<p>
</p>
<p>Then the musicians should not have signed the contracts in the first place.</p>
<p>I completely agree with WashDad’s points on this. No matter what way you slice it (a bad pun on the downloading of a portion of a song from multiple sources), and no matter what one might have against recording companies, people are downloading music illegally for the simple reason of not having to pay for it. Regardless of the percentage the artist makes from a recording sale, when someone steals it by downloading it illegally the artist makes $0.</p>
<p>Regarding the points against the recording companies - remember that it’s the recording company that takes all of the risk and performs most of the work of production, distribution, promotion, maintaining recording facilities, etc. for the recording and that recording may well flop and have resulted in nothing more than a cost for the company. If the artist doesn’t feel they have a reasonable ‘deal’ with a recording company they’re free to go work with another one.</p>
<p>I just think some people here are being a tad bit hypocritical. Maybe I’m wrong… I mean, I don’t know everyone here personally or anything like that… but for example Washdad have you ever taped a show on tv, or taped a song off the radio, or had a friend who taped a show off tv for you to watch, or anything like that? It’s the same thing, just with a different medium. </p>
<p>It’s just the pricing strategy that is screwed up with the music industry and the stores selling their music. Regardless of the cut the industry gives to the band (which I think is ridiculous, but as Washdad said the band did agree to this), the stores charge way too much. It’s funny how I can buy a CD for 10 bucks that another store is selling for 24. I bet the store I shop from makes 2x the money as the other store because they sell that many more CDs. There was a thing not too long ago where a big named band went into a store and saw their CD on sale for like 35 dollars or so and when they inquired about it management because it was an insane price. It’s like the stores mark up the CD’s to whatever they want - regardless of the recording industry or the band. </p>
<p>The whole system just needs a makeover - charge 10 bucks per album at all stores… innovative pricing, set your own price, etc is what will make people download music less… not slapping heavy lawsuits on people to set an example. The RIAA should take that 220k from that lawsuit and use it to set laws for limits on how much stores can profit on the sale of “intellectual property” and this will in turn reduce the amount of downloading because people will be willing to pay the lesser amount for CDs. I did a project in Marketing class one time and after surveying many students it basically said that the main reason people download music was because of the high cost of purchasing it - but that they would be willing to purchase it if it cost less.</p>
<p>Like I said with the different pricing methods, I bought three albums online yesterday for less than 7 bucks total - legally. I bought three CD’s the other week for 28 bucks - which is a great price. I’m sure that if stores would be charging less for CD’s in other areas people would be far more willing to pay for it - even though it is more easily accessible online. I personally like having a tangible good quality piece of recording. I won’t pay CD price for an MP3 because I feel like I’m buying a lesser quality version… I have never paid more than 4.00 for an MP3 album online for that very reason.</p>
<p>And washdad, not one person on this thread has commented about illegally downloading music… so you do not need to be saying things like its not your business to be giving it to your friends as if you are talking to us directly… I’m kind of taking offense to that. (Maybe I shouldn’t be if you don’t mean it that way?)</p>
<p>It is obviously time for change in the industry and as history has shown us, one way to bring about change is to defy outmoded laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but for most musicians, those were in essense, contracts of adhesion. Most musicians do not have much leverage in the way contracts are worded by the recording industry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. The more widely heard a song becomes, the more valuable become the musicians who wrote/performed it. Fame is tremendously valuable in our world, and brings in $ in a myriad of ways, only one of which is through purchasing a recording of a song.</p>
<p>What is the concern if the amount of $ lining the pockets of industry executives decreases? Or even of the musicians themselves? Will they stop writing and performing music? I doubt it. Such is the nature of “art.”</p>
<p>
Okay I’ll modify my statement to say: the artist makes $0 ‘directly’.</p>
<p>But let’s get realistic. If the artist really bought into the argument that they make so little from the recording company contract as to make it not worthwhile and that the more widespread their music became through ‘free’ downloads the more popular they’d become and hence the more they could earn doing concerts, etc., then they certainly can do this if they want and not enter into the contract in the first place. They wouldn’t enter into the contract if they didn’t think they had something to gain from it. </p>
<p>The internet really gives the artist a lot of freedom to promote themselves in ways they never could have done before. They also likely ‘need’ a recording company less than they used to. Some artists have even done this - allowed some of their music to be downloaded free and sell some of their music for downloads themselves. I imagine the world of recording companies, distribution, and how artists receive remuneration is undergoing a huge change today. Regardless, distributing and downloading music illegally still is theft by definition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is “illegal theft” only by current legislative and judicial construct.</p>
