sen_no_ongaku | Let's see if this gets any play...

I've taken my stand on the former issue, too. I always purchase (usually in CD form, but not always) the music I listen to. I do not allow (when I can control it) other people to burn my CDs. I believe it's my moral obligation. Someone who downloads a ripped song is saying they want the art, they just don't want to pay for it. In my personal moral code, that's as much a type of theft as taking the twinkie from the Supermart. I understand other people have different perspectives on it, but I am only making these moral decisions for myself.

If doctors and lawyers didn't produce services people felt they needed, they would struggle too. If no one got sick, needed contracts, or got sued, they'd go out of business. It's both a matter of the availability (CAT scans are not broadcast on public radio) and of people's choices of what they value enough to spend their money on. It's also an issue of percieved necessity. Given a choice between that surgery to relieve and abcess and buying that painting from the artist you like, most people will see the surgery as more necessary. Obviously being able to have both would be the ideal, but few people are in a position to purchase all of what they want and need.

I buy art. I have purchased graphic art recently (and told the artist that she needed to increase the price). I just got two CDs in the mail last week. I buy tickets to the opera, or concerts, or theater. I buy tickets to museums to see art. However, I buy the art I enjoy, even while I recognize the right of artists to create types of art I do not enjoy. I do not think, however, I am obligated to pay for the art I do not enjoy, except possibly through a portion of my taxes.

I guess my real point is that the very existence of trading on PTP networks implies that a large portion of our population feels that what they are doing is not wrong; that (consciously or subconsciously) something about music, or movies, or what have you, entitles them to acquire it for free.

Should this be?

----

Interestingly, no one feels that top-notch gourmet food should be free. Perhaps this is because its material cost is apparent to everyone.

I think it's more about people's capacity to get art for free. If folks could download gourmet meals as easily as they do MP3s, you can bet they would and find some way of not having a problem with it. One difference, of course, being that much art is easily reproducible whereas most gourmet cooking cannot be recorded, photocopied, photographed, etc.

There is also a question of marginal cost. If the marginal cost of producing food had fallen to nearly nothing, then we would see a whole lot more 'downloading' of gourmet food. Indeed, if the marginal cost of producing gourmet food fell to nearly nothing, current gourmet food venders would have to adapt their business models -- patronage at restaurants would drop off.

One reason we are seeing so much trading of music on PTP networks is beings the economics behind the music industry has radically shifted -- and the industry has spent much of its effort of legislating its old business model into a new world, rather than investing in the opportunities the internet as a distribution mechanism present.

Forgot to add, much of the ptp file trading that is occuring today is not necessarily bad for the music industry/musicians. When someone downloads a song, that person is either:

1) Downloading music that he would not have purchased otherwise.
2) Sampling music that he plans to purchase if he likes it.
3) Downloading music in place of purchasing music.

Type 1 has no effect on music sales, and type 2 actually increases music sales. Only type 3 reduces music sales.

Let's not assume that because there are three possibilities, they will have equal probabilities of occurring.

I'm no fan of the RIAA, and I would prefer to keep copyright laws loose, and information flowing. And I agree that no one has proved adequately that filesharing hurts music sales; has anybody proved that it helps?

I don't mean to imply that they do have equal probability (and in effect, I'm arguing both sides of the coin: that the music industry is not hurting nearly as much as it claims to be hurting, and that their business model is hopelessly outdated).

The only numbers I have seen claiming that the record industry is really being hurt by PTP are those numbers released by the record industry. Most of the independant analysis I have seen show the music industry doing pretty decently -- sales have fallen slightly, but so have the number of different records shipped. That is, the record industry as a whole is signing less new acts and selling slightly fewer total cds.

Now, I would argue PTP networks are really beginning to hurt record labels by providing a viable alternative for aspiring artists, which is enticing them away from signing standard record label contracts.

on the other hand, I'm guessing you wouldn't buy a 20x16 oil painting based a 2x2 crop of that painting. Yet this is what music artists, most of them anyway, expect you to do... they put their best track or two on the radio, and then expect you to buy an album based on that. Hell, some of them can't even get on the radio. Am I supposed to buy an album just because an obscure German 'zine said it was good?

If I'm going to spend $15 on a CD, I want to know what's on that CD.

Now, sure, downloading an album for free that you would otherwise pay for certainly hurts the artist (or at least, it hurts the artist's label), but I don't buy into the idea that every download is theft. YMMV.

