Next Debate: Digital Piracy as civil disobedience?

11/18/2005 12:21:55 PM · #1

As if we didn't have enough hot button threads running currently, but I was curious as to what people on this site though. I'm hoping to have at least 20 reasonable replies before the conversation degrades into flamewars.

It seems to me that large music labels wield vast amounts of power and that artists and consumers are victims to the bottom line. Now the recent debacle at Sony appears to show a) they have little regard for integrity b) they have little regard for personal property if it ensures the protection of their's c) they have little regard for other copyright protection (ie. following open source rules).

My question is this: downloading music from peer-to-peer is likely illegal. Is there a place for doing this as an act of civil disobedience or sabotage (in the original sense of the word) in the name of effecting change?

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.

I thought this site would be interesting as we have members who are professional artists and rely on copyright protection for their livlihood. On the other hand, many of us are music consumers as well and so there may be a difference of opinion.

Keep it civilized...

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/18/2005 01:22:14 PM · #2

I agree it might work if in enough numbers (obviously) but then so would a boycott and that is just not going to happen in large enough numbers to affect these greedy companies.

I personally have been returning to the store any CD's that refuse to play on my computers CD drive. It's false advertising to sell a CD when it no longer meets the definition of that format (some of the copy protection affected the ability to play on some drives). It's usually an argument and I sometime still have the CD but it's my only way to protest - some of them agree so don't blink.

I would like to see somebody go after Sony for this particular practice (class action suits as much as I hate them, do have some affect) but would also like to see criminal action started against the executives who made these decisions (unlikely).

** In other contexts installing software that hides from the end-user like this and causes hardware errors when manually removed is considered terrorism. ** (sorry might be putting in danger that 20 limit before turning into rant :-)).

I hope that this comes back to bit them and people wake up to the poor laws that have been passed - but I don't hold out much hope since they have far far more powerful lobbiests and pols than the comsumers.

On the copyright side; It's important that there is a balance between fair use and protection - the record/movie companies are currently way way too far on their side of this.

I thing that a technology change needs to occur to have this built in (like self destructing file formats - after so many plays, prints, views e.t.c.) but I am scared to even think of this because of what the big company could do with it given the current state of the consumer rights. It would obviouly not help the vast libraries already existing.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/18/2005 02:56:45 PM · #3

I understand Sony is recalling the copy-protected CD's it sold.

I simply don't buy any CDs, I download. I'm willing to pay for my music, but many times I don't want a whole album just for the one or two songs I like. I can burn CD's to listen to and I don't have to worry about losing them, getting them stolen since I can just burn a new one.

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

11/18/2005 03:05:24 PM · #4

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?

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

11/18/2005 03:09:19 PM · #5

I have heard about some class action suits that are supposed to be under way.
Not that it will do any good......

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

11/18/2005 03:25:45 PM · #6

You can't steal something just because you feel it costs too much. The true way to fight it would be to not buy something you feel is overpriced.

Stealing cars won't send a message to Ford to lower the price on an Explorer.

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

11/18/2005 03:43:45 PM · #7

Originally posted by eslaydog:

Well, it would make for nicer car payments...;)

But you're right, the only power the consumer truly has is the boycott when there is no choice of products to make the free market work.

11/18/2005 03:49:28 PM · #8

Originally posted by eslaydog:

Unless you stole it from the assembly plant, it wouldn't matter to Ford at all...

But ot a bad point. But in this case stealing may keep the artist from suffering while sticking it to big business. It's also at least somewhat different in that the stealing is realing stealing copies, something there is at least precedent for (the strength of that precendent being the real debate)...

The Boston Tea Party was more than a boycott, and we seem to think highly enough about that...

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:00:32.

11/18/2005 04:06:45 PM · #9

I can't remember the last time I brought a cd, I download all my music sometimes I want only one song beacause sometimes no most of the time the whole cd sucks. But even if you do legally now like from for example Itunes they want to charge your more now. I just read that these greedy record companies are going after Itunes-apple/Steve Jobs to raise the prices of downloads. First the companines complain about illegal downloads then they complain about the prices for legal downloads. If you legaly get your music think 99 cents for a single song is great. But they want more money which will lead to more..... well as they call it ilegall downloading. I actually think that the downloading whatever type it is helps the artist. They are so many songs or artist that I have been introduced to since mp3's came along. And the downloading leads to word of mouth and the purchase of an artist cd or the purchase of downloads or purchase tickets to an artist concert.

And if I did buy a cd that did not play in my computer or cd player cause of some copy right thing you best to believe I am going to return it and download it for free,

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:12:07.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/18/2005 04:14:00 PM · #10

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eslaydog:
You can't steal something just because you feel it costs too much. The true way to fight it would be to not buy something you feel is overpriced.

Stealing cars won't send a message to Ford to lower the price on an Explorer.

Unless you stole it from the assembly plant, it wouldn't matter to Ford at all...

