Broadband Consumers to foot bill to fight Piracy

[adam_grif]

There's also Street Performer Protocol, which is similar to what people did before copyright law was as it was today.

[Superboy]

He was addressing the second sentence, not the first one. Do try to keep up.

There is a huge difference between the ease of free access to singles released by the record lables, and ease of free access to entire albums. It's obvious which of those Axis Kast was referring to in the original quote.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you find me some numbers that they are losing money? So far its already been proven that the record labels are unscrupulous liars, so you'll excuse me if I don't believe their claims.

What the record labels have said is irrelevant. It's a logical leap to assume that they're losing money by having their product available for free.

That said, I'm not trying to argue that particular point since I have no sources myself. I was just trying to point out that it's an important point and this conversation can't go very far without some actual numbers to help resolve it.

To play devils advocate for a moment, I've personally given the record labels more money than I otherwise would have because I pirate music. I've never bought a music album in my life, and I've been around since long before Napster. I just don't enjoy music that much and never wanted to spend my money on an album no matter how much friends recommend a certain band. Once pirating became easy, I was willing to freely download an album that was recommended to me. This has lead me to pay for concert tickets and other merchandise for bands that I otherwise never would have given a penny.

However, my situation doesn't seem like it would be very common.

Exactly what is the topic anyway? Because its already been derailed from the original op into a discussion of the morality of piracy, just like every other fucking copyright thread out there because some stupid twats have to bring it up at every opportunity whether or not it's actually relevant.

As I see it, the topic is whether or not the recording industry is entitled to protection from piracy. A key point in this topic is whether or not the industry is suffering from piracy. It seems intuitive to me that they are. After all, why would they be trying so hard to fight it if it's not actually costing them profit?

[Formless]

As I see it, the topic is whether or not the recording industry is entitled to protection from piracy. A key point in this topic is whether or not the industry is suffering from piracy. It seems intuitive to me that they are. After all, why would they be trying so hard to fight it if it's not actually costing them profit?

Because they can abuse their position of power to make even more profits at the expense of everyone else? Come on, you should know by now that big business is amoral that way.

[General Zod]

What the record labels have said is irrelevant. It's a logical leap to assume that they're losing money by having their product available for free.

Then why are you demanding proof of a negative?

That said, I'm not trying to argue that particular point since I have no sources myself. I was just trying to point out that it's an important point and this conversation can't go very far without some actual numbers to help resolve it.

In other words you jumped in without doing so much as a basic Google search first?

As I see it, the topic is whether or not the recording industry is entitled to protection from piracy. A key point in this topic is whether or not the industry is suffering from piracy. It seems intuitive to me that they are.

Since when is "intuition" of anything a valid argument?

After all, why would they be trying so hard to fight it if it's not actually costing them profit?

Because they're in a comfy rut and they don't want to change their business model to keep up with the times. The same fucking thing happened with the movie industry when VHS became popular.

[dragon]

edit- deleted

[Superboy]

Then why are you demanding proof of a negative?

I'm not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that sales of actual CD's have gone down as a result of pirating. It's being asserted that this loss in sales is compensated for by the increase in digital sales/merchandise/concert tickets, and that the increase can be attributed to pirating. I'd like proof that piracy is in any responsible for the increase in sales of any of these things.

In other words you jumped in without doing so much as a basic Google search first?

Care to point out which of those links actually provides sources for what caused the increase in digital sales? Or are you saying that piracy hasn't negatively affected the sale of CD's?

Since when is "intuition" of anything a valid argument?

That was a poor choice of words on my part.

Because they're in a comfy rut and they don't want to change their business model to keep up with the times.

Why would they even need to change their business model if piracy isn't costing them profit?

[General Zod]

I'm not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that sales of actual CD's have gone down as a result of pirating.

You are, in fact, wrong. Why don't you prove this assertion?

