You make an interesting case in this essay. I'm glad you mention the fact that a download doesn't necessarily equate to a lost sale, though you do seemingly contradict this statement later on. I have a number of questions and a few criticisms of some of your arguments, though. It's a bit long, I'm afraid ;-)

Firstly you liken filesharing to going into a store, taking a CD to sample with the promise that it would be purchased later. This is a flawed argument, one that I've come across many times in the filesharing debate. When you remove physical property from someone you are depriving its owner of it. For the analogy to work you'd have to ask "would you go to a store, [make a digital copy of] a CD, listen to see if you like it...and pay if you did?" Now the analogy works but it gets us no closer to reaching a conclusive moral conclusion on filesharing, as filesharing is little different from that and millions of people are doing it. Theft is depriving someone of physical property so they can't use it themselves; so downloading a digital copy of a CD clearly isn't analogous to theft. It is not "piracy" either. Piracy suggests the profiting of someone from copyrightedl material that they don't own the copyright to. The vast majority of filesharing communities are non-profit. Some may ask for donations, but this is simply to pay for the costs of maintaining the website. Filesharing is copyright infringement, and as such part of the general debate on copyright, one I won't get into here. Terms such as "theft" and "piracy" are alienating and are likely to result in people being less receptive to what you have to say and, in some, cases start seeing actual theft and piracy to be more acceptable.

You mention "groups [that] are a way [for people] to pool their money so that they can each buy a different CD and make copies for all the other members of the group" and I'm wondering what kind of groups you are talking about. Do you have any examples? The filesharing groups I'm aware of didn't operate in this basis at all. Though organised (a remarkable insight into sociology for those interested) they are hardly organised to the point where they list CDs for each member to buy so they can listen to maximal music with minimal cost. This sounds like, I'm sorry to say, a distortion on your part to try and paint filesharing communities as single-minded, rigidly organised groups dedicated to listening to music while spending as little as possible on it.

You state rather simply that "copying and distributing or receiving music you didn't buy IS ILLEGAL" and then point out "It doesn't matter if you think it isn't, or you think you're doing the band a favor." Fundamentally it does matter if you don't think it should be or if you think you're doing the band a favour. The law is a social construct. It can, and does, change as society evolves. There are all sorts of behaviours that are, or were, illegal that various people think should or shouldn't be. In this respect, and others, the filesharing debate is similar to the debate on drug legalisation. Many people think that both should be legal and they are making their beliefs count. That's how society progresses. To simply state that something "IS ILLEGAL" is not an argument for or against its morality.

Your comments on CDs are a little baffling, to say the least. Firstly, you mention the price of CDs in America. I have to confess $12 sounds like a pretty good deal to me, one I've taken advantage of, however in this country many new releases cost that much in POUNDS, though it has to be said prices have begun to fall a little. Also, to say they cost the same as they did when they were first introduced, even allowing for inflation, isn't as significant a reduction in cost as one might think. When CDs were first introduced they were new and weren't widely used, so they were much more expensive than more prevalent music mediums, vinyls and cassettes. Compare them to DVDs, which, in a shorter time frame, have decreased dramatically in cost. I remember being really proud (silly I know) that my family was the first family I knew that had a DVD player and I was even more excited when a DVD store opened just down our road. This was some time around the year 2000 and DVDs cost £15-20 (around $30-40) each. Now, less than 10 years later I can walk into most high street stores and pick up a film on DVD for a fiver, and these are good quality films we're talking about, not bargain bucket B Movies that stores couldn't shift, for example I'm currently collecting the Studio Ghibli films on DVD and they range in price between £5 and £7. Even latest releases from that year can be had for under £10. This leads me on to another point that I shall adress later in my response.

You mention that you've been doing research on filesharing communities, which is good to know. It's always a good thing to look closer at newly arising social phenomena. I have to question some of your methodology and conclusions, though. On the face of it, the statistics you mention appear shocking, but when one takes the time to think about them, obvious questions arise. Firstly, what kinds of people are doing the downloading? Are they students or relatively wealthy IT consultants? Are they working class or middle class? Are they long-term music fans or are they recent appreciators of music. Each one of these questions, depending on the answer, radically affects the severity of the situation that the statistics paint. If the majority of filesharers are students, this tells us that they're unlikely to have large amounts of disposable income and so wouldn't be buying massive quantities of music even if they couldn't get access to it for free. Students, however, often go on to get high-paying jobs and so can then afford to start buying more music, including albums downloaded while their economic situation was less favourable. This brings me on to the next question, what class are they? If they are working class, I'm sorry to say, they are unlikely to have large amounts of expendable income, like students. Unlike students, however, they are, again unfortunately, less likely to be able to find a job that provides them with reasonable levels of expendable income and so are likely to buy back far less albums that they have downloaded. Finally, if they are people who have recently got into music because of the internet and the filesharing oppurtunities it allows then can you really consider their download a loss? I think not. In fact they're more likely to be gains, as at least some of them will start buying albums. Of course if the downloader demographics are made up mostly of wealthy, middle class, long-term music fans, downloading can be said to be the root cause of the decline in CD sales.

