions and I don't know that they're any more shared than yours, Canar.  I completely concede that there will always be some musicians/performers (I don't consider Britney Spears a musician) who will be compensated rather handsomely.  I just think that the ability for someone to make a decent living playing music, especially original music, has been reduced as a direct result of copyright infringement.  I include DJs who do not pay royalties as a large part of the problem and will gladly poll musicians that I know who claim that these people have cost them paying gigs if you like.  I'm not making this shit up.

I guess that was the rant I had building which I didn't express earlier; of course unauthorized public broadcast isn't exactly included in this poll.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: greynol on
So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.


Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.

The union has prosecuted - and won in court - a hairdresser for allowing a playing radio to be heard in the shop, ruling it constitutes as "public broadcast" (by the shop to its clients) for which no royalties were negotiated, agreed upon or paid for.

Among the criticism it received, there was an article [Link with Google Translate] claiming the (correct IMO) claim that this actually constitutes as double-paid royalties: The broadcast royalties were already being paid for by the radio station, thus covering any number of listeners listening to it through Radio, effectively not limiting the number of listeners. So question is whether you track each and every listener making sure they listen to it via their own, private, personal radio unit and regard any open radio who is overheard by anyone else as outsourcing the original radio station for secondary use, or deem this route ridiculous.

-- L. Ipsum

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Lorem Ipsum on
Quote from: greynol on
So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.
Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.
No, there wasn't, at least not with this particular example.

Quote from: Lorem Ipsum on
The union has prosecuted - and won in court - a hairdresser for allowing a playing radio to be heard in the shop, ruling it constitutes as "public broadcast" (by the shop to its clients) for which no royalties were negotiated, agreed upon or paid for.
...and rightly so!

Such suits have happened in the US as well.  There's usually a stipulation about, "the private use of our audiences."

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #30 –
The more I think about this the more I realize that what I believe will be the decline of the professional musician will be due to a combination of a number of factors, not just illegal distribution.  We've discussed illegal broadcast already.  We haven't discussed the consolidation of the media industry which I believed has really shut the door on artists from independent labels.  Neither of these are covered by this poll.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Lorem Ipsum on
Quote from: greynol on
So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties up-front or have some other binding legal agreement, there should be no problem.
Actually there was, and such a scenario was one specific case in which the union got notorious attention about.
No, there wasn't, at least not with this particular example.

It all comes down to interpretation. Examining your original stated scenario again:
Quote from: greynol on
So long as those who broadcast (or perform) copyrighted material are paying royalties [...]
(My emphasis and snip)

The [legal] debate comes down as to whether it should be covered by the [original] broadcast or is a radio playing in a shop constitutes as a (new? secondary? derived?) broadcast in itself.

The court obviously agreed with the latter; The article claimed the former. Personally (and this is a bit of editing my own "correct IMO" statement in my previous post) I can see how it may go either way.

Using a radio as background music for a place where part of the "experience" is hanging-out, atmosphere and the background music adds to it, is pretty much using it as part of what the place is about. An open radio in a barbershop, or in a side grocery store which main aim is to provide its seventy-year-old shopkeeper some company and letting him get newsflash updates is, well, a bit streching it.
All IMHO, of course, as always.

Point is that both uses may be problematic from the legal point of view; However - and back to what seems to be part of the original debate in this thread - all such rulings, opinions, debates and decisions come down as to the use of the content, in what surrounding and to what purpose; under no circumstances was the debate whether "Radio" is a GoodThing™ or BadThing™ per se, only its particular use in a certain context.

And I believe that's what both me and Akkurat have a problem with regarding the original poster's choice of words in presenting the matter.

-- L. Ipsum

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #32 –
My interpretation is the coffee-shop owner is broadcasting music and not paying royalties.  It seems pretty black and white to me.

If the place is gaining business as a result of publicly broadcasting something that is intended to only be broadcast for private audiences then there is no question in my mind that they should pay royalties.  If they aren't gaining business as a result then they should probably not bother.  Of course this is my opinion as well and since I love acronyms, let me offer one: IANAL.

