Downloading copyrighted material... be afraid

[Velocity]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Music labels got greedy. They sold CDs with 1-2 good songs for $18 and expected people to bend over and take it. Now, you can just buy your one or two songs for $0.99 on iTunes, and they get 30 cents. The artist probably gets 10 cents. The album now serves as a means for the artist to get people to come to their shows.

That's true, but I want to clarify one thing: songs on iTunes aren't 99 cents anymore. There was a bit of a tussle between Apple and the record companies 3-4 years ago: Apple wanted to remove DRM from songs on the store (to make all songs "Plus" - higher bitrate and no DRM), while the record companies wanted to raise the price of songs up from 99 cents. They made a deal: all songs would be DRM-free, and in return, new and/or popular music would sell for $1.29. Other songs would be 99 cents, and some very old/unpopular stuff would sell for 69 cents.

I'll tell you, I've only ever come across a single song on iTunes for 69 cents, and I can see why it was at that price. It seems like anything mainstream is now $1.29, and even some of the unpopular music that I like is starting to go up to $1.29.

The only amusing thing about all of this is that one of the record company executives commented on their flatlined sales. After years of blaming piracy for "lost sales" (and then witnessing the rise of paid online music distribution), the company executive basically said 'maybe it wasn't such a good idea to raise prices during a recession.' Humm ya think?

It's true that songs on Amazon are still at 99 cents. The theory is that the record companies were growing uncomfortable with Apple's dominance over music distribution (which previously was purely in the hands of the record companies) and wanted to weaken the iTunes Music Store by shifting people over to Amazon. As a result, Amazon has some lower prices, and if I remember correctly there were certain deals where songs would appear on Amazon first. That keeps Apple's bargaining power lower, and by ensuring that no one distribution scheme has a majority, the recording companies maintain their power in the business relationship. But as far as I'm concerned, they're on their way out - they had an immense opportunity to monetize online distribution, but instead they fought it at every turn, even though it was clearly what people wanted.

Yes, sort of. It's pretty hard for an album to be produced and distributed without the use of a music label, who will start adding in all of their own stipulations.

I've bought albums through the iTunes Music Store from artists that didn't have the backing of a major label (or even any label - they operate under their own self-made label). Sure, getting CDs and booklets printed will probably require a major music label, but digital distribution changes the game.

 

[macsta]

Want to just delete the OP and allow the interesting IP discussion to continue?

Effff you. I'm not really sure how this is a violation of the TOS.

When I said-"I just saw this on Attack of the Show. They are starting to crackdown on illegal downloads. Start downloading your MCAT books and school **** now before they put this system in place. Darn you Digital Millennium Copyright Act!!!!!!"

"Start downloading your MCAT books and school **** now before they put this system in place" WAS A JOKEEEEEEE. CALM DOWN MODS. I'm sorry you were bullied in high school, but please don't take it out on me.

 

[kcin]

You're just jumping on the bandwagon. I love how people revere some internet guy who did good on his MCAT. OMG Nick be my friend! We are just having an argument.

Hurp a durp. You and rented mule are a couple of *****s. The only reason I posted to support Nick's position is because I'm sick of little hippie scum bags crying about capitalism and ranting against oil companies, which is exactly what rented mule was doing with the article he linked. We get enough of that from democrat politicans and the chump in the whitehouse, we don't need it on SDN too.

As far as Nick's MCAT goes, I don't even know his score. It sounds like you're kind of focused on it though, bro. FWIW, I did well enough on my MCAT so I don't need to worry about Nick's. He is a very prolific poster though, and his avatars (except for the current Scrubs one) and posts are pretty good. So I won't deny that I think he's better than either of you, if that makes you feel better.

anyway, this thread now has waffles

 

[FlowRate]

Effff you. I'm not really sure how this is a violation of the TOS.

When I said-"I just saw this on Attack of the Show. They are starting to crackdown on illegal downloads. Start downloading your MCAT books and school **** now before they put this system in place. Darn you Digital Millennium Copyright Act!!!!!!"

"Start downloading your MCAT books and school **** now before they put this system in place" WAS A JOKEEEEEEE. CALM DOWN MODS. I'm sorry you were bullied in high school, but please don't take it out on me.

