[morphsci]

Although THIS ARTICLE is not extremely current it does provide some interesting ideas. Perhaps the advent of mp3 and internet music availability is not the only factor in declining CD sales. Food for thought.

 

[MacDEF]

stuart and morph, I completely agree. People who are determined to steal the music will find some way around any "copy protection" -- the people who really end up losing out are those of us who don't steal but want to make our own personal copies/compilations of stuff we already own

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF stuart and morph, I completely agree. People who are determined to steal the music will find some way around any "copy protection" -- the people who really end up losing out are those of us who don't steal but want to make our own personal copies/compilations of stuff we already own

Another theory: current music. Compare the current Metallica albums with previous Metallica albums. That is why their sales are declining.

 

[cajunchrist]

I'd like to repost some thoughts that I had from this thread.

Quote:

Since the advent of on-line file swapping, the music business has proven itself unable to keep up with the times by providing products and services that the public demands at a price it is willing to pay.

.mp3's are a convenient way to load all of your music on to a single storage medium (your computer) for quick access to your whole library. Most people don't mind the loss of quality to have a less cumbersome storage medium, a major reason why CD's won out over vinyl. Since the advent of the internet, it is quite easy to swap those .mp3 files with other users, and file-swapping quickly became a huge phenomenon.

Instead of using the knowledge that people liked to download .mp3's to create a new business model, they have proven unable to keep up with the times, and are using the law to stifle a potentially groundbreaking way of distributing content.

Accusing people who trade .mp3's of theft is a hackneyed and lazy way of addressing the larger issue of sharing information. The record companies own information that is of value to consumers, and consumers have clearly indicated that they want a new way of accessing that content. Instead of fulfilling the goal of capitalism, which is to react to market forces and provide goods and services that consumers demand, the record companies are restricting the development of technology the market has clearly demanded.

Where does that leave us as consumers? We are given only the choices that the record companies think bring them the greatest profit with their current business model. And worse, we branded as thieves, not only by the corporations, but by fellow music lovers.

 

[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by cajunchrist Accusing people who trade .mp3's of theft is a hackneyed and lazy way of addressing the larger issue of sharing information. The record companies own information that is of value to consumers, and consumers have clearly indicated that they want a new way of accessing that content. Instead of fulfilling the goal of capitalism, which is to react to market forces and provide goods and services that consumers demand, the record companies are restricting the development of technology the market has clearly demanded. Where does that leave us as consumers? We are given only the choices that the record companies think bring them the greatest profit with their current business model. And worse, we branded as thieves, not only by the corporations, but by fellow music lovers.

It may well be true that consumers demand this or that, but that doesn't change the fact that .mp3 iterations of copyrighted music are still illegal to trade. Whether or not you think this is fair or abides by these laws of capitalism, the law is the law. If you think that the law needs to be changed, you should write to your congressman; you still don't have the right to trade these files.

I'm not accusing anyone of being a thief or a freeloader; yet I think that it's important for people to realize that even if taking mp3 files is easy and is something that is too difficult to track on the individual level, it is still illegal. If you choose to do so, so be it. But that doesn't give you any moral high ground.

 

[cajunchrist]

A first-rate idea is better than a second-rate law.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by cajunchrist Accusing people who trade .mp3's of theft is a hackneyed and lazy way of addressing the larger issue of sharing information. The record companies own information that is of value to consumers, and consumers have clearly indicated that they want a new way of accessing that content. Instead of fulfilling the goal of capitalism, which is to react to market forces and provide goods and services that consumers demand, the record companies are restricting the development of technology the market has clearly demanded.

cajunchrist, this theory would only hold true if, given a way for people to purchase the music they want and download it (a "new way of accessing it"), theft of music via MP3 trading stopped. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't at all

But, like DanG said, you may have a valid point about the record companies being behind the times, and about people wanting to access music differently, but that doesn't excuse people from violating copyright law in the meantime

 

[cajunchrist]

Quote:

cajunchrist, this theory would only hold true if, given a way for people to purchase the music they want and download it (a "new way of accessing it"), theft of music via MP3 trading stopped. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't at all

And so the only way to prevent users who violate copyright law from breaking the law is to prevent legal fair use of material? The cure is worse than the headache.