<p>Gee, that’s amazing. And it’s only speeding or drunk driving because the limits are 70 and .08.</p>
<p>True. My point is that the laws on downloading and sharing are not ingrained in stone. Possession of an ounce of marijuana used to be a felony, now it is a misdemeanor or infraction in some places, and some cities have even attempted to legalize it.</p>
<p>So, Bay, your point is that if it wasn’t made illegal by the legislature then it would be legal? I suppose this is true, but I don’t see how it adds anything to the argument. The same could be said of armed robbery, murder, or zoning violations.</p>
<p>Fendergirl, a couple of federal laws and a bunch of court cases have repeated the general right (absent exceptions in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to make recordings of certain material for their own non-commercial use. Time-shifted viewing of television programs is specifically allowed in Section 1008 of the AHRA of 1992. IANAL, again, but I just did some Googling on the subject. It’s pretty interesting stuff.</p>
<p>As for pricing – if I could sell a CD for $25, why would I sell it for $10? I think it’s wrong to sell something to someone for less than they are willing to pay.</p>
<p>Yes, downloading and sharing music are not theft unless they are defined as “theft” by the legislature or courts. (And yes, certain homocides are “murder” only by legisative definition).</p>
<p>I raised this only in response to others’ arguments that appeared to propound that it really doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans think about it, “theft is theft.”</p>
<p>The exception (below) that you provided is example of how the law can be drafted to make exceptions for listening and sharing downloads, as opposed to selling or claiming authorship of it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Property is theft. Sc*w the record companies. They have been robbing the actual artists for years. If they don’t want their music “stolen” then don’t digitize it. What next? Is the NY Times going to insist on clapping the irons on anyone who leaves their copy behind on the subway? Are the book publishers going to want a royalty from the used book stores? Does anyone who comes withing earshot of a live consert have to buy a ticket?</p>
<p>These record companies are blood sucking leeches living off of someone else creativity anyway.</p>
<p>
So, are all of the artists just idiots for signing contracts with the record companies in the first place? Do you think they should just be philanthropic organizations existing for the benefit of the artist solely? And what about those blood-sucking leeches of artists charging and benefiting from ridiculous concert ticket prices and signing lucrative (to them) deals with record companies? (Note - I don’t really care what an artist charges - it should be ‘whatever the market will bear’)</p>
<p>
If one leaves their CD behind on the subway or sells it at a used CD store there’s no problem - it’s legal. If someone copies a book and then makes it freely (or for a charge) available to others, including by download, then they’re subject to the same copyright law violations as for music.</p>
<p>
I really don’t get this attitude. What’s your take on software then? If you don’t happen to like the way the company conducts business, like maybe Microsoft, is that justification for not paying for their product but rather, using it illegally? </p>
<p>If you don’t like what the artist/record company have available then don’t use their product.</p>
<p>The bottom line is the main thing the artist gets from the recording studio is a guy with enough juice to pay payola to the radio stations to play the song and keep the FCC at bay. What we have is basically a crook complaining that people are stealing from him.</p>
<p>The solution is really pretty simple. There is actually a lot of “intellectual property” that cannot be protected by copyright including for instance a chess game played between two grandmasters which is about as intellectual as you can get. Simply make the copyright for music non-transferable. The artist owns it but cannot sell it except as sheet music. He can rent it lease it whatever but the renter or the leasee (the recording company) cannit sic his high priced law firm on anyone except possibly the artist. Good luck there.</p>
<p>My attitude on software? I write it for a living but my employer owns the copyright and he is a bloodsucking Canadian leech who would sell small boys into Arab harems if he thought it was more profitable than selling electronic bits.</p>
<p>Information wants to be free would that men did too.</p>
<p>Look, if people were really downloading music to “fight the companies”, a more effective solution would be to just give money to artists to convince them to leave their contracts. No, most people are stealing music because they can and because it’s easy and free, making them immoral hypocrites.</p>
<p>I still do it though, at least in Canada, because I’m already paying for it and I see no compelling moral reason to let the recording industry have its cake and eat it too.</p>
<p>higherlead: It sounds like you need a new employer!</p>
<p>What is stealing? Define it. Taking by force or stealth or threat something that belongs to someone else? If that is the definition then every government in the world steals every time they collect taxes.</p>