Next Debate: Digital Piracy as civil disobedience?

11/18/2005 04:46:12 PM · #26

When I was younger, I downloaded tons of music from the original Napster. As I got older I realized that this was unethical and of poor character. In response to this new viewpoint, I cut up my stolen music collection and purchased the music.

Now I have a clear conscience when I listen to the music of artists that I enjoy and admire.

mycelium

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/18/2005 04:46:57 PM · #27

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Back to the philosophy of it all. It seems easy to admire civil disobedience when it comes at a cost to the protestor. Chaining yourself to an old-growth tree or a bulldozer comes at risk and no benefit to the person brave enough to do it.

It's harder to admire the activity when the "protest" involves gaining something. My question is whether this is enough to disapprove? CD prices seem to have come down over the last 5-7 years. Personally, I feel they would not be at that price if peer-to-peer did not exist. Selling songs online for $1 show me the companies still don't get it. Since there are 10-14 songs on an album, the price is virtually identical and the costs involved are even less (no jacket liner, etc).

There is a price point where peer-to-peer would cease to be an issue. I strongly believe that price point is one where the company would still make a profit (although I have no way to prove this). Only though the collective thumbing of our noses will the companies learn to lower their price to this magic level.

One music service I found online, emusic, has much more reasonable pricing: their most expensive plan is about 25 cents per song. Their musical selection tends to exclude a lot of the more mainstream stuff, but this definitely still shows that music distribution can be profitable at much less than other services available (e.g., iTunes.)

Philosophically speaking, I am hesitant to back the idea that unauthorized file sharing can really be called civil disobedience. When I say "civil disobedience," I mean an open act of willful defiance against a particular law for one or both of two reasons: (1) because the law is immoral; or (2) to draw attention to the issue and focus a debate.

With regard to (1), the issue here is not one of legality. We can broaden the definition of civil disobedience to include defiance against corporate policy, but then the timbre of the whole thing starts to sound different. I certainly hope that the lines between law and corporate policy remain distinct. You could say that it's immoral for music corps to charge the amount of money that they do, but at a prima facie level, I think that may be too strong a claim. Assuming the high prices of CDs are driven by corporate greed, the question becomes one of whether or not greed is morally wrong.

With regard to (2), I can only speak generally. I don't think that most people, when they download music from Kazaa or the like, are making\ a conscious political act to draw attention to anything; I think they are simply interested in getting music for free. It's also possible that some contingent of music downloaders are truly unaware that they are breaking any law, in which case they necessarily are not politically motivated. And of those people who DO give some thought to the ramifications of unauthorized file sharing, I suspect that many would rather NOT have attention focused on the issue; they'd be happy to have the companies and the courts simply ignore them.

On an individual basis, I think that someone could claim that they download music to focus attention on the problems with the music industry and its pricing, but as you said, Jason, that does look like a self-serving claim.

I think the more difficult issue is (1) and the question of the moral status of greed. Not prepared to answer that in this one post :P

11/18/2005 04:48:28 PM · #28

Originally posted by digitalpins:

Ok I understand what your are saying but lets say you and a friends are trading a few cds that u brought a month is that the samething? Also when people used tapes and made you a tape from a cd or a song you like that lead you to by the cd is that the samething?

I'm actually less interested in the legality of things. Leave that to the courts. Apparently in Canada it isn't illegal. My personal argument either hinges on the justification of civil disobedience or on nothing. And as I just read from mycelium, I may be looking for a better term that that. As I mentioned above, The Boston Tea Party was fairly close. It can be thought of as civil disobedience, but it also had direct financial implications to the parties involved.

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:51:40.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/18/2005 04:50:02 PM · #29

Originally posted by digitalpins:

The big difference is the volume of your friends - It's not like any of us could lend a CD to 250,000 of out closest friends.

See, as much as I hate it, I sort of agree with some points from the companies. It's just that it's tough to agree with a company that is doing whatever it can to rip your money and your rights (and worse succeding at it very well).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/18/2005 04:54:55 PM · #30

Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I understand Sony is recalling the copy-protected CD's it sold.

So what - Are they going to come and remove the worm-ware on peoples machines? What about penalities for a breah this serious?

Yes there are removal tools available. Here's David Pogue's latest article on this in the New York Times ...
========
Thursday, October 17, 2005

A Record Turnaround

The public has spoken! Power to the people! The masses smote the faceless monolithic corporate entity, which now cowers in shame!