Unless the OP wants to include broadcast in the poll, I'm thinking this part of the discussion is going off-topic and will gladly leave it up to we agree to disagree, or if one of us changes our mind or isn't fully understanding the other then we actually agree to agree.  Either way, I've probably out-worn my welcome here.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #33 –
Biggest issue I see with enforcement is how to determine liability.  If some grandmother's 6 year old Windows ME computer is wholly-owned by a botnet and is being used for copyright infringement / digital theft, how do we prove it? It is simply too resource-intensive to do in-person interviews and computer forensics for every instance of illegal downloading.

If I were the record companies, instead of spending money on litigation, I would spend all that money on hijacking and spamming P2P / Torrent networks with bad files.  It wouldn't be too hard to make garbage media files appear valid - headers, checksums, metadata, partial copies, etc.  Throw in some DDoS attacks as well.  Might even set up sleeper agents to share good files for a year, infiltrate big sharing organizations, and then destroy them from the inside.  Take the fight to them.  There are plenty of hackers who would joyfully take down other hackers if they were being paid.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #34 –
I say keep the discussion coming greynol and everybody else. You guys all bring valid and broad aspects to this immensely huge and complex topic.

And hellokeith, you bring up a good point about record companies trying to protect their industry. I know for a fact record companies do just this: , "I would spend all that money on hijacking and spamming P2P / Torrent networks with bad files. It wouldn't be too hard to make garbage media files appear valid - headers, checksums, metadata, partial copies, etc." And this is one of the very reasons many file sharers have migrated mainly from P2P to private Torrent sites or other means where the content is more closely monitor, policed and reported if the files are malicious, incomplete, or fakes.

Obviously after reading all the great comments and aspects on this subject I realize more and more. File sharing is probably to big and too complex to ever stop or monitor. How this will affect the artists, culture, industry and consumers, be it positive, negative, or even neutral, is very hard to predict.

I only hope others read and jump in on this subject. I have to say I'm already surprised by the results in the poll so far.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Soulster on
I have to say I'm already surprised by the results in the poll so far.


I haven't voted in the poll because I can't find an option I support. I don't think the technology is the issue.  Unless you are meaning to say file-sharing = digitally-enabled infringement / theft, in which case everyone should be voting "it is bad".

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Canar on
"Marijuana" is also an accepted term for cannabis, but the origin of the popularization of the term has its roots in racism. Because of this, I try to avoid using the term.

"Piracy" is a term being used by the Music And Film Industry Associations of America (MAFIAA) in an ongoing propaganda battle. The long-term result of this propaganda battle could very well be the destruction of the freedom of information on the Internet. Consequently, I do not accept the term as a synonym for "copyright infringement" and I strongly advise anyone reading this to do likewise. Don't fall into corporate newspeak.

Here is a helpful picture:


Come on now, you're doing the same thing as the industry guys here. You're using the fake "MAFIAA" to make a point about the RIAA & MPAA.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #37 –
I see topic title has been changed away from a technology-centered one. Nevertheless:

Technology is an issue here. By default, a BitTorrent client will not only download, but also share. That means, you do not only download for yourself (you = honest guy who would always buy if you find it worth after three listens (and of course you need to download a lossless to hear on your portapros that it sounds more hifi than she s**tquality you just heard on YouTube and would never pay for
  • )[/size]), you are also spreading to everyone else (= leeches who would never pay for the CD, and would probably never see the artist live unless by sneaking in for free). Zealot words? Moi?

    The technology of file fragment p2p sharing on high-speed internet with fairly good-sounding lssy cmprssion leaves the MAFIAA with less control over the distribution than when we only had *tp downloads on modem lines for .wavs, or in old days when tape trading killed the music (or was it Venom?). Same thing, higher efficiency.


  • But then, who will settle with YouTube sound? There are simple tools around which enables you to download automatically whatever YouTube video you visit. I don't see much attention to these -- not even in the discussion in my jurisdiction, where streaming is legal no matter if the source is (while copying is legal only from a legal source).
    So: is youtubing good for music? I'd say definitely yes -- at least in the presence of other file sharing sources like p2p. It's the first place I'll go (edit: OK, I'll use video.google.com) to check out band X, and I'd guess that people don't go to youtube as a substitute for buying -- again, as long as there is p2p. I.e., I'd be very surprised if there are many who would buy more (rather than pirate off p2p) if YouTube didn't exist.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #38 –
Just another thought on file sharing -- or rather, in my case: downloading.