Democracy is based on the concept that people can police themselves and don't need a paternalistic govenment to tell them what to do and to restrict their choices. We each have the choice to do what is right or what is wrong. Laws are in place to punish those who do wrong. I would rather rely on enforcement of existing law than re-write laws to restrict what is already legal. You are both still regurgitating the record company arguments, and I'm very surprised that you appear to be advocating the restriction of fair use of copyrighted material. This is part of a disturbing trend that penalizes consumers and continually puts more and more power in the hands of corporations.

Neither of you have addressed the central issue, which is to give users a reliable and reasonably priced way to download content from the internet so that file-swapping software and sites will be unnecessary. mp3.com has already demonstrated that it can be done, where are the major labels? Still dithering over whether they lost out on sales of 100 units because Joe Cheapskate downloaded the new Britney Spears album with bearshare. Smaller artists have far fewer users looking for their music, so their losses if any are insignificant. After downloading as much music as I could find of the artist Dead Voices on Air (who are lucky to sell 500 units of any one album) I promptly bought several of their records new. According to the article that morphsci linked, I am in the majority (86%).

If we REALLY have open market capitalism, let the consumer decide how they will use their legally puchased music, and when users violate the provisions of fair use, let law enforcement enforce the law that already addresses this problem.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

The record companies own information that is of value to consumers, and consumers have clearly indicated that they want a new way of accessing that content. Instead of fulfilling the goal of capitalism, which is to react to market forces and provide goods and services that consumers demand, the record companies are restricting the development of technology the market has clearly demanded

Yeah, sort of like the party pooper who puts locks on his doors and an alarm system in his house to prevent "thieves" from stealing his stereo and music collection.

Quote:

Democracy is based on the concept that people can police themselves and don't need a paternalistic govenment to tell them what to do and to restrict their choices

Yes. Charles Bronson proved this theory in Death Wish.

 

[morphsci]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle As long as I can buy great sounding CD's and LP's, I couldn't care less if everyone else steals or is satisfied with horrid sound quality. As long as I can still go out and buy good sound.

But if the record companies have their way, there will be very few uncompromised CD's available. Eventually even the older stuff will be "reissued" with secure versions. Over time there will be fewer and fewer copies of "nonsecure" CD's. If vinyl sticks around long enough they will probably try to secure that also. History has shown that sticking your head in the sand while those around you are being caused to suffer, rarely prevents the suffering from eventually being visited upon oneself.

 

[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by cajunchrist And so the only way to prevent users who violate copyright law from breaking the law is to prevent legal fair use of material? The cure is worse than the headache. [...] We each have the choice to do what is right or what is wrong. Laws are in place to punish those who do wrong. I would rather rely on enforcement of existing law than re-write laws to restrict what is already legal. You are both still regurgitating the record company arguments, and I'm very surprised that you appear to be advocating the restriction of fair use of copyrighted material. This is part of a disturbing trend that penalizes consumers and continually puts more and more power in the hands of corporations. Neither of you have addressed the central issue, which is to give users a reliable and reasonably priced way to download content from the internet so that file-swapping software and sites will be unnecessary. [...] If we REALLY have open market capitalism, let the consumer decide how they will use their legally puchased music, and when users violate the provisions of fair use, let law enforcement enforce the law that already addresses this problem.

Cajun, we live in a democracy, not an anarchy. It is in an anarchy where one lives only by the law of nature so opposingly described by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. As long as we have a democracy (in fact, closer to a socialism), we have to abide by the laws that we, the people, have put into place. Sometimes these laws are wrong, whether in terms of morality or because of inconsistencies with the Constitution which is intended to provide a basis for all the laws of the land.