It wasn't a slight against you, but a request to save the thread. I know it was a joke and I agree that DMCA sucks.

 

[FlowRate]

Hurp a durp. You and rented mule are a couple of *****s. The only reason I posted to support Nick's position is because I'm sick of little hippie scum bags crying about capitalism and ranting against oil companies, which is exactly what rented mule was doing with the article he linked. We get enough of that from democrat politicans and the chump in the whitehouse, we don't need it on SDN too.

As far as Nick's MCAT goes, I don't even know his score. It sounds like you're kind of focused on it though, bro. FWIW, I did well enough on my MCAT so I don't need to worry about Nick's. He is a very prolific poster though, and his avatars (except for the current Scrubs one) and posts are pretty good. So I won't deny that I think he's better than either of you, if that makes you feel better.

anyway, this thread now has waffles

u mad?

 

[Darwinism]

Hurp a durp. You and rented mule are a couple of *****s. The only reason I posted to support Nick's position is because I'm sick of little hippie scum bags crying about capitalism and ranting against oil companies, which is exactly what rented mule was doing with the article he linked. We get enough of that from democrat politicans and the chump in the whitehouse, we don't need it on SDN too.

As far as Nick's MCAT goes, I don't even know his score. It sounds like you're kind of focused on it though, bro. FWIW, I did well enough on my MCAT so I don't need to worry about Nick's. He is a very prolific poster though, and his avatars (except for the current Scrubs one) and posts are pretty good. So I won't deny that I think he's better than either of you, if that makes you feel better.

anyway, this thread now has waffles

Get off his d*ck

 

[kcin]

u mad?

not fur realz brah
I am hungry though. I haven't had waffles in years. Frozen waffles aren't any good and I don't have a waffle iron.

 

[rentedmule]

Let me explain it differently:

Artist produces work. Let's use music. They made a song. That song is available to pay for download, or to pirate, or whatever. The artist has already produced the music, regardless of whether anyone listens to it or pays for it or uses it in any other way. Regardless, it exists now. The file used to convey that work is infinitely reproducible. Meaning, the artist could give away digital copies, for free, to everyone in the universe.

However, the dentist cannot infinitely reproduce his services--they are time, work, and material intensive per unit of service, unlike the music file. Similarly, the artist's concerts are not infinitely reproducible, as they must physically show up and play. It is wrong to not pay for a dentist visit, and almost as wrong, from a utilitarian standpoint, to not pay to see a concert for which the artist pays for the concert using cover charge money. These are contractual obligations. By using the dentist's services, you enter into (usually an explicit) contract to pay them for their services. Likewise, the cover charge is an implicit contract with the venue, who signed an explicit contract with the artist, that your money will be used to cover the costs of the concert from which you will be provided with entertainment.

When downloading a song, you do not enter into any contracts. There is no breach of agreement, implicit or explicit, as there is no financial transaction, no tangible good, and no service rendered.

You see, IP infringement isn't theft. No matter what you may think, it is simply not theft. You are not depriving someone of anything they did not already own. The money you are potentially paying them for the infinitely available file that you got for free was not stolen from the artist, as it was already in your possession.

However, that does not mean that downloading the file for free--assuming the artist doesn't want it to be downloaded for free (some artists allow free DL's of their music for a reason)--is right. It's not morally defensible.

My point is that you have to decouple the idea of theft and the idea of IP infringement. One is definitely never ok: real theft, where one person loses a finite item that they already owned, is wrong. The other is, as stated by another poster, part pragmatism, and part fuzzy morality. It is not good to take music for free, but it is not absolutely bad.

+1 internetz. You put what many of us were saying in a much more eloquent manner.

As far as money and music are concerned, I have no problem with the original concepts of copyright. The idea then was that you had exclusive rights to your work for a relatively short period (somewhere between 5-10 years, I believe), after which it entered the public domain. Large companies lobbied for changes, and now the limit is much longer... I think we're currently around 70-90 years. That is ridiculous.

I too don't understand how you are entitled to more than a lifetime of returns on some idea you had while standing on the shoulders of giants... but that's capitalism for yah.