It's being asserted that this loss in sales is compensated for by the increase in digital sales/merchandise/concert tickets, and that the increase can be attributed to pirating. I'd like proof that piracy is in any responsible for the increase in sales of any of these things.

I don't recall anyone actually claiming this. In any case, I'm not making that argument and have no intention of defending it.

Care to point out which of those links actually provides sources for what caused the increase in digital sales? Or are you saying that piracy hasn't negatively affected the sale of CD's?

The cause is irrelevant to the fact that digital sales have increased while CD sales have dropped. If you want to show that piracy has impacted sales, then you're going to have to pony up some numbers. Preferably from an independent study that's not a media industry lapdog.

Why would they even need to change their business model if piracy isn't costing them profit?

Prove that it's costing them profit.

[adam_grif]

There is a huge difference between the ease of free access to singles released by the record lables, and ease of free access to entire albums. It's obvious which of those Axis Kast was referring to in the original quote.

http://www.muse.com

Create a free account.

Enjoy the entire Muse back catalog, free of charge, on demand, from obscure B-sides and singles to their latest studio album.

Entire albums from many artists are put up on youtube, because having it available readily is a great way to promote their material.

[dragon]

So is watching the videos loaded to Youtube illegal then, if you don't download.
Or even better is the website located in countries where the international copyright law is not signed.

[Spoonist]

Why do people feel the need to defend their ammoral/criminal acts?

I know that when I'm copying/downloading copyrighted material without the intention of giving anything back to the creators I'm doing something ammoral/illegal and I don't feel the need to make any petty excuses for my behaviour. Have I paid less to the music/movie industry since the digital revolution? Of course I have, and so have you if you copy regularly.

Do we all agree that the big music industry's response have so far been overblown and stupid? Of course we do. Should they have adopted to the new times? Of course they should have. Does that give us any moral justification for our illegal acts? Of course not. Because people don't care who made/owns the content they are copying, they are doing it regardless if its big corporation or a starving artist, so that "motivation" is bunk.

The rest is just petty excuses and arguing about semantics/analogies.

[General Zod]

Why do people feel the need to defend their ammoral/criminal acts?

If you're going to go this route, then you can kindly go fuck yourself, and preferably play in traffic while you're at it.

[Spoonist]

Why do people feel the need to defend their ammoral/criminal acts?

If you're going to go this route, then you can kindly go fuck yourself, and preferably play in traffic while you're at it.

That is one pursuasive argument right there.

Just to clarfiy, I think that the proposed law is an abomination. But people's whining and excuses are pathetic.

So lets sum up your contributions in this thread so far:
1) You find that a technical solution that is only going to deter "casual pirates" to be hilarious.
Which is stupid. If the technical solution would indeed deter "casual pirates" that is a huge gain for the music & movie industries. So that would be a win for them by default regardless if more techsavvy people would not be deterred.
2) Album profit usually goes to the label and not the artist.
No shit sherlock. You deserve a pullitzer for that investigative reporting. That contributed exactly nothing to the topic nor to the discussion. What you fail to comprehend is that the morality of the labels have no effect whatsoever on which music people download. People don't give a shit if its the artist directly or a record label that they are screwing, they just go "free music - woot".
How about this, because of the information age new artists are more aware of how record labels work and have thus a choice that they didn't have in the olden days. They can try to promote and distribute their stuff themselves. It is nowadays common to bring a lawyer to a signing when it was unheard of back then.
3) Arguing the semantic difference of Copyright Infringement and Theft.
What you fail to understand is that its laymen and media that usually use "theft" and "piracy" because its faster and easier to understand. Copyright Infringement doesn't really roll of the tounge you know. Unless they are computer illiterate people know what is being refered to. What you may whine about is if a court or politician uses that terminology to make a false argument.
4) "Record labels are unscrupulous liars".
Again contributing nothing. Since you wanted to be a semantics nazi then note that the use of plural invalidates your argument. No, record labels are not all "unscrupulous liars", there are plenty of artists that own their own label. More so with every year because of the technical revolution in the music industry.
5) Record labels should change their business model.
Again contributing nothing. Of course they should. And they have. For the last years some of the more "unscrupulous" ones have included changing copyright laws as part of their new business model. I would argue that that change in business model is a bad thing, especially when they lobby so that governements will enforce their income from 3rd parties on the assumption of false numbers.

