Blu Ray Already Meets Piracy

[lari]

I think the "making the biggest deal about it" part has more to do with upcoming bands not wanting to turn off their few fans by making controversial statements or becoming spokespeople for the RIAA. But obviously bands that only sell 10,000 copies suffer the most from having thousands download their album instead of buying it. And it does affect how they are going to get booked for tours or if they will get re-signed for the next album, much more so than an artists that sells 1,000,000 copies instead of 1,500,000 if all illegal downloaders bought their album. Also, not as much weight is put into the statements of small bands. When a local band says they oppose piracy, it's hardly reported in any news. But when a multimillion seller says the same thing, it's all over the internet.

[Cactus Drags]

£15 for a CD at places like HMV is insane, especially when you consider how little from each sale the artist actually gets. I don't know how some of you guys can say prices are fine.

Personally, I download an arseload of music. If I like it, I fully intend to buy the CD (I've gotten a little behind on that lately due to being a broke-ass student, but still). If I don't, I delete it. And I let my friends know either way, and my friends do the same. So the promotional value is pretty massive.

The problem is how to effectively fight piracy without fucking over the consumer. Sure you can put loads of protection stuff on CDs, but where does that live people who want to rip their CDs to their computer to transfer to their mp3 players and whatnot?

I find music piracy more acceptable than other forms like gaming (seriously, who's going to burn a game, decide they like it, then go and buy it?), not sure if that's the right way of thinking, but meh.

[gunnar hendershow]

Another thing. I've often had friends send me albums they adore, and vice versa. Is this a form of piracy also? I'm just wondering how everyone else defines it.

[Crybaby Bunting]

I remember a quote somewhere saying that downloading affects cd sales, because whenever cds are produced that can't be ripped into mp3 form then people dont buy it.

[lari]

£15 for a CD at places like HMV is insane, especially when you consider how little from each sale the artist actually gets. I don't know how some of you guys can say prices are fine.

[zero]

And just think about it: $20 isn't much for something that brings enjoyment for the rest of your life. What's $20 - a few pints in a club? For those who say it's too much for a CD, it just means you haven't found good music yet.

I hate to say this, because it makes me sound like my dad, but I remember a day where new CDs were $12, and that was just ten years ago. Has music quality improved so much in the last decade that it justifies an $8 increase? Actually, if we're going by music quality, CDs should be $4 now. I paid $20 in 1995 for the Smashing Pumpkins "Mellon Collie & the Infinite Sadness," a double album and quite possibly my favorite album of all time. Fair enough, I'll pay an extra couple bucks for a double album, but in 98, I paid $12 for "Adore," their follow-up. I remember it vividly, one day I went into the same record store and saw twelve-track albums for $20; what were they? Britney, Christina, NSync, etc. And this carried over into other genres and it just really bugged me because I know it wasn't inflation. It's more likely that they're pumping more money into the production of an album, but nothing is any better than it was ten years ago.

[lari]

You also have to think part of the increase in price is due to piracy. There's a certain budget and certain expectation of sales figures for each album. As sad as it is, part of the losses are covered by charging more from those who actually do buy the CD.

[Cactus Drags]

£15 for a CD at places like HMV is insane, especially when you consider how little from each sale the artist actually gets. I don't know how some of you guys can say prices are fine.

See, you're underestimating the value of work of everyone else but the musician in the music industry. Sure the music is the most important thing, but studio time costs, promotion costs and people who work there deserve to get paid for their hard work. They have families, they work full days. Studio engineers, people at the manufacturing plant, artists who design booklets, everyone - their work benefits the band and they all work for their (often not so large, at least compared to the artists) pay. How can you say their work isn't worth anything?

[Rashid]

For me to buy a CD at Wal-Mart, I'm expected to spend around $10-20, which I don't find too bad. I do get my "moneys worth" out of most of my CDs. I bought Nirvana's Nerermind 1/2 years ago and since then probably listened to it all way through 20-30 times.

Now I'm only a paper boy, so I make very little money. So I'll admit, I download music. Just not "tons". I have about 190 songs on my computer, half of which are songs I have the CDs of and just ripped them on my computer. I have actually downloaded an entire album on 1 occasion, and another time someone sended me all the songs on an album.. I may buy them in the future, depending on my budget.

[lari]

:pinch:

But groups like the RIAA aren't discriminating, they're going after anyone who downloads a lot. I get your point, and fully agree with it, but anti-piracy groups aren't checking everyone's activity saying "Wow, 5000 songs downloaded in the last two months, but wait, they purchased the CDs after downloading, nevermind."

Not sure where you're going with the last point, I don't think £15 for a CD is acceptable regardless of genre or taste.

[Godfatha]

:pinch:

But groups like the RIAA aren't discriminating, they're going after anyone who downloads a lot. I get your point, and fully agree with it, but anti-piracy groups aren't checking everyone's activity saying "Wow, 5000 songs downloaded in the last two months, but wait, they purchased the CDs after downloading, nevermind."

