| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/12/2007 11:49:03 AM · #1 |
Being a photographer I find a very interesting ethical dilemma when it comes to the RIAA or the music industry in general.
On one hand, I believe in copyright law. I would be upset if someone took one of my pictures and profited off of it. I would also be upset if people took my pictures and traded them over the internet. We regularly have threads exposing photography thieves and we all love to heartily "boo" them.
On the other hand the RIAA and music industry seem to be nothing more than dens of thieves. Evidence:
o Today it was announced that EMI has settled with The Beatles to the tun of about $70 million over a royalty dispute which spanned a period of only five years. This is not the first dispute The Beatles have brought and won.
o Naturally if the biggest act of all time needs legal help to recover what it views as its share, it is obvious that smaller acts get screwed. It is well documented that smaller bands make nearly 100% of their money on the up front contract and never see royalties. They rather make their living off of tour revenues.
o I find it fairly repugnant that CD prices are as high as they are. Not only that, but now that the cost of the CD, case, liner, and anything else physical is often eliminated via iTunes or other digital transfer the cost has still not been substantially changed.
o Finally we remember the fiasco of Sony's DRM software which secretly opened your computer to security issues without notifying the consumer.
In years past I traded music P2P and viewed it as "civil disobedience". I realize that name doesn't really fit (maybe "corporate disobedience"). Eventually I wondered if I wasn't just trying to have my cake and eat it to. I stopped trading P2P but moved to downloading from AllofMP3 where the RIAA receives nothing from the sale and the prices are far more reasonable. The artist also at least has the possibility of receiving a royalty (although they do not since the RIAA refuses to collect from the Russian agency in charge of distributing royalties).
If we can keep it civil, I was wondering how people, as artists, view this conundrum?
Do you purchase music through legal channels our of respect for copyright while turning a blind eye to where the money really goes (corporate suits vs. the artists themselves)?
Or do you obtain music through other channels which violate copyright while still defending your own copyrights when it comes to your own photography?
Is there a middle ground?
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 11:58:12 AM · #2 |
I buy the CDs, simply out of convenience more than anything else. Though if they don't do something about the packaging, I may stop doing that, too. (Takes me forever to get the stupid sticky label thingies off the durn things.)
I don't trade P2P because I don't like that process - don't want intrusions onto my computer. I do share music with individual friends via private FTPs, though. In the end, if I like what they send me, I tend to go buy the CD. And my mother, bless her heart, knows how to make "car copies" of disks - the ones you stick in the car so you don't care if they get ruined. She sends me those once in awhile. :-)
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 11:58:48. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 11:59:38 AM · #3 |
| I've gone/been going through a similar line of reasoning. My thought is that nothing will change until the artists band together and demand what they are due, a music industry revolution. Sadly I don't think it'll happen. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:08:24 PM · #4 |
I'm in a moral grey area I think. I purchase music for others as gifts but haven't purchased music for myself in years. I have downloaded music in a way the RIAA would probably consider illegal on the basis of replacing music lost when my CD collection was stolen and I don't feel bad about it in the least. I still occasionally check torrent sites for albums I owned that still elude me but I've ended up downloaded music which I didn't own but can't purchase because it's out of print. So for those albums, I've never owned them but I can't buy them so the artist and RIAA wouldn't have gotten money anyway.
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 12:12:23. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:21:56 PM · #5 |
I'm also conflicted.
On the one hand, the industry creates a product. If I don't like the product, or don't feel it is worth what they charge, I don't have to buy it. The fact that it's easy to steal doesn't make it ok to steal it. I have problems with the coffee industry, how they pay producers, etc, but that doesn't mean I get to steal coffee beans.
On the other hand, when I do steal music I'm not actively removing a physical object from their hands; I'm not reusing it for commercial purposes; they're not getting money from me that they weren't going to get anyway, so I'm not really hurting anyone.
I do have major problems with how the industry treats artists, especially as I'm not all that in to Britney. I mostly like non-mainstream artists, and these folks get short shrift from the industry. And this is my real objection to how the RIAA is dealing with this issue - This is a technological shift. They can embrace it and allow a real renaissance in music distribution, or they can try to crack down and stop progress. They're going with the latter. They're shutting down internet radio (//www.techdirt.com/articles/20070304/223155.shtml), and attacking other creative new means of distribution.