If you at least had come up with anything inventive or made an actual contribution to the discussion instead of just whining you might have had a case. But as it stands you have delivered nothing new.

[General Zod]

>snip whiny bullshit<
Just to clarfiy, I think that the proposed law is an abomination. But people's whining and excuses are pathetic.

What excuses? Oh wait, you're an idiot who thinks anyone who's capable of realizing that theft and copyright infringement aren't the same thing are defending piracy.

What you fail to understand is that its laymen and media that usually use "theft" and "piracy" because its faster and easier to understand. Copyright Infringement doesn't really roll of the tounge you know. Unless they are computer illiterate people know what is being refered to. What you may whine about is if a court or politician uses that terminology to make a false argument.

If you're going to argue about laws, then use the correct terminology or fuck off.

If you at least had come up with anything inventive or made an actual contribution to the discussion instead of just whining you might have had a case. But as it stands you have delivered nothing new.

Neither has the other side you gibbering retard. If you had more than two braincells to rub together you might understand that some of us are annoyed that these arguments quickly get stale and tired the moment some dildo with an axe to grind decides to equate copyright infringement to theft. Frankly it's about as creative and original as some creationist fuckface thinking he's debunked evolution for the billionth time with the missing gap argument. But I don't understand an idiot like yourself to grasp this.

[Spoonist]

So you just whine some more to prove that you where not whining? Good tactic.

What excuses? Oh wait, you're an idiot who thinks anyone who's capable of realizing that theft and copyright infringement aren't the same thing are defending piracy.

Strawman. Read the discussion again. You infer this, not me.

If you're going to argue about laws, then use the correct terminology or fuck off.

Meet yourself one sentence ago. So you can use non-legal terminology like "piracy" but others are not allowed to? That's beyond hypocritical. Thanks for proving the point that you tried to reply to. I can quote your other posts as well for non-legal lingo if you like...

Neither has the other side you gibbering retard.

Other side? If you by this are refering to Axis Kast then that was cleared before you started whining in this topic. Nice try though.

All right. I concede that the technical term I applied was incorrect. The act of infringement, however, is still immoral, even if the punishments being meted out are cruel and unusual.

If you had more than two braincells to rub together you might understand that some of us are annoyed that these arguments quickly get stale and tired the moment some dildo with an axe to grind decides to equate copyright infringement to theft.

So you wanted to spam & whine and bring nothing new. Thanks again for proving my point.

You see, its equally annoying to see people like you regurgitate the evil of record labels instead of actually make an argument that contribute to the discussion. Also your kneejerk reaction says alot about how close to home my post hit.

[Axis Kast]

If you had more than two braincells to rub together you might understand that some of us are annoyed that these arguments quickly get stale and tired the moment some dildo with an axe to grind decides to equate copyright infringement to theft.

The argument in the OP was that it was unreasonable to pass the cost of illegal downloading on to the consumer. I questioned why this was true, since in every other industry, from the supermarket to the games seller, the cost of illegal activity is passed directly on to the consumer, no questions asked.

Do you acknowledge that downloading music which one has not paid for is an immoral act, or do you deny it? It seems to me that most people here have convinced themselves that it is actually a help to the artist.

Starglider's argument is typical. It also fails to take into account that one's basis for making purchasing decisions changes as one has access to some material for free. Once I spend all of my money on computer games in a week, I could make a similar argument that there is nothing lost by allowing me access to other games, for which I might, in the future, buy expansions.

[Lusankya]

Do you acknowledge that downloading music which one has not paid for is an immoral act, or do you deny it? It seems to me that most people here have convinced themselves that it is actually a help to the artist.