Not sure where you're going with the last point, I don't think £15 for a CD is acceptable regardless of genre or taste.

Well, I don't think going after the downloaders is the answer. In the file-sharing communities of today it's hard to know what is and what isn't legal anymore. Remember, some of that stuff is publically shared anyway, like a lot of mp3's and videos, if you just check the official website. It's better to go after the uploaders, since they are the ones infringing on copyright. Even worse are the people who sell pirated CD's for profit.

And I'm not a spokesperson for RIAA, but I don't think they've gone after downloaders so far. As far as I know, it's people who have put up copyrighted material on the internet available for anyone to get.

Anyway, to summarize my opinion so I don't need to repeat it, and a lot of you probably already think I'm trying to "win" the argument by flooding the thread with my number of replies, I am AGAINST copy-protected media that hurts the functionality of the item (everyone who bought it shoule be able to copy it as they please for their own use) and I am FOR punishing people who share copyrighted media. "Punishing" doesn't necessarily mean billion dollar compensation (like some of the lawsuits we've seen) or jail time, but just fines on scale with how much damage they did to the owner of the copyright. Obviously if the files you shared have been downloaded by thousands, you are responsible for them all.

[lari]

If you share CD's with strangers online, that's what you are responsible for. Thousands of downloads. I was refering to people who rip a CD for their friend to sample and hear. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Even if that was a crime, the damages wouldn't exceed the price of one CD. But putting an album up for anyone in the world to get at any time they want is a whole different thing. That's what I feel they should try and eliminate.

[NIN Horror]

Alright I have a question, some libraries (the places where you check out books) also have movies, and cd’s available for checking out. So naturally, someone who checks out a cd will burn it to their computer (if they have one), so is this piracy? An unlimited number of people have the ability to get multiple albums for free, without paying a dime, would you consider this piracy?

[lari]

No, unless you put it online for everyone in the world to get. It's the same as with books. I've discovered quite a few bands after first borrowing a CD from the library. A CD you get from the library isn't different to an album you borrow from your friend - if you like it, you buy your own copy. If you don't, why even bother keeping it on your PC/iPod? It doesn't even mean you are obliged to buy a hundred CD's a year. Just those few you really enjoy.

[Godfatha]

If you share CD's with strangers online, that's what you are responsible for. Thousands of downloads. I was refering to people who rip a CD for their friend to sample and hear. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Even if that was a crime, the damages wouldn't exceed the price of one CD. But putting an album up for anyone in the world to get at any time they want is a whole different thing. That's what I feel they should try and eliminate.

[lari]

You're right, there isn't much of a difference between sharing CDs online or with your friends, except the magnitude. Copying a CD to your friend is worth what, $10-$20? But to put it up online where anyone can get it can mean losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Though obviously copying CD's to friends is still morally wrong - why not just borrow your copy for him for a week and let him hear it and see if he likes it?

And it's not really that complicated. If your friend opts to share a CD online he got from you, it's his responsibility and he has infringed on copyright. You only copied a disc once and there's no way anyone would sue you for damages of $10-$20. If you share your CD online and a thousand people download it, you are responsible for 1,000 downloads. If some of those 1,000 internet users then opt to share their copy, they are also infringing on copyright and are liable for damages depending how they decided to share the music. There's a difference in, for instance, sharing a CD to a limited number of people via Messenger or something and putting it up on a file-sharing program where any user in the world has access to it.

[gunnar hendershow]

Another thing I've wondered about piracy. Where do places like YouTube come into it, specifically if you, like myself, go there to watch music videos of bands you like. You're getting the same song as it is on CD, but you don't ever have to buy the CD to hear it. I'm more or less playing devil's advocate here and wondering where everyone stands on these various gray areas to piracy.

[lari]

Bands probably want their promotional videos to be out as much as possible. That's why they were shot in the first place. It's not like they are available for purchase. Playing a video on Youtube ain't any different than it is to catch one on the radio or on MTV. Having those 'self-made' videos with a different song on the background is a grey area though. As long as it's not for commercial purpose, I don't see the harm in that really. Just my opinion though.

[Godfatha]

Again, I fail to see the difference between the "it's ok for you to send it to a few people to do it, but not many." It doesn't work that way. An illegal act is an illegal act.

As for Youtube, more often than not, it's random users who put the videos out on Youtube. It's still available for millions of people to get the song/video. The argument of "promotional material" can't be used here unless you use it for how people share mp3's of bands who are trying to make a name for themselves.

You can't just pick and choose arguments when it suits you. Playing a video on Youtube isn't the same as watching MTV or listening to the radio. With Youtube you can access any video of any song, with MTV and the radio, you have to wait for it to come on and be lucky. Also, I'm assuming that MTV and radios have a licence to distribute the music over the air. Prior to being bought out to Google, they didn't which is why a lot of videos have been shut down due to copyright.

[NIN Horror]

Playing a video on Youtube isn't the same as watching MTV or listening to the radio. With Youtube you can access any video of any song, with MTV and the radio, you have to wait for it to come on and be lucky.