The good news is that the internet opens opportunities for artists to cut out the middleman. You no longer need an RIAA lable to distribute your music, you can do it yourself from myspace or any number of similar sites. And a lot of artists are distributing their music for free these days, on the assumption that they can build audience and increase their tour revenues. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:25:16 PM · #6 |
Well, let's look at some parallels to the business of photography.
I buy 8x10 prints at mpix.com for $1.99, and sell them for $15.00 to my portrait customers (which is ridiculously cheap compared to some who are in the $60+ range). So a CD that cost less than $1 for $14.99 (or about) can be put inperspective.
I've seen arguments that models who work TFCD on stock shoots get hosed because all they get is some pictures for their portfolio but the photographer can generate $100's or $1,000's of dollars from those shots (potentially). Of course, we know better because of the time, effort, and equipment that goes into a working photography studio. But compared to a full-blown professional recording studio (SSL mixing board and full-blown Protools rig), a decent photography studio is DIRT cheap.
Microstock vs. macro--allofmp3.com = tunes for $.10 or less vs. $.99 on itunes where the artist (or label) gets paid. I'm sure there are photographers out there who will agrue until they're blue in the face that microstock whores out photorapher's work for peanuts, but those some photographers will think nothing of buying a song for $.10, because $.99 per song is outrageous.
This is not aimed specifically at DrAchoo or anybody else here. But be aware that there are plenty of aspects of the photography business that could be considered pretty shady to an outsider too, and that's not even talking about porn! :)
Just my $.02--I could be wrong... |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:29:07 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Pixlmaker:
Well, let's look at some parallels to the business of photography.
I buy 8x10 prints at mpix.com for $1.99, and sell them for $15.00 to my portrait customers (which is ridiculously cheap compared to some who are in the $60+ range). So a CD that cost less than $1 for $14.99 (or about) can be put inperspective.
I've seen arguments that models who work TFCD on stock shoots get hosed because all they get is some pictures for their portfolio but the photographer can generate $100's or $1,000's of dollars from those shots (potentially). Of course, we know better because of the time, effort, and equipment that goes into a working photography studio. But compared to a full-blown professional recording studio (SSL mixing board and full-blown Protools rig), a decent photography studio is DIRT cheap.
Microstock vs. macro--allofmp3.com = tunes for $.10 or less vs. $.99 on itunes where the artist (or label) gets paid. I'm sure there are photographers out there who will agrue until they're blue in the face that microstock whores out photorapher's work for peanuts, but those some photographers will think nothing of buying a song for $.10, because $.99 per song is outrageous.
This is not aimed specifically at DrAchoo or anybody else here. But be aware that there are plenty of aspects of the photography business that could be considered pretty shady to an outsider too, and that's not even talking about porn! :)
Just my $.02--I could be wrong... |
As far as the CD goes if you sell it for what it costs to make, package and ship. (50 cents at the most) It still dosnt cover advertising, the bands equipment not to mention the money to live off of (actual profit). Oh and lets not forget the RIAA's big fat pockets.
But even if you cut the RIAA out of the deal your still looking at a few bucks a cd. But thats more reasonable then 18 bucks.
I personally like itunes as far as aquiring music. But my collection except new stuff is nearly finished.
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 12:29:45. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:37:11 PM · #8 |
| I bought quite a lot of music media when I was a younger man. But todays crap that passes for music does not appeal to me and the argument is therefore, a moot point. Ethics considered, todays music industry is more about money than artistry. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:38:38 PM · #9 |
they tried to fight against music piracy some years ago in Russia.
they tried to destroy all the illegal russian copies.
they still destroy them from time to time.
they opened a new cool music shop right in the center of my town.
the shop was selling only the legal copies.
what a cool bright shop it was!
we, soviet people, had never seen such cool bright things before.
we went to the shop as to a museum.
legal copies with european pricetags.
1000 rubbles for a CD.
my salary was 1500 rubbles per month that time.
I had a cool job as a copywriter, I was creating ads and stuff - I was earning a lot of money.
so 1500 rubbles per month for a cool well-paid job, 1000 for a cd.
hurray and long live pirats! and thanks for letting me listen to at least some music on those hand copied tapes - the only music I could afford.
I mean, of course!! I would gladly pay the full price in Russia and I do pay it now in Norway because now I can afford a lot.