Actually, I think the artists don't care too much how many albums they sell, because most of their income is generated from live performances. It's the record labels that make the money from distributing the songs.

[Molyneux]

If you had more than two braincells to rub together you might understand that some of us are annoyed that these arguments quickly get stale and tired the moment some dildo with an axe to grind decides to equate copyright infringement to theft.

The argument in the OP was that it was unreasonable to pass the cost of illegal downloading on to the consumer. I questioned why this was true, since in every other industry, from the supermarket to the games seller, the cost of illegal activity is passed directly on to the consumer, no questions asked.

In those cases, however, the 'cost of illegal activity' is not passed directly on to the consumer. If I shoplift from a store, then that store has to directly foot the bill; it then might raise its prices, incurring an indirect cost to the consumer.

This, on the other hand, is having the broadband company - not the music companies - foot the bill. Instead of having the cost of piracy (however large or small it actually is) be carried by music purchasers (as it would by the "shoplifter" example), it will be carried by internet subscribers.

There is also the very real question of whether an innocent user could have their connection suspended due to suspicion of piracy, which seems to me to be an equally important issue.

[General Zod]

>snip<

You see, its equally annoying to see people like you regurgitate the evil of record labels instead of actually make an argument that contribute to the discussion. Also your kneejerk reaction says alot about how close to home my post hit.

In other words, you're not actually interested in reading my posts. Speaking of not bothering to make an argument.

Do you acknowledge that downloading music which one has not paid for is an immoral act, or do you deny it? It seems to me that most people here have convinced themselves that it is actually a help to the artist.

That's been entirely irrelevant to my point this entire time. But it seems you're incapable of discussing the subject without demanding I address this complete red herring at every opportunity.

[Spoonist]

>snip<

Nice of you to graciously concede your other 'points' explicitly like this. It shows good sportsmanship.

You see, its equally annoying to see people like you regurgitate the evil of record labels instead of actually make an argument that contribute to the discussion. Also your kneejerk reaction says alot about how close to home my post hit.

In other words, you're not actually interested in reading my posts. Speaking of not bothering to make an argument.

You mean like in that post ages and ages ago where I showed that I had actually read all your posts in this topic, including the first one and adressed them? Ah, that must have been soo long ago that you have already forgotten about it. It couldn't have been, you know, two posts ago?

But maybe I missed something? I'm not perfect, lets review that again shall we? Where did you make a good argument against the opening article, or, where did you post your own conclusions?
Your first post I have already adressed. You post no argument and you completely misunderstand what would constitute a major victory for the record companies, ie getting to the "casual pirates". Which didn't even answer Stark's question.
In your second post, again no argument. You simply state basic knowledge. When a label sells a record the artist only get a small cut. Wow.
In your third post, you actually present an argument. To bad the basis for it had already been covered and conceded and your legal lingo hypocracy was already adressed. But lets look at it anyway shall we? You make the argument that because how record sales work artists won't see a dime. So who showed that this is poor logic because there are artists who also own their own label? Why that was me two posts ago, which you did not adress.
In your next post, you continue to go into semantics, which I already adressed.
Your next post, same as above. Again, totally missing that it had already been covered and conceded.
In your next post, you argue against Superboy. Responding to his request for proof with a counterclaim for proof. Classy. And you use the non-legal "piracy" term again...
In your next post, you continue arguing with Superboy. Where you make the ignorant claim that the record label don't want to change their business model when you are in a topic debating the effects of their change in business model. Their lobbying is the new business model. Which I already adressed.
Last post before I show up. Which would be the only post I might have not adressed so lets do that one quote for quote shall we?

I'm not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that sales of actual CD's have gone down as a result of pirating.

You are, in fact, wrong. Why don't you prove this assertion?