Hurp a durp. You and rented mule are a couple of *****s. The only reason I posted to support Nick's position is because I'm sick of little hippie scum bags crying about capitalism and ranting against oil companies, which is exactly what rented mule was doing with the article he linked. We get enough of that from democrat politicans and the chump in the whitehouse, we don't need it on SDN too.

 

[FlowRate]

I too don't understand how you are entitled to more than a lifetime of returns on some idea you had while standing on the shoulders of giants... but that's capitalism for yah.

I shy away from using capitalism to describe these phenomena, it's more akin to corporatism, which incorporates the idea of arbitrary and unfair government protection via government's being tainted by money. IP law doesn't exist in an anarcho-capitalist system, which is what I usually imagine capitalism to mean.

 

[Melomare17]

im pretty sure that movies/music/gaming industries have high prices these days as a result of covering costs from losing out to pirates. even if the people would not buy it, the ones that would actually buy it end up just getting it pirated from their friends (for free of course).

 

[Velocity]

im pretty sure that movies/music/gaming industries have high prices these days as a result of covering costs from losing out to pirates. even if the people would not buy it, the ones that would actually buy it end up just getting it pirated from their friends (for free of course).

Were you alive before the days of Napster? Internet piracy was not substantial before that point, and prices were actually higher than they are now. CDs sold for $14-20. I can't remember the cost of VHS tapes before DVDs came out, but DVDs used to be $16-25. I don't know what those prices would be if you adjust for inflation.

No, I'm pretty sure they're charging "high prices" because they know that people are willing to buy their stuff at those prices. Why sell something for $10 if you have people willing to buy it at $20?

 

[NightGod]

Were you alive before the days of Napster? Internet piracy was not substantial before that point, and prices were actually higher than they are now. CDs sold for $14-20. I can't remember the cost of VHS tapes before DVDs came out, but DVDs used to be $16-25. I don't know what those prices would be if you adjust for inflation.

No, I'm pretty sure they're charging "high prices" because they know that people are willing to buy their stuff at those prices. Why sell something for $10 if you have people willing to buy it at $20?

There was a time there in the early 80s when VHS tapes averaged about $100 and that was NEVER about production costs at that price point, because that average included prices from $20 to $200 (and blank tapes were about $5 a piece). Those insane prices basically ensured the creation of the movie rental store. Someone who traveled in time 25 years to today would be amazed at how cheap our media consumption has become by comparison.

 

[NickNaylor]

Were you alive before the days of Napster? Internet piracy was not substantial before that point, and prices were actually higher than they are now. CDs sold for $14-20. I can't remember the cost of VHS tapes before DVDs came out, but DVDs used to be $16-25. I don't know what those prices would be if you adjust for inflation.

No, I'm pretty sure they're charging "high prices" because they know that people are willing to buy their stuff at those prices. Why sell something for $10 if you have people willing to buy it at $20?

Why hello there, welcome to fundamentals of business, enjoy your stay! This is a concept many people don't seem to understand.

 

[mauberley]

Why hello there, welcome to fundamentals of business, enjoy your stay! This is a concept many people don't seem to understand.

But Nick, I always thought businesses charged only what's fair.

 

[NickNaylor]

But Nick, I always thought businesses charged only what's fair.

Man, I wish. Damn that whole money thing (20% truth included in that sentiment).

 

[Narmerguy]

How the hell does this thread reach 6 pages?

 

[NickNaylor]

How the hell does this thread reach 6 pages?

Ok, ok, I'll take some of the credit begrudgingly.

 

[45408]

im pretty sure that movies/music/gaming industries have high prices these days as a result of covering costs from losing out to pirates. even if the people would not buy it, the ones that would actually buy it end up just getting it pirated from their friends (for free of course).

Not at all. They've been overcharging long before piracy became mainstream.

 

[Danlee07]

Name some monopolies that screw you over on a daily basis.

Cable and internet.

But, if everyone attempts to try a personal line with what's justifiable or not, then it just won't work....you draw a line for everyone so you either do or don't do it. so everyone's pretty examples attempting, but not really saying anything, to illustrate some new amazing parable about this scenario...you're wrong. it's not justifiable. for everyone struggling out there on verbal reasoning, this thread shows very well why.. read some persuasive essays

if you want to, go for it. but no, it is never justifiable.