I don't really know, I do respect artists' rights, still this is my one and only life.
but now as a kind of an artist myself I don't really know.
it seems like this is just one of those moral dilemmas we can't find a general remedy for. every situation is different.
:)
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 12:39:52. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:40:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I personally like itunes as far as aquiring music. But my collection except new stuff is nearly finished. |
Hell, I think iTunes is still over priced. $.99 a song? Try $.25 a song an I'll bite. I have similar thoughts on the whole TV/Movies for download industry cropping up. $3.99 for a movie? You expect me to pay half the price of going to the theater to watch a movie on my computer? Get it down to $1 a movie and I'm there. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:45:28 PM · #11 |
I think that if the music industry is concerned about their profits they should try to get out a better quality product. Everything tends to sound the same as something else. Creativity seems to be greatly restricted in favor of marketability. If you have "the look" and "the sound" you get hired. I like a lot of 80's music just because there was such a wide variety of music and there was a lot of creativity then. If there was someting you did not like. there probably would be with the next song. I don't find much passion in music today.
[/url] |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:47:12 PM · #12 |
Hmmmm...as I'm reading this post, I can't help but feel the ethical challenge here. The convenience of technology provides the easily transferable media format for music (and photos) and makes the temptation of piracy practically irresistable even to those with high ethical standards. These issues you point out reveal our own glaring hypocrisy and clearly we cannot walk around pretending we are only "partially pregnant" and take from others while we are not willing to give ourselves. As a member of the technology world, I am definitely guilty as charged.
As a photographer, I am not greedy enough to expect that a greater financial reward would outweigh the more spiritual one of bringing joy into someone's life with any photograph that I may take and decent enough to attract someone's attention.
But, I would always highly respect the work of other artists and strongly believe they should be compensated according to their own set price whether monetary or otherwise. We should all respond accordingly and respectfully to that negotiation.
Well, that's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:47:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I personally like itunes as far as aquiring music. But my collection except new stuff is nearly finished. |
Hell, I think iTunes is still over priced. $.99 a song? Try $.25 a song an I'll bite. I have similar thoughts on the whole TV/Movies for download industry cropping up. $3.99 for a movie? You expect me to pay half the price of going to the theater to watch a movie on my computer? Get it down to $1 a movie and I'm there. |
As far as the movies go you can also watch them on your ipod video or on your home tv. And unlike the movie theatre u can see it over and over again.
You can rent DVD's for 1 dollar a night from redbox many loctaed at mcdonalds. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:56:29 PM · #14 |
Well... I download as fast as my connection would allow. And I have no problem sleeping at night. Last cd I bought was 12 years ago.
I don't feel like I'm screwing the bands. They get peanuts from royalties anyway.
Not just music as well. Movies, software, the lot.
There, I said it. At least I'm not a hypocrite.
Harry
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 12:59:49. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 01:19:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by hsolakidis:
Well... I download as fast as my connection would allow. And I have no problem sleeping at night. Last cd I bought was 12 years ago.
I don't feel like I'm screwing the bands. They get peanuts from royalties anyway.
Not just music as well. Movies, software, the lot.
There, I said it. At least I'm not a hypocrite.
Harry |
:) I do the same with all the pc programs I have: for photo, video and music editing.
and sleep perfectly well too.
I still haven't found a reliable place to download music from, all the russian sites have unfortunately lots of viruses:( |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 01:21:22 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
As far as the movies go you can also watch them on your ipod video or on your home tv. And unlike the movie theatre u can see it over and over again. |
Sorry, my figures are from a recent visit to Amazon's WithoutTheBox where you 'rent' a movie for $4 and can play it on your computer or TiVo, but once you hit play you have 24 hrs to finish it. To 'buy' it you pay $15! WTF? |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 01:39:12 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by _eug:
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
As far as the movies go you can also watch them on your ipod video or on your home tv. And unlike the movie theatre u can see it over and over again. |
Sorry, my figures are from a recent visit to Amazon's WithoutTheBox where you 'rent' a movie for $4 and can play it on your computer or TiVo, but once you hit play you have 24 hrs to finish it. To 'buy' it you pay $15! WTF? |
Yeah thats kinda sucky. The only thing someone could argue on the itunes side is oh you have to buy their tv box to watch the videos. Well youd have to buy a DVD player to watch the 1 dollar a night DVD rentals. Just because you and a billion other people have one doesnt mean the situation is different. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:11:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On one hand, I believe in copyright law. |
I believe in it too and believe it's evolved far past it's original
intent.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
On the other hand the RIAA and music industry seem to be nothing more than dens of thieves. |
Maybe not thieves, but greedy money hungry companies that will do anything for a buck. They'll run over any group or person to get their money fix. Their current spate of intimidation suits are going to come back to haunt them
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is there a middle ground? |
Yes, I believe there is. Copyright laws must be re-written. I believe they were mainly written to protect the individual, not corporations. I believe copyrights should be limited to the productive lifetime of the individual. 30 to 40 years is plenty to exploit your work. Certainly no copyright should outlive the individual. And no company that bought the copyright should be allowed to claim it after her death. I also believe that copyrights should not be entirely salable. IOW The holder of a copyright should never be able to sell more than 75 percent of the interest in the copyright. This would keep companies from making millions from content and the artist who created it languishing in poverty until their death.