I'm speaking, of course, about the spectacular turnaround in the attitude of Sony BMG records. Last week, I wrote in this space about the nasty copy-protection software that the company installed on several dozen of its music CD's. Stick one of those puppies in your Windows computer (Macs are immune), and you get yourself an invisible "rootkit" program that runs in the background without your knowledge, and even serves as a theoretical hiding place for viruses.

As I mentioned last week, the record company was shockingly unrepentant at first. No apology was forthcoming-only, with prodding, "We understand what the concern was." And no action was forthcoming, either, except to post a patch that makes the invisible copy-protection program visible again, so that antivirus software could see it.

But since my last report, the story unraveled with breathtaking speed. Within days, two ACTUAL viruses emerged, each designed to take advantage of Sony BMG's little backdoor. The outcry online rose to deafening levels, spreading from ordinary citizens to university professors, software companies and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org).

Finally, Sony BMG cried uncle. The company had already announced that it would no longer use the rootkit method of copy-protecting its CD's. Next, it announced that it would stop shipping all of the existing albums that included the software, and even remove the 3 million discs already on store shelves.

Then it went even farther, and actually recalled the 2 million rootkit discs that had already been sold-a costly move. If you bought one of these albums, Sony BMG will exchange it for the same CD minus the nasty software; shipping will be free both ways. Details, along with an uninstaller, will be posted at //www.sonybmg.com.

Finally, there was, yes, a belated but strong apology. "We deeply regret any inconvenience this may cause our customers and we are committed to making this situation right," says a letter on its Web site.

Overall, Sony's general incompetence when it comes to digital music boggles the mind. First there was its "iPod killer" music players, which were initially released without the ability to play a little file format called MP3. Then there was its disastrous Connect music store, whose design was so wasteful of screen space it was almost unusable. And now the astonishing move to copy-protect all of its music CD's-ironically, in some cases, over the strident objections of the actual bands-with software that behaves like spyware.

In any case, readers have flooded my mailbox all week with questions and comments. Here's a sampling, some with my responses added.

* "Is there a list of the affected CD's somewhere?"

There's a partial list at //www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004144.php. Sony initially refused to identify the complete list, but now says that it will post the list on its Web site soon. Meanwhile, you can tell if your CD has the rootkit protection by looking at the back. If you see a black and white table called "Compatible With," it's copy-protected; if the Web address at the bottom of table ends with XCP, it's protected using the rootkit method.

* Angry consumers took their unhappiness directly to other consumers, using public arenas like the Amazon customer reviews for the affected albums: "I was so looking forward to the release of this album. But as a matter of principle, I will NOT purchase it. I sincerely hope that the disc buying public boycotts this and every disc that contains a copyright virus on it."

Don't be surprised if Sony BMG sees a dip in sales as a result of its newly publicized copy-protection tactics. Also don't be surprised if its executives learn exactly the wrong lesson: "CD sales have slipped some more! Must be those darned music pirates. Full speed ahead with the aggressive copy protection!"

* "David, the copyright watchdog application runs all the time, and eats up a percent or so of your processing capability. Other security watchdogs also run in the background all the time, and they steal CPU power, too.

"If you get stuck with several of these little beasts, your expensive computer will start to run slowly. Molasses-like slowly. A court of law would find that the vendors do not have the right to slow your computer down for their sole benefit."

* "Sony, please note: There is no right way to do a wrong thing. Wrong is wrong. When you are wrong, say you are SORRY and promise not to do it again."

This time, at least, the people won. It's amazing what the Internet makes possible when enough people get angry enough.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/18/2005 05:02:16 PM · #31

Originally posted by robs:

What would people have thought in the days of cassette tapes if they made you buy a copy for the car and another for the house and another for the walkman?

When cassettes came out, they tried. I believe part of the price of a blank video-cassette is (or used to be) payable to TV/movie companies ... if you ever see blank CD-Rs labelled "Music CD" you'll notice they cost more than regular "data" CDs -- for the same reason.

11/18/2005 05:10:18 PM · #32

The terrible thing is I was just ready to check out iTunes or other stores. Then I read they are upping the prices soon. I already think the prices are too high. My point is between .25 and .50 a song. At that price it's easier and cheaper for me just to buy a legal version. Raising prices will just scare me away again.

I also got furiously indignant when I read that Sony's protection program used open source code without crediting the open source or becoming open source themselves (which is required). It seems the pinnacle of irony and arrogance when you steal intellectual property to protect intellectual property...

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 17:11:14.

11/18/2005 05:10:52 PM · #33

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by robs:
What would people have thought in the days of cassette tapes if they made you buy a copy for the car and another for the house and another for the walkman?