If filesharing isn't responsible for the decline in CD sales then, what is? This is a question I've thought a lot about over the past few days and I think I've found, aided by a number of articles on the subject, an answer that bears up to fairly intense scrutiny. The reason is linked to my comments on DVDs. Advancing technology has created a number of competitors to more traditional media forms. DVD sales have increased substantially since their inception, at the expense of cinemas, particularly independent cinemas. Digital television and online news articles, webzines and blogs have increased hugely too, at the expense of newspapers and magazines particularly, you guessed it, independent newspapers and magazines. Video games are also on the rise probably and at £30-40 a go that's the equivalent of 3 CDs someone's not going to buy. According to an article I read on the Business Week website, spending on entertainment and information media has gone up 32% from last year. The reason CD sales are declining is fairly simple then, people are spending their money on other things, things that they feel represent better value for money. Someone is much less likely to spend £12-15 on a CD when they can buy 2 2 hour films for the same price. A kid is much less likely to want to spend his pocket money on a few CDs when they can buy a computer game that will provide them with hours more entertainment. Amongst this shift consumption independent labels and distributors are suffering more, as the quotes you supply demonstrate, in part because people are buying other things, but also because in order to try and hang on to their lucrative positions large record labels and distributors are beginning to lower their prices. I remember reading one of Fish's emails where he talks about supermarket chains being able to afford to make a loss selling albums (his among them) because they can pick up profits elsewhere. This lost him money because, rather than people buying directly from him or from independent distributors, they were saving money by buying them in their local supermarket be it by buying albums by independent artists there or buying albums by other acts that are cheaper. As a result people are now eschewing independent artists that have to charge more for albums to stay afloat and doing business with larger corporate stores. Another consequence of the internet age is greater exposure to much wider ranges of music than people ever used to be. So now a consumer not only has to choose between buying the latest video game, movie or album, but also whether to buy the Prog album, the latest Indie album or the latest Death Metal album.

Something I'm glad you didn't mention in your essay was the "cult of entitlement" that I hear used by so many people opposed to filesharing. Nevertheless I'll address it here for the benefit of thoroughness. The "cult of entitlement" something of a non-argument used to evade serious discussion of the issues, somewhat akin to the term "moral equivalency" in international affairs, in this respect. It really doesn't mean anything, though. Being opposed to someone downloading an album without paying for it, when they wouldn't have bought the album anyway for whatever reason, is a personal moral judgement, nothing more.

A note on your suggested "alternatives" to filesharing. These are all good suggestions, ones I have participated in and suggested to other people. They are not really alternatives, though, and you inadvertantly point out in your second-to-last paragraph (these are extremely applicable to my experience, incidentally). "Remember some of those classic prog albums that you maybe didn't like at first, but then grew on you, like Brain Salad Surgery, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Relayer, and others? If all you did was listen to them once and toss them, then you would have missed out on the years of enjoyment it eventually did provide." People who download music seldom, to my knowledge, delete the albums before they've bought them. Sometimes they don't delete them when they have bought them. The reason for this is really twofold. 1) They want to listen to them thoroughly before making the purchase. They might not like an album on the first couple of listens, but 3rd or 4th might really click. It might take several months, even. 2) If the download is of good quality it will save them the time it takes to rip the CD to their computer, as this is what most downloaders will do with a CD. Also, if they order the CD on the internet, they can listen to the album while they wait for the hard copy to arrive. Now none of your proposed alternatives has the same advantages as downloading an album. Listening the the radio gives people one or two songs from an album out of context, played once through at a particular time in the day. Though radio stations often have requests this is not nearly as convenient as double clicking to play a whole album anytime you want. Songs on bands websites get rid of part of this problem, you can play them anytime you want, particularly if they're downloadable, however they are obviously one piece of an album and not necessarily indicative of the whole album. People probably use both of these methods in addition to downloading. They'll listen to an internet radio station or play some clips on a band's website and think "Hmmmm, that sounds pretty good I'll download it to see what the rest of the album's like" and, usually in my experience, if the downloaded album makes a good impression and they have sufficient fyunds they will then go and by it, afterall if they're spreading their money over DVDs, CDs, books, internet connection, digital TV etc, even if they do have access to a couple of songs from an album, they will probably want to check out whether the whole thing is any good or not before proceeding to purchase it, particularly if the CD costs significantly more than others they might be looking to buy. Listening parties, on the face of it, get round most of these problems, particularly if you can borrow the album from a friend, however it's still limited and can't be legally replicated on the internet. Who would want to send out their hard copy of an album they've never met outside of a website? More to the point who's willing to give out their address to strangers on the internet? I have experienced some generous people that send legitimate albums to people over the internet for free, but these people are rare. Essentially filesharing communities are one big listening party.