Again I will say the following -- if a law is wrong in your opinion you must try to get it changed before you go about breaking it. Have you read Inherit the Wind? That play describes the confrontation between the forces of backward-looking religious conservatives and forward-looking scientists and the right to teach the theory of evolution in public schools. It also shows an alternate method of being heard and making changes to laws -- if you're going to break the law, break it to make a point, face your opponent in court, and make your point. A court can be a surprisingly well-publicized arena for intellectual debate (well, as long as the debate and contenders have a high-enough profile).

But something is not made right by popular demand until those who directly make the laws, the legislative bodies, begin to sway in favor of proposed amendments to the law and do something about it. Since you won't be caught you might as well continue doing what you're doing. Just don't fool yourself; you'd be surprised how far this nasty habit of sloppy thinking can go.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beagle As long as I can buy great sounding CD's and LP's, I couldn't care less if everyone else steals or is satisfied with horrid sound quality. As long as I can still go out and buy good sound.

But the problem is, you will be the one paying for everyone else's stealing. Companies always dump the cost of everything, including shoplifting and any other source of lost income, on the consumer, otherwise they would not be able to stay in business.

Obviously, from your other statements in this thread, you are not for stealing, so I'm not sure I understand your statement(s).

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by cajunchrist And so the only way to prevent users who violate copyright law from breaking the law is to prevent legal fair use of material?

Hey, I didn't say that

I'm as irritated with this whole "uncopy-able" CD thing as anyone, as I regularly burn my own CDs off my CD collection.

Quote:

You are both still regurgitating the record company arguments, and I'm very surprised that you appear to be advocating the restriction of fair use of copyrighted material.

Woah! First of all, I'm not taking the record companies' side -- I'm taking the artists' side. Second, I'm in no way advocating the restriction of fair use -- as I said, I'm totally against this uncopy-able CD fiasco.


Quote:

Neither of you have addressed the central issue, which is to give users a reliable and reasonably priced way to download content from the internet so that file-swapping software and sites will be unnecessary.

Hmmm... I did exactly that: "have a valid point about the record companies being behind the times, and about people wanting to access music differently"

I completely agree. The record companies are way behind the times. What I *did* say was that just because they're behind the times, and not provided a needed service, that doesn't justify the theft of music. "Justified" theft is still theft.


Quote:

If we REALLY have open market capitalism, let the consumer decide how they will use their legally puchased music, and when users violate the provisions of fair use, let law enforcement enforce the law that already addresses this problem.

I *completely* agree -- uncopy-able CDs are ridiculous.

 

[huy_ha]

This is capitalism at work, in that the bottom line and profit margins rule the day. Buying an artist's product no longer means that you are supporting the artist. The way record companies sign artists, the way ticketing companies book their shows, and the royalty distribution system all serve to bankrupt the artist and the consumer. Obviously, copyright law has not kept up with technology, thus the need for new law or, more on point, new contracts. An artist selling a million copies these days means that the artist is more likely to get a contract, videos, etc. It doesn't mean any more of your money going to the artist you "support".

Look at the price fixing of CD's for example. CD prices have nothing to do with the worth of the music or, more importantly, the cost of production. There's no gamble for the record company if they print a few million 2 cent discs if they're going to have half a million people buy an 18 dollar CD. On the other side, the artist is getting loaned the money to put on a tour, shoot the video, etc. - money that has to be paid back with meager royalties from record sales. Both sides present little risk to the record companies (win-win). But consumer "piracy" does. That's why they're so rabid. Let's not pretend that the major players are interested in the pleasure we derive from music.

What's the answer? From the consumer side, fair pricing (anti-trust, anyone?). From the artist's side, fair contracts. From the legal side, anti-monopoly/oligarchy litigation, though the record companies have much more money to spend on lawyers. From the major company side, well, nothing. They have the means of production, the venues, control ticket sales, scouting, videos, advertising, and contracts. I'm not really concerned about them. I'm quite sure if they go under, something will take their place. Hopefully, though, consumer action and intervention will lead to more competition and innovation. This argument, ironically, may be determined by votes rather than dollars.

 

[beowulf]

Quote:

Nothing worse or more dangerous than people used to getting something for nothing. [/B]

Well, except maybe a pretzel...