I loathe the MAFIAA, for reasons you are very well familiar with. One thing is that they are lobbying for intruding my privacy, while themselves they are copying music without paying. Another issue is how they are treating their paying customers (intentionally destroying CDs and computers blah blah blah, including by software they were redistribution in an unauthorized way). Fun picture: http://i42.tinypic.com/2lc9068.jpg .

So sometimes I download, just for the hell of it. If I hear that a (1) record company tricked an artist into a lousy deal, or (2) they have "no plans to reissue" a recording which they could with a minimum of effort have sold as file (no pressing costs here!) but keep hostage against the musicians -- or just as well, (3) when I am tipped about a good bootleg recording which was never released in the first place.

wget --user-agent="Middle_finger_to_the_MAFIAA" for nerds.

So sue me. This is music the MAFIAA would never get paid for by me in any case -- case (1) because I'd boycott the release, (2) because they won't sell it to me, (3) because they are not the rightholders in the first place. I am so fortunate to live in a jurisdiction where I don't risk much as long as no-one can document a loss. They could maybe argue that they suffer an indirect loss because I am downloading underground material rather than buying something else, but hell, they'd be better off without the bad PR.

Especially considering that they would have to argue that it is because of piracy that my > 5000 item record collection isn't growing to much anymore -- not by the fact that I am so severely p*ssed off at the way they treat paying customers, that I frown at supporting them anymore.



Underground labels who join their bands out on tour selling CDs from the merch booth, on the other hand -- that's something else.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Canar on
By your/OED definition, fair use is also piracy, as it is unauthorized.

No no no.

Unauthorized = without permission.
Fair use = permission not needed.
Fair use != unauthorized.
Fair use != Piracy ("the unauthorized use or reproduction of another’s work").

Quote from: Lorem Ipsum on
..public places who use background music do so in order to draw customers and to enhance their pleasure, thus providing service by the merchant in order to gain more customers and revenue - and thus, paying royalties for those artists which their work is being used to do so, is quite the proper thing to do.

Same thing here in Finland. Plus I vaguely remember some commotion about taxis playing radio music and paying royalties for that. It seems that everything that creates a revenue or enhances a service (can't be directly shown as to create more customers and/or revenue) should be (privately) taxed (not my opinion.. I'm a bit undecided, in some cases I agree, but disagree in others). Difficult issues to solve.

Quote from: Soulster on
File sharing is probably to big and too complex to ever stop or monitor. How this will affect the artists, culture, industry and consumers, be it positive, negative, or even neutral, is very hard to predict.

I came to the same conclusion after I tried to get back to the (changed) topic at hand.

Since the topic/poll subject changed, I've to say that I initially voted "null" but now I guess I would slightly lean to vote "File sharing is not good for the music world." option.. IF "file sharing" here means illegal file sharing (like it seems to).

BTW Soulster, I do apologize for my last answer ("Please don't, that was not my point at all.") to you, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I had to stay awake the whole Sat/Sun night, so in the Sunday evening I was pushing way too much waking hours to comprehend what you meant.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
Since the topic/poll subject changed, I've to say that I initially voted "null" but now I guess I would slightly lean to vote "File sharing is not good for the music world." option.. IF "file sharing" here means illegal file sharing (like it seems to).

I intentionally left the legal/illegal part ambiguous, but would really like the OP to clarify as to what he actually wants.  FWIW, after thinking about this some more if I could change my vote it would be from "not good" to "tough to say".  Everyone has made excellent points and I think that Canar and gaekwad2 especially led me to changing my mind.

The fact of the matter is that the technology has forever altered the playing field and adjustments to the business model will have to be made.  Hopefully both the consumer and artists will benefit (I could care less about those who have treated music as little more than a commodity from which to profit).

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #41 –
I was clearly in a "not good" camp but realized while I was writing my previous post that it had shifted. Still "not good" but only barely.

Everyone should follow the link gaekwad2 posted. It wasn't a big "eye opener" to me but details always make an impact. The binding "deal memo" duping made me want to puke. MF's.