 

[Velocity]

Why hello there, welcome to fundamentals of business, enjoy your stay! This is a concept many people don't seem to understand.

Agreed. What people also don't understand about piracy is that it represents competition in the form of a free product. How do you get people to buy your product instead of going for the free version?

You certainly don't do it by raising prices. The scare tactics (mass lawsuits, P2P network pollution) weren't particularly effective, either. Apple's iTunes Music Store has been as successful because it provided consumers with something more than just the music: it's an organization system and a nice "ecosystem" (paired with iPods) for taking your music with you and making it easily accessible, all at a reasonable price. The consumer demands and iTMS' model to meet them seem pretty obvious in hindsight. (Actually, it seemed pretty obvious around the time of Napster, too, but there were many hurdles to setting it up - not least of all the record companies' resistance to such a thing.)

What is surprising is that nobody has brought up sales and revenues. Sales and revenue were steadily increasing through the 1990's, but tumbled in the early 2000's (around the time of Napster and the introduction of fast internet to consumers). The iTunes Music Store was first opened in 2003, but it wasn't until around 2006 that it began to have a major impact. Since then, sales have been picking up, but revenues have been roughly stable, slightly increasing, or slightly decreasing (depending on what report you look at). Part of it has to do with the new reality of music: consumers can now buy a full album for less money, and perhaps more importantly, they're free to cherry-pick songs instead of buying a whole album in one go. That alone will cut into revenues compared to how they were in the late 1990's. Of course, another large part of it has to do with the recession (considered to have technically started December 2007; most would consider it a 2008 phenomenon) - you can't expect to be making record profits during one of those.

Yet throughout the entire affair, the recording industry has blamed piracy for their current state of affairs. It's getting old, and the claims are questionable.

None of which is to say that piracy is justified, right, or anything of that sort. I'm just tired of seeing piracy portrayed in the manner that it is.

If you really want to villify something, go after bootleggers. While digital pirates are very questionable lost sales (they're not paying anything - who's to say that they would have paid anything if they couldn't get it for free?), people who buy bootlegs are parting with actual money. That's money that they won't be using on legitimate products, and that was used to buy an unauthorized copy of someone else's work. That's true theft.

 

[Kaustikos]

Were you alive before the days of Napster? Internet piracy was not substantial before that point, and prices were actually higher than they are now. CDs sold for $14-20. I can't remember the cost of VHS tapes before DVDs came out, but DVDs used to be $16-25. I don't know what those prices would be if you adjust for inflation.

No, I'm pretty sure they're charging "high prices" because they know that people are willing to buy their stuff at those prices. Why sell something for $10 if you have people willing to buy it at $20?

VHS tapes were pretty much at that same price range. And that was with the scare of people copying movies they rented from blockbuster . Internet piracy wasn't there, but piracy still was.


And exactly. People are willing to pay those prices, why shy away from taht business model? Radiohead actually tried a "pay what you want" for their album "In Rainbows" and it's the only time I can think that a band tried this approach.


My stance on this nowadays is this - With Netflix/Hulu/Zune (Zune Pass)/Pandora/Last.fm/Gamefly - Are you really being screwed over in being able to try things for a low price?

Zune Pass - 14.99/mo for unlimited and you keep 10 songs forever. Essentially 4.99/mo for unlimited access to music
Netflix - online instantwatch for 8/mo for lots of movies/tv
Gamefly - games....games and games

I mean, really, what's your excuse/justification for leeching nowadays?

 

[NightGod]

Damnit to hell. Now I'm hungry.

 

[Melomare17]

Were you alive before the days of Napster? Internet piracy was not substantial before that point, and prices were actually higher than they are now. CDs sold for $14-20. I can't remember the cost of VHS tapes before DVDs came out, but DVDs used to be $16-25. I don't know what those prices would be if you adjust for inflation.