When cassettes came out, they tried. I believe part of the price of a blank video-cassette is (or used to be) payable to TV/movie companies ... if you ever see blank CD-Rs labelled "Music CD" you'll notice they cost more than regular "data" CDs -- for the same reason.

The music CD's cost more because they supposedly play on more CD players (older, etc.). This is marketing, not a record company tax of blank media. You couldn't tax blank media... why would a record company deserve a tax on a recording I made of myself at a piano recital?

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/18/2005 05:19:47 PM · #34

Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by eslaydog:
How does stealing an artists word stick it to big business and not to them?

As DrAchoo pointed out, the artists who produce the music you can buy in stores (or download online) have, by the time you get around to listening, made just about all the money from that recording that they're going to. The only entity that has a real financial stake in the CDs at the store is the music publisher, not the artist--so when you download a CD instead of buying it, the bottom line you're affecting is the publisher's, not the artist's.

I know people in the business - in fact one of the artists whose CD had the offending rootkit software on it. They do get royalties, and they do depend on them for their livelyhood. I'm good friends with one of their father's who has been in music for 30+ years, and he gets royalty checks to this day.

There is, however, a grain of truth behind it. It is particularly the case with new or less established artists that they do get fronted the money to produce their albums, and they do not receive any royalty payments until those costs are recouped by the record companies. Whether the formulas and practices are fair or not, I can't speak to, but I don't doubt the record company will keep everything they possibly can. However, fair or not, illegal downloading can still have an effect here. If the record companies cannot hope to recover their costs (and make a profit, of course) on new artists or those out of the mainstream, then there is no incentive to put money into those artists, and the whole industry suffers.

Now, I'm not at all defending the record industry, and especially not Sony. I think they should be nailed to the wall in whatever way it can be done. They screwed up, and they've been covering up ever since. I just want to disprove the idea that artists never see any money from royalties. It simply isn't true.

(For my 2-cents, I think its likely as much incompetence and "the bottom line" as it is maliciousness - some exec probably said "figure out a way to copy protect our CDs", and by the time the demand filtered its way through upper manangement, middle-manangement, down to some supervisor who had to get it done for the lowest cost to keep in budget, who subcontracted to some unknown software outfit in Britain - well, you get a cheap, faulty solution.)

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/18/2005 05:23:06 PM · #35

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eslaydog:
Dr. Thanks for being such a civil debater. I appreciate you not getting heated about our possibly differing opinions.

The only solution would be to not buy something you feel is overpriced. Maybe subscribing to a mp3 service like Napster will seem more fair to some. I don't have a solution to the problem - I just know stealing should not be one of the answers.

Well, I'm trying to answer this for myself. I download music (although like robs says, the volume is hardly high, a few songs a month) and I've always wondered if this argument is a "nice excuse" to do something that is otherwise dodgy. I've never known what the reality is.

Protesters often end up in jail. They know this possibility exists ahead of time, and sometimes even see it as a badge of honor. So: Are you willing to pay the price if you choose to protest? (I'm not judging you one way or the other, just pointing out what you're getting into.) :)

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

11/18/2005 05:35:27 PM · #36

Great point ScottK. I doubt I'm willing to go to jail.

Hey Mycelium, thanks for the turnon to emusic. I'm seriously interested. I really wish I didn't have to register before I check out their catalog. I tend to like less popular music which may have more chance to be on their site.

Are you a member? Let me give you three bands and you tell me if any are on it. It would be a really basic way to test their library.

Nickel Creek
Dandy Warhols
Finley Quaye

EDIT: I found a way in. 0 for 3. That's not good...

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 17:40:12.

coolhar

11/18/2005 05:44:56 PM · #37

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I am quite sympathetic to your point of view but the terms that you are using, and the historical parallel are inaccurate. Civil disobedience is a well established concept. It involves citizens speaking out against injustices from government at the risk of arrest or worse. The Boston Tea party was a citizens against unjust taxes and tyranny dispute. The present situation is consumers against corporations. It is an entirely different ballgame, one in which the government may become the ally of either party and sway the balance.

Sony needs to be held accountable, and punished, in a manner that will allow consumers, as a group, to be better off afterwards. I am hoping that they will be made an example in a way that deters anyone from ever trying such a stupid stunt in the future, but I'm not holding my breath.

What we can all do is just refuse to buy any of their products; and pressure our officials to fashion adequate safeguards to prevent repeats. To me, that means I won't buy any product from Sony -- CDs (which are sold under many brand names), TVs, computers, movies, or digital cameras.

mycelium

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/18/2005 06:20:28 PM · #38

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dandy Warhols

Great band! I discovered these guys sometime in about 1998, just before "Come Down" came out. It and "Welcome to the Monkey House" are both very high in my favor.