Will the things I speak of ever happen. Probably not. To many money interests will work against them. But to dream....
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:23:51 PM · #19 |
| So it would be okay to go into a gallery and steal a photographer's print off the wall if that particular gallery took way too much in commission? |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:25:44 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by klstover:
So it would be okay to go into a gallery and steal a photographer's print off the wall if that particular gallery took way too much in commission? |
Music piracy is different. In light of this the steling of their art would be using a scanback camera to replicate it go home and print an 8x10 for a dollar, AND distribute the scan back image across the net. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:29:59 PM · #21 |
Well, lets see. I really like this picture:
But instead of spending $3 plus shipping to get it from DPCPrints (4X6), I could easily right click / save as, and print it myself for about $.15. The quality might be a little off, but hey, I'm saving a few dollars so who cares? And since it is digital media, it's not like I am stealing anything real. It's just data! Based on the arguments given above for pirating music (and, evidently, software), please explain to me why it would be a bad idea to do this. (Keep in mind this is 100% hypothetical!).
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 14:32:00. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:31:21 PM · #22 |
By silverfox. Nice picture |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:46:21 PM · #23 |
Just one quick question...
How is downloading and sharing music any different than the actions of the person who coped scalvert's photos last week and posted them in his blog, or the person who stole Arti-Elvi (and others)' photos in the currently active thread?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:51:12 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Pixlmaker:
But instead of spending $3 plus shipping to get it from DPCPrints (4X6), I could easily right click / save as, and print it myself for about $.15. The quality might be a little off, but hey, I'm saving a few dollars so who cares? And since it is digital media, it's not like I am stealing anything real. It's just data! Based on the arguments given above for pirating music (and, evidently, software), please explain to me why it would be a bad idea to do this. (Keep in mind this is 100% hypothetical!). |
My initial argument was not that copying music is "legal" and copying photography is "illegal". They are both illegal in most regards (although that is not quite true. There is a huge gray area. Where you are, for example, makes a big difference.). My dilemma is that the RIAA and the industry is "evil". They are thieves (sorry fir3bird, I disagree, they fit the description by hiding royalties and not paying until people go after them with lawyers) and care very little about the artist. With music I'm stuck with the trilemma of a) supporting an evil industry b) illegally downloading music or c) having no music in my life (which doesn't help the artist either). With photography we don't have an analogous "evil corporation" to deal with. Stealing photography is stealing from the artist and it seems at least clearer what is going on.
I just saw you question Terry and I think I answered it above. I posit that P2P or other quasi-illegal downloading (like AllofMP3) is akin the the Boston Tea Party (ie. an illegal act done in an attempt to effect change). I think the argument can be made that P2P really doesn't harm 90% of music artists (those who don't get royalties anyway) and may help them by spreading their work and bringing more people to their concerts where they do make money.
One question I would have (and remember that I do very little P2P, but rather buy music from a quasi-legal establishment) in the argument. Do you think without P2P the RIAA or industry would change the status quo at all? Would iTunes even exist (as broken as that is)?
Message edited by author 2007-04-12 14:56:16.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 02:56:40 PM · #25 |
| There are alternatives for an artist who does not want to be a part of the "industry". They might not be alternatives that make a lot more sense, cost-wise, but the artist IS choosing to be a part of the system, right? |
|