The causality is in dispute. But its plain to see that something changed dramatically when going from an upwards trend during the end of the 90s with total revenues of $12-14billion, then in 2000 the trend turned and is now below $10 billion. Most bets would be on the digital revolution. Now how much of this is due to piracy? No one knows and yes the record labels inflate their numbers horrendously. To claim that piracy and the digital revolution had no effect or did not set a negative trend for the big record companies is ignorant. So while the numbers can be debated the trend remains. I mean they didn't fire all those employees for the fun of it, but rather because all those employees didn't bring in the dough.
Personally I would argue that plenty of those losses comes from other companies getting a cut. If Apple sells music via iTunes they get a cut. etc Also the fact that record labels can not screw artists over as much as they used to because of their being lots and lots of smaller labels nowadays would also contribute to this.
Plus the big loss when the giants took on the users, which had everyone and his little brother downloading to give the finger to the industry. (I don't think we will ever see someone as big as Metallica do a similar public suicide for instance).
So what has happened instead is that the artists and the labels are swinging with the times. Artists realised that when people didn't spend their money on CDs, they could still get them to spend it on tickets and merchandising. Labels went all over the place. Some do the lobbying, some try to go digital and some go under.

Care to point out which of those links actually provides sources for what caused the increase in digital sales? Or are you saying that piracy hasn't negatively affected the sale of CD's?

The cause is irrelevant to the fact that digital sales have increased while CD sales have dropped. If you want to show that piracy has impacted sales, then you're going to have to pony up some numbers. Preferably from an independent study that's not a media industry lapdog.

Now here is logical leap. you are in one place saying that they should change with the times. Then you claim that it is irrelevant why they need to do that? Come on. They had to change to the times because the digital revolution had people not wanting the piece of plastic, instead they wanted easily movable/accessible files. In the beginning those files where not available from the music industry so of course everyone got them illegaly, because there was no other way. Then when the cultural change already had happened, then we got some legal sites, but they where crap in the beginning. Slowly in 2004-2005 the legal digital sales started to generate the big dough.
Its simple causation and effect.
Now if the big companies had been smart they would have listened to the nerds and joined the revolution instead of fought it (some smaller labels did) then they might have had a say in the change of culture, they didn't. Which is their loss.

Why would they even need to change their business model if piracy isn't costing them profit?

Prove that it's costing them profit.

From the man who three posts earlier did the google... Nice way of ignoring the point. If it had not effected their bottom line there was no incentive to change. You can not have it both ways, if they had to change it was due to the digital revolution hitting their bottom line. What you may argue is which part of the digital revolution hitting their bottom line.
Why do you think that they spend all of that money lobbying? Why do you think that they want to change the laws? Because they got really, really scared.

[AMT]

Why not just one? The man who steals a cookie from a shopping mart is not inflicting anything more than negligible loss. He remains liable.

Yeah but the man who finds out what ingredients went into the cookies then goes home and bakes a batch himself doesn't.

False analogy. Learning the recipie, buying the ingredients and making them yourself is different from stealing cookies from someone who baked them and eating them yourself.

A question for everyone who is fine with violating Copyright... if you spent days, months, perhaps years of effort on... well, any that you expected to be paid for, and you found out that thousands of people, rather then pay for your work, basically took it without your permission, would you be ok with it?

Note: This is not me saying I support the tactics being done by the RIAA and others. I just find it strange that so many people would support what in essence, is the actual unpermissable use of an intellectual property.

[Formless]

False analogy. Learning the recipie, buying the ingredients and making them yourself is different from stealing cookies from someone who baked them and eating them yourself.

How? Have you ever heard someone refuse to tell someone how to make a food because "its my secret recipe"? Its the exact same concept as copyright, only applied to the culinary arts rather than music, film, or writing.

[AMT]

False analogy. Learning the recipie, buying the ingredients and making them yourself is different from stealing cookies from someone who baked them and eating them yourself.

How? Have you ever heard someone refuse to tell someone how to make a food because "its my secret recipe"? Its the exact same concept as copyright, only applied to the culinary arts rather than music, film, or writing.