If that's the kind of music you like, I can't give you many recommendations (at least as far as emusic goes) - I've mostly been rooting out electronic music. A few good groups from that genre that are available on emusic (that are also relatively well known) are Shpongle, Pete Namlook, and Dieselboy.

My relationship with emusic began through Winamp, which gave with it a free 100-song-download emusic trial when getting the latest Winamp release. They might still be offering something similar.

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/18/2005 06:34:11 PM · #39

My Iriver MP3 player has FM radio and also recording capability. It can record any broadcast over the FM frequency, and I've even used it with a line-in to my XM radio. On the Iriver itself, the recording is in a proprietary format. Once uploaded to my hard drive, it automatically converts to a DRM-free MP3 that can be e-mailed, shared with whoever, burned however many times I like, transferred to any number of computers I like, etc. I do not participate in peer-to-peer networks or any file sharing. Other than converting cassette tapes to MP3's using this feature, and some hilariously funny (and surreptitious) recording of karoake singing by my cousins, I've never actually used those capabilities of my MP3 player.

For debate: would you consider it wrong to take music obtained freely (via FM broadcast), creating DRM-free MP3's, and distributing them to whoever might also be in the radio station's listening area? Does it matter if the person with whom you share the recording is within signal range of the radio station? Finally, if record companies are so uptight about DRM in the CD/legal downloading aspect of it, why are they continuing to broadcast the music free of charge on the radio?

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

11/18/2005 07:11:37 PM · #40

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Artists, as far as I have been able to read, are, by in large, unaffected in a financial sense. Royalties are rarely realized and most contracts have the majority of money in the "signing advance". Concerts are the real moneymakers, and there, peer-to-peer sharing may even help the artist.

Royalties from the first CD are rarely realized. The band gets a very small percentage of the sale of the first CD. After that it does indeed hurt the artist, not to mention that if sales are not good for the first CD the recording company is not going to be very motivated to promote the band for a second. So, yes, it does hurt the artist. Everything else is mere rationalization.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

11/19/2005 09:44:39 AM · #41

For a while I've wanted to mail checks to the actual artists I've downloaded music of. Most of the time I pay for mp3s from a legit site, or purchase their cd if I keep the music. But that's not always possible.

I've yet to figure out a way to do this, though, without incriminating myself. "Hey! I downloaded your music illegally!"

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/19/2005 10:18:55 AM · #42

I just bought three "albums" on iTunes yesterday (to date, I have spent over $500 at ITMS). I learned of the artist from an independent podcast (Roadhouse Blues) and looked up the artist on both Amazon and iTunes. The Amazon albums were all between $14 and $18 - very much in line with record store prices locally. The ITMS version were all $9.99 per album, as has been the ITMS policy since opening. With ITMS, I had my music on my iPod within minutes and have been enjoying it ever since. Some will quibble about the sound quality of the 128kbs tracks sold online, but in my own testing, it has passed the quality-standard with flying colors. I do miss the album art, lyrics, and liner notes, but let's face it, that's just never been the same since the demise of LPs.

With regard to the original question of civil disobedience and illegal downloading, I believe that there is no legitimate excuse for stealing music. As badly as artists are treated by major labels, stealing their music in no way will ever help them, or fix the situation. I think we're in the beginning stages of a transition from traditional shrink-wrap packaging to online distribution of music and entertainment products. Part of that transition will be more and more artists going with self-distribution and self-publishing, unless the labels find a way to jump onboard and stop their obstructionist profit-hoarding. It seems clear to me that Apple's model is the wave of the future (as opposed to subscription based services). Find a way to purchase your music legally. Listen to the artists (who want to put the music in your hands, and support the legitimate online vendors.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

11/19/2005 10:26:01 AM · #43

Originally posted by A1275:

For debate: would you consider it wrong to take music obtained freely (via FM broadcast), creating DRM-free MP3's, and distributing them to whoever might also be in the radio station's listening area? Does it matter if the person with whom you share the recording is within signal range of the radio station? Finally, if record companies are so uptight about DRM in the CD/legal downloading aspect of it, why are they continuing to broadcast the music free of charge on the radio?

To start off at the very least your recording would have to include the advertisements. Even then I'm not positive but I think it's still illegal. Secondly, they allow broadcasting of their music to get word out to sell cd's. Radio stations must also pay for the rights to play the music. Thus the need for advertising. Third the quality isn't that great, CD quality radio (satellite radio) is (for now) only subscription based. Lastly, only 'singles' are allowed to be played on radio stations. For example, the song the record company thinks will be the most popular (to sell the most cd's) is probably the song that will be allowed to aire. Over time more of the tracks will be allowed to aire.