And you're entitled to that opinion. But going back to the gourmet food idea... it's like saying your first meal at a restaurant should always be free. That's not the way the restaurant business works, and we don't expect it to.

And actually, I decided to buy the art I bought based on a smaller and lower quality digital picture. So your example is exactly what I did (although it wasn't as expensive as an oil painting, well, neither is a CD).

I've done the same thing (bought an oil painting based on a smaller, and lower quality digital picture). I've also done the same for music... bought a CD based on a smaller, lower quality file (aka MP3).

Just to clarify, when I said 2x2 crop, I meant just a slice, not a shrunk down version. The analogy being to a single track off an album.

Honestly, a comparison of recorded music to gourmet food or theater or original paintings is inherently flawed. With theater or food or other "performance" art, we're paying for the performance. We're paying directly for the material presented to us, which we consume, and which cannot be consumed by others. Once something is recorded, be it a video of a theater performance, an audio recording, or digital photograph of a painting, I think the equation changes dramaticly. Once the reproduction is created, the cost of producing additional copies is marginal, and, obviously, priced as such. At that point, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to try before you buy.

And I don't think it's unreasonable for the artist to have the expectation to be paid for the music I choose listen to, even if I end up not liking it. I've made my own choice in this equation, and I understand other people have made theirs differently, and am ok with that.

Well...to address a more specific point of yours, with the advent a service such as iTunes (I don't know whether other, similar services exist), the expectation is no longer that to purchase one song, you also have to purchase songs you don't know whether or not you'll enjoy.

To address your larger point...I agree that since things such as photographs, music, movies, etc., can be reduced to information and reproduced as such, that our relationship to them is different, both personally and economically. But (as I said in my other comment) the right to sample is not the same as the right to consume.

Am I supposed to buy an album just because an obscure German 'zine said it was good?

Actually, I have done something, and been quite pleased. Then again, I also had to note that their reviews usually meshed with my opinions.

on the other hand, I'm guessing you wouldn't buy a 20x16 oil painting based a 2x2 crop of that painting. Yet this is what music artists, most of them anyway, expect you to do... they put their best track or two on the radio, and then expect you to buy an album based on that. Hell, some of them can't even get on the radio.

Well, you probably already know that radio time is paid for by recording companies, who decide (often without the artists' input) what songs off of an album are worth putting on the radio. Now, of course, a band can choose not to buy into that system. But that doesn't allow us to ignore the system.

If I'm going to spend $15 on a CD, I want to know what's on that CD.

I agree that some foreknowledge of something you buy is important. But having a concrete sense of what's on that CD, and having what amounts to complete ownership of it without having paid for it are very different things. Can you eat a fancy meal before agreeing to pay for it?

I agree on all points.

The only thing I disagree on, truthfully, is the absolute moral judgement that downloading a track of a P2P network is exactly the same as stealing a twinky. If I steal a twinky, the store can't sell that twinky again. If I download a track of Kazaa the artist hasn't lost anything until I decide that I really like the song and I'd rather keep listening to my MP3 instead of buying the CD (or single track off iTunes or whatever).

Downloading something and never paying for it is saying that the artist does not deserve compensation for the artistic product you are enjoying. If it's just a matter of *when* you buy it, then it doesn't matter. But instead it's a matter of *if* you buy it. Does an artist then not deserve compensation for a piece you listened to several times, but finally decided wasn't worth 99c to you?

Does an artist then not deserve compensation for a piece you listened to several times, but finally decided wasn't worth 99c to you?

If I could buy all of the music I was considering on iTunes for 99c a song, I would. But I can't, because iTunes has a pretty crappy selection of the music I like.

But to answer your question, certainly, if I like a song enough to listen to it "several times", then yes, the artist should be compensated for providing me that entertainment. Honestly, if the song is crap, I'm not going to listen to it several times. I'm going to listen to it once or twice and then delete it.

I think the issue I have is if an artist has had *no say* in whether or not to make his/her/their work available on a P2P network. I imagine that there are quite a few musicians and such who use such networks to advertise their music.

----

While information is potentially infinitely reproducible and a Twinkie is not, you are still taking something whose owner has not explicitly allowed you to. The absence of material loss is not justification.

actually, I argued a very similar position during a Slashdot bashing of Metallica around the time Lars delivered his famous list of "users-to-ban" to Napster.

Actually, I have done something

Uh..add "like that".

I like it "like that".

I have no useful thoughts to contribute to this discussion. It's all korma-centric right now.

Let's see if this gets any play...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P

Re: while we're on the subject of P2P