Interesting (to me at least) thing I just noticed: posting in some subforums don't increase the post count.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #42 –
greynol, I would have worded it,"unauthorized file sharing" as authorized file sharing isn't really being debated. I originally worded the poll for torrents because i believe studies show that torrents are the lion share of "unauthorized file sharing" at this point. But i quickly realized i wished to broaden the poll to include any "unauthorized file sharing" DC++, blogs, rapidshare, youtube ripping, etc.

The reason for this is I hear valid points on both side of the fence as to whether or not "unauthorized file sharing" is a good thing for artists and consumers and I only wanted to make the poll more clear. This also brings up why I choose the wording "unauthorized file sharing" instead of the common "illegal file sharing" because I feel the word "illegal" often leads some people to conclude illegal some how equals immoral or wrong. This I feel, may warp some people's opinion in the subject. Just because something may be deemed illegal by a governmental body, doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or immoral.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #43 –
This just in: Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole:
Quote
"As far as I know, no similar analysis has been carried out for European reports. So I thought it might be interesting to look at one particular European report on the subject — not least because I've heard that its findings influenced some of the MPs voting on the Digital Economy Act. ... the net result of this 68-page report, with all of its tables and detailed methodology, is that four out of the top five markets used for calculating the overall piracy loss in Europe draw on figures supplied by the recording industry itself. Those apparently terrifying new figures detailing the supposed loss of money and jobs due to piracy in Europe turn out to be little more than a re-statement of the industry's previous claims in a slightly different form. As a result, as little credence can be placed in the report as in those criticised by the US GAO."


Wow, who would have guessed? Next, tobacco companies demonstrate that smoking is healthy and increases IQ. Film at 11.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Soulster on
I would have worded it,"unauthorized file sharing"

Done.

If there are too many people that would have changed their votes as a result of the rewording from the initial "torrents" we can scrap this poll and start over.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Akkurat on
This just in: Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole:

That's just the same as cited quote earlier:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423:
Quote
Generally, the illicit nature of counterfeiting and piracy makes estimating the economic impact of IP infringements extremely difficult, so assumptions must be used to offset the lack of data. Efforts to estimate losses involve assumptions such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit for legitimate products, which can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeited and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates.


OTOH, luckily for EU people, ACTA can't easily pass through EU Commission, but it will need to go through EU Parliament
Thanks God, no US savers here

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #46 –
I think that people ultimately value their music by paying for it, and that if people generally devalue their music, the market will stop investing in it.

Insofar as people still value acts from back when such music was valued - just look around you and count how many people born after 1970 love the Beatles - I think that's a bad thing. And the people who believe that music should no longer be concerned about money are lying to themselves. Some - perhaps most - of the finest classical music ever produced was made for profit: either on commission, or in an attempt to curry favor. Compare that to the proportion of classical music works in the repertoire written by academics and professors of music.....

To a very large degree - but not entirely - the reduction in production costs due to the computer music revolution largely offset this reduction in value. But the basic mechanic still exists, and will continue to exist as long as people look back on the music of the 60s-70s with such fondness as is done today.

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: 2E7AH on
That's just the same as cited quote earlier

Is it really? Same in what sense? As far as I understand, other was about studying impact on US economy and other for Europe. They also use almost completely different sources.

This is how the Down the EU Piracy Rabbit-hole blog post starts:
Quote
Last week I wrote about a report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) that examined the reliability of recorded music industry research papers seeking to estimate the loss from “piracy” in the digital field, and found all of them seriously wanting.

As far as I know, no similar analysis has been carried out for European reports. So I thought it might be interesting to look at one particular European report on the subject...

Is it same?


---
BTW. Did I see you in the Opera forums just now, do you use the same nick there too?

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #48 –
From what I've read it looks to me that both studies are non-sence, on which same quoted conclusion can be used

My default browser is Firefox

What are your thoughts on unauthorized file sharing of music?

Reply #49 –
Ok, I understand what you mean now. But I disagree, what I understood, the studies are in many parts very different (e.g. GAO study is vaster including counterfeiting and piracy). Even the short quoted parts have differences. And in general, a (short) end result, though it might be similar to others, is not the whole "beef". IMHO.