For anyone whose interested, I use allofmp3 for my music downloads. The price is about 5-10 cents per song (based on the quality you choose, up to 320kbps for us audiophiles). Although I can't imagine (at that price) much if any of the sale price going to the artists. (a quick search says they pay license fees)Although I've heard rumors that the same occurs with music services like BMG and such. (notice how much cheaper their cd's are than retail)

Lastly a pretty good read on how much the actual band makes with your average record deal. The problem with music

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 11:03:46.

11/19/2005 10:48:38 AM · #44

Originally posted by jadin:

For anyone whose interested, I use allofmp3 for my music downloads. The price is about 5-10 cents per song (based on the quality you choose, up to 320kbps for us audiophiles). Although I can't imagine (at that price) much if any of the sale price going to the artists. (a quick search says they pay license fees)Although I've heard rumors that the same occurs with music services like BMG and such. (notice how much cheaper their cd's are than retail)

Lastly a pretty good read on how much the actual band makes with your average record deal. [url=//www.arancidamoeba.com/m
rr/problemwithmusic.html]The problem with music[/url]

This looks great. But, it can't be legal. A Russian site that sells entire new release albums for $1.59. It's buying stolen merchandise - too bad, these prices are unbelievable.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

11/19/2005 10:53:50 AM · #45

A quick google found this : allofmp3 FAQ

Actually not a bad read...

A few quotes:

Originally posted by allofmp3 FAQ:

â��MP3's, OGG's, etc are not illegal in the USA and therefore can be imported. There is also no law against importing music from other countries (including Russia). Because you are buying this legally in Russia and then importing to the USA, this should be 100% legit. For example, assuming that Russian Vodka is illegal to buy in the USA on Sunday, but you buy the Russian Vodka in Moscow on Sunday, then you import it into the USA, you have done nothing wrong.

Originally posted by allofmp3 FAQ:

The Music Industry claims that Allofmp3 is illegal. Their opinion is that recorded music has three sets of rights. The songwriter has the copyright to the song, the artist his own rights in it, and the record label and producers a third set. Allofmp3 is paying the songwriters, via the collection agency ROMS, but they are acting without the permission of the other copyright holders.

So It is legal to use for U.S. Citizens.

However, only the artist receives it's royalties, the record label and producers do not... since that's how Russian law works.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 11:28:50.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/19/2005 10:55:35 AM · #46

The last I heard, the statutory royalty rate for a "mechanical copy" (i.e. record/tape/CD/file download) is around 6 cents for a song under five minutes long. This royalty would be due to (each) the composer(s)/author(s)/publisher(s) of the piece and the performing artist(s).

After Napster but before iTunes, I always thought that the logical price structure for a track was $0.25: 8 cents to the writers, 8 cents to the recording artist, 8 cents to the record company who fronted the production costs, and 1 cent to the host/distributor site.

11/19/2005 11:21:52 AM · #47

Re: Allofmp3.com

How I wish this were true. I wish I could ethically download from this site, but I just can't. How is the artist getting paid for this? Should I steal from artists that I admire and enjoy?

Would you be ok with a Russian taking your photos and selling them via Russia for pennies on the dollar because of a loophole? Obviously selling music is a bigger $ business than any of our photography work, but the principles are the same.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 11:22:29.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

11/19/2005 11:28:20 AM · #48

Originally posted by eslaydog:

From the FAQ :

Originally posted by allofmp3 FAQ:

ROMS manages intellectual rights in the Russian Federation. All third party distributors licensed by ROMS are required to pay a portion of the revenue to the ROMS. ROMS in turn, is obligated to pay most of that money (aside from small portion it needs for operating expenses) to artists. Both Russian and foreign.

So, yes, I'm confident the artist receives their fair share. Anyone else involved with the making of said music, however, does not.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 11:29:36.

11/19/2005 11:35:42 AM · #49

Allofmp3 seems like the best of all worlds. Cheap prices and reimbursement for the artist. I'm always pretty skeptical of "if it's too good to be true...", so I think it's going to take a bit of investigating including 3rd party opinions. I'm interested though...

It seems less illegal than buying something online and not paying sales tax on it. (Most states have a line on their income tax forms asking for reimbursement for online purchases...)

I'm not totally convinced yet. I don't want my money to wind up with the russian mob.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 11:37:42.