KFC's original 11 herbs and spices. Coca Cola. Two very famous ones right there.

So... yes. Yes I have.

[Gil Hamilton]

This is such a stupid argument. Who honestly gives a shit about the record labels? They've been doing more to screw over musicians than all the illegal downloaders put together.

I think of it like this.

A person downloads an album from Napster. This actually results in zero theft, no loss of material property, and no one has ever honestly been able to demonstrate that it actually hurts record companies, except in reports made by the recording industry that are clearly fabricated. They may like the music and see the artists show (which is where the artist actually makes money, as opposed to record sales), and they may proliferate the artist's work by playing it for others. Don't dismiss the last part, because it's the whole reason that many popular bands are setting up YouTube channels and the like, because the worst thing that could happen to them is have their music ONLY available by record sales and luck on the radio.

When the recording industry decides to mug people, they send a horde of lawyers and sue people associated with a list of IP addresses who may or may not be illegally downloading musical to "set an example". They then attempt to take every last penny the people own and do the legal equivalent of holding them at gun point; either settle out of court for a tremendous amount of money (based not on what the person downloaded or the cost of the music, but a hypothetic amount of "damages" incurred) of they don't have or get driven into the ground in legal fees for money they don't have for a case they are likely to lose (since it often turns becomes not the record company demonstrating that they did this much damage, but rather the defendant demonstrating that he or she did not). Even if the person somehow wins, the RIAA rarely has to pay the person's attorneys fees and can always generate another list of IP addresses which may have illegally downloaded music to sue. They do this for reasons that are exactly the same as someone pointing a gun at someone and demanding they empty their bank account into the robbers hands, except that muggers don't insist that your wages be garnished to nothing every month forever after.

Yet somehow Comical Axi thinks that internet downloaders are the immoral ones. I suppose when you rob people with lawyers rather than guns and knives, it's alright.

[Gil Hamilton]

Continued: I suppose you can decry the immorality of copyright infringement, but until the RIAA stops acting like jackbooted thugs who freely use litigation to mug people (for the same reason muggers mug people), treat artists like absolute garbage, and then try to justify their own greed by outright fabricating data and reports, I will play the world's smallest violin for them. When they stop, then I'll be glad to decry illegal downloaders for nibbling harmlessly at their feet for the downloaders "immorality".

For the record, I don't bother illegally downloading and haven't in ages. YouTube is a reasonably good searchable database for most music and the more esoteric stuff I listen to is freely or at least cheaply available online from the artists anyway. TV shows either, because many television broadcasters have figured out what the RIAA has not; they do better by putting their product online anyway. It lets them double dip on advertising money and it makes stealing their show pointless.

[Formless]

Related to Gil's point about the record industry's behavior, consider the following:

Music downloading penalties are harsher than arson, theft, or starting a dogfighting ring
Jesus Diaz looks at the $1.92m fine Jammie Thomas faces for downloading 1700 songs and compares it to the penalties for other crimes in America (valuing jail time at $50,233, the median US household income in 2007):

• Child abduction: Fine of $25,000 and up to three years in prison, which can be accounted as $50,233 per year (that was the median household income in 2007, probably down because of the economic crisis). Total: $175,699.

• Steal the CDs: A total of $275,000, $52,500 fine for the CDs.

• Steal a lawnmower from your neighbour: A total of $375,000.

• Burn someone's house while playing The Doors: Another $375,000.

• Stalk a Gizmodo editor (yes, you know who you are): A Class 4 felony that will result in just $175,000.

• Start a dogfighting ring: $50,000.

• Murder someone on the second degree, a Class 1 felony: $778,495, which accounts for a $25,000 fine and four to 15 years in prison.

I don't know about you, but arson sounds like a much worse crime than stealing a CD. Also, in case you still think arguing that copyright infringement is theft, you might want to reconsider the basis of that argument.