But ot a bad point. But in this case stealing may keep the artist from suffering while sticking it to big business. It's also at least somewhat different in that the stealing is realing stealing copies, something there is at least precedent for (the strength of that precendent being the real debate)...

The Boston Tea Party was more than a boycott, and we seem to think highly enough about that...

How does stealing an artists word stick it to big business and not to them?

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:15:21.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/18/2005 04:15:12 PM · #11

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?

I just stated it as a fact.

Personally, I didn't buy one of the CD's, so I haven't exacly kept on top of the issue. If Sony actually did something illegal, they should be punished. If it was legal, and people are just angry about it, well, too bad for them.

11/18/2005 04:18:05 PM · #12

Yep I agree I also did not buy one the sony cd's but yes they should be punished if they are found guilty and I would love to see someone try to make this a case in court.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

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?

I just stated it as a fact.

Personally, I didn't buy one of the CD's, so I haven't exacly kept on top of the issue. If Sony actually did something illegal, they should be punished. If it was legal, and people are just angry about it, well, too bad for them.

11/18/2005 04:18:47 PM · #13

As I understand it, the reality is 90% of artists sign a contract that has a "signing advance" on it. That is money paid to the artist which the company recoups through sales of their album. Even if no albums were sold, the artist does not need to pay this back. Beyond this there are royalties paid after the company has made enough money to cover its costs. Due to creative finances, few, if any, albums make enough money to pay for the costs, thus artists see little money beyond the initial contract.

Megaartists like U2 or Madonna probably have enough clout to ensure the finances are more legit (or go for royalties off of gross revenue not net (like movies)).

So peer-to-peer sharing just spreads the popularity of the artist (who make more money at concerts) and don't cost them anything. A few of the smart artists at the dawn of Napster encouraged file sharing until their labels yanked on their leash.

11/18/2005 04:20:41 PM · #14

Perfectly said PREACH ON......ol :)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

11/18/2005 04:27:11 PM · #15

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

With all do respect, Dr, I believe this is a myth that people use to rationalize stealing music. If you have some facts that back this up, please share.

11/18/2005 04:27:42 PM · #16

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.

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:28:34.

11/18/2005 04:28:31 PM · #17

Funny, I buy CD's but use them very little. The first thing I do is rip them to 192bit MP3's. I play music mostly on the desktop computer (all the time in the background something is playing) and also on an MP3 player that I use on the subway (no not an apple).

I really object to them trying to make me pay for each FORMAT I own. I purchased the CD all above board to listen to the music, what business is it of theirs how I choice to do that? I am NOT downloading illegally, I am NOT distributing copies, I OWN a CD for every MP3 file I have (apart from the couple of starter bands that have the MP3's on their web-site for the exposure, who are not signed to a contract anyway).

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? It's just money grabbing with pols bought off or too stupid to know better.

Sometime I wish I did get into "file-swapping" early on -> I did see it and understood the impact and understood that I could get somebody elses copy for free but chose to buy the same music on CD instead. I guess my reward for not ripping off the record compaines was this undercover, power hungry grab for my wallet.

All this "copy protection" does is shaft the consumer - the high volume copying operations are not affected.

11/18/2005 04:29:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thumbing our noses, yes. Stealing, no.

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/18/2005 04:29:14 PM · #19

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.

11/18/2005 04:31:01 PM · #20

Originally posted by robs:

I really object to them trying to make me pay for each FORMAT I own.

Me too. This sucks.

11/18/2005 04:32:02 PM · #21

Originally posted by eslaydog:

Thumbing our noses, yes. Stealing, no.

I'm certainly not saying your feeling is invalid. Is the only option you see boycott?

11/18/2005 04:35:22 PM · #22

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.

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:36:12.

11/18/2005 04:35:34 PM · #23

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's harder to admire the activity when the "protest" involves gaining something. My question is whether this is enough to disapprove?

It's a classic catch-22 thing. It's too hard to tell the protestors from the people abusing the system by this path. The problem is that by the large companies pushing so hard one way, people push harder the other.

Like I said in the previous post, I didn't download the free files when I could but now would likely have no issue with it - I don't because I couldn't be bothered - my consumption of music is a LOT lower now days, partly an age thing, partly a protest, partly that I already have more than I can listen to in a lifetime, partly due to discust at the fact that some artists cannot get a second/third record released due to too low volume on the first release but have music recorded and waiting.

Edit: That last point is missing a little factoid. A number of fairly sucessful artists (just where the first release was marginal in the opinion of the record company) are stuck with recorded music that they cannot release because the record company has the contract. The record company should be able to have first say if they hold the contract but they should not be able to stop the artist from releasing themselves if they don't want to - rather than sitting on it for when they feel like.

Message edited by author 2005-11-18 16:45:37.

11/18/2005 04:40:21 PM · #24

Originally posted by eslaydog:

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.