No, I'm pretty sure they're charging "high prices" because they know that people are willing to buy their stuff at those prices. Why sell something for $10 if you have people willing to buy it at $20?

hm ok i think i was referring more towards movie tickets. $13.25 for a movie ticket..seriously?? 3D movie for $18.00..wth!? for a 91 minute movie too? at least get my money's worth and watch a loong movie, at least 2 and half hours long. before movie tickets costed MUCH MUCH less.

btw, you still see dvds at that price today. its just amazon came out in the last 10 years, so they have been selling the same goods for MUCH less that people are actually buying for much less. it also costs less nowadays to make a DVD. next thing is blu-ray. cost of a blank blu-ray disc is pretty high right now, you're better off just buying the original one since it would be cheaper.

 

[Suncrusher]

brb desperately searching my freezer for frozen waffles

 

[Velocity]

And exactly. People are willing to pay those prices, why shy away from taht business model? Radiohead actually tried a "pay what you want" for their album "In Rainbows" and it's the only time I can think that a band tried this approach.

I think that there have been a few others, but they weren't as high-profile. I've bought some indie games and albums that used a "pay what you want" model.

My stance on this nowadays is this - With Netflix/Hulu/Zune (Zune Pass)/Pandora/Last.fm/Gamefly - Are you really being screwed over in being able to try things for a low price?

Zune Pass - 14.99/mo for unlimited and you keep 10 songs forever. Essentially 4.99/mo for unlimited access to music
Netflix - online instantwatch for 8/mo for lots of movies/tv
Gamefly - games....games and games

I mean, really, what's your excuse/justification for leeching nowadays?

Some people are just cheapos, but otherwise it's still a matter of convenience. In some cases, it may be because a movie/TV show or music album is released first in one part of the world, and is intentionally delayed in others; in other cases, it's because companies impose other artificial restrictions (it's less common now, but I've run across some albums on the iTunes Music Store where certain tracks were omitted from the digital album - I have no idea why, and these were albums released years ago). What it all comes down to is that the companies want to be in full control of the content, from its creation to all aspects of its distribution.

Whether they like it or not, technology has shifted control of distribution away from them. When those companies try to stem distribution by intentionally making it unavailable (or unavailable to certain locations), people will get around it if they want it badly enough. It's too easy. It's foolish for the companies to continue fighting that. That won't make them money.

They need to embrace this new distribution mechanism, understand that people want the convenience that it affords, and monetize it that way. Make it easier for people to get it through your online store than it is for them to sift through garbage on Gnutella, and unless you screw up the pricing, they'll do it that way.

But that isn't limited to music. We'll face some of that in healthcare, too. Physicians used to have a monopoly on health knowledge, but now people can access health articles from their home and have information broken down into simpler terms on Yahoo Answers and other forums. The information online may not always be right, but it's available, easily accessible, and it's free.

Technology is a double-edged sword.

 

[Velocity]

hm ok i think i was referring more towards movie tickets. $13.25 for a movie ticket..seriously?? 3D movie for $18.00..wth!? for a 91 minute movie too? at least get my money's worth and watch a loong movie, at least 2 and half hours long. before movie tickets costed MUCH MUCH less.

And you used to be able to buy hamburgers for 15 cents. Are people pirating cows?

The cost of everything goes up - that's inflation. I don't know exactly what's behind the rise in the cost of movie tickets, but I'd be really surprised if you could pin it on piracy.

btw, you still see dvds at that price today. its just amazon came out in the last 10 years, so they have been selling the same goods for MUCH less that people are actually buying for much less. it also costs less nowadays to make a DVD. next thing is blu-ray. cost of a blank blu-ray disc is pretty high right now, you're better off just buying the original one since it would be cheaper.

Online retail may have something to do with the price, and the cost of DVD production may have something to do with it, but I don't think that those are the major factors. The major factor is how much people are willing to pay for it.

Why are Blu-rays more expensive? Does it really cost substantially more to stamp a movie onto a Blu-ray disc than it does a DVD? Heck no, they're selling Blu-rays for more because they think that people are willing to spend more for it. As I said before, why sell something for $10 if most people are just as willing to spend $20 on it? It's all about what the market will bear.

 

[Negrodamus]

1. Seedbox
2. Anonymous offshore VPN
3. One Click File host
4. ????
5. Profit