Finally, I'm pleased to note that you show some concern over the proposed infringement of civil liberties involved in embedding data in purchased MP3s and also that you aren't proposing adopting the reckless bullying tactics of the RIAA. It's worth mentioning, though, that the RIAA tactics aren't working either. They are causing a lot of anger amongst internet communities, including people who chose not to download and the result of this anger is greater resolve not to give in to a dinosaur industry stomping its feet and gnashing its teeth at scapegoat filesharers. The only way to combat revenues lost from improper use of filesharing, and I don't doubt that filesharing communities are allowing some unscrupulous people to take but not give back, is to promote awareness for the plight of independent artists in a changing market and hopefully keep them in the business until further technological developments come along that will allow them to compete more easily.

I hope you don't mind if I post this in my blog along with a link to your article. Hopefully it will promote awareness of the dangerous situation many indpendent artists and distributors are facing.
 

Ok, so forget the taking a CD from a story analogy, I've found that many pirates use your same argument of lost inventory, so let's make it all electronic. If I electronically dip in to your bank account and remove funds electronically, I haven't physically taken money from your wallent, just moved electronic data around and deprived you of money that you were entitled to, exactly the same as when you make an electronic copy of a CD and someone downloads it instead of purchasing it either as an electronic copy or a physical copy. Your argument has thus been refuted.

Softening words is another excuse I see from pirates all the time, the reaction is something along the lines of "Well, if you're going to call me a thief, then I'll REALLY never buy your stuff" - well, you're not buying it now, so what do I care? I think strong words have to be used, because they are the correct words. It is stealing, plain and simple, and in my experience in talking to people about this topic, once they really realize they are stealing and they are a thief, then suddenly their morals kick in and they realize it is wrong. As long as we use soft words like "sharing", then it sounds nice, like children sharing a toy. The only people the strong words offend are the ones that are never going to change. This is based on my own empiracal evidence from years of talking to downloaders.

CD sharing groups are different than file sharing groups, there are multiple types of piracy that go own. There are the Russian and Chinese physical copies of CD's, DVD's, etc., then there is the file sharing, then there are CD copy groups (there are others, but this is the main thing). These are groups of like minded individuals with similar tastest that basically get CD's at 10 for 1, they buy one and get one each from each of the other members in the group (however many that is)

If you steal something, it is illegal. No amount of social evolution will make it otherwise. The music is the creation of the artist, it is their decision, and theirs alone if they want to give it away. An analogy to the legalization of drugs is completely irrelevant and doesn't apply.

Pricing - Money is relevant, right now the dollar is very low against other currencies, so if a CD is 12 Pounds in england, that's about $24, but your salary is in pounds, not in dollars, so it balances out. There are tons of deals to be had for CD's, the first week they are released, they are discounted, there are deals the first week of every month, there are discount bins, etc. I was the first kid on my block with a CD player about 24 years ago and there was about 10 CD's available at the time and they cost $18.99. Today you can routinely get a new release for about $13, so CD's are pretty damn cheap. The last time I bought Vinyl 25 years ago it was up to $10-$12 per release, so prices are very reasonable, it costs you less for one CD that a few trips to Starbucks and you get a lot more pleasure out of it.

Who is downloading? Everyone, I've seen long time music fans in their 50's and very little computer experience, and I see teenagers that claim they have no money. I see people in improvished countries who claim that either they can't afford it or can't get it. However to anyone that says they can't afford it, well it is just a matter of making your priorities. For what you're paying for your internet connection a month, you can buy 3 or more CD's. I'm sure there are plenty of places you are wasting money, your cell phone bill, your electricity, buying food at resteraunts instead of making it yourself. If you want a Plasma TV and can't afford it, do you just go and steal it? Of course not, you change your spending habits so you can afford it. Just because something is easy to steal, there is no amount of justification that makes it right or legal.

Interest in purchasing CD's - if they aren't interested in the CD's, they wouldn't steal them. It is much harder to steal video games and movies as it requires a lot more work. It's easy to get music and dump it on an iPod, not so simple with a movie that is really large and requires a lot more work to get on to a DVD, and the copy protection on games is pretty freaking insane, that's because they control the hardware chain and can do it a lot more effectively than a music CD. I'd also say that declining CD sales are also due to the stagnant nature of radio and never trying to break new artists any more. I think you'd see a surge in sales (and downloading) if more new music was broken.

Cult of Entitlement. I'm glad you brought it up, because if you think it is a non-issue, you obviously haven't talked to any teenagers. I happen to have a lot of nieces and nephews in that age group that I talk to, and a lot of them flat out believe there is nothing wrong with it, and it is their right to take it, and those are the people that need the most education.

The need to hear an album repeatedly before purchasing is just BS. All through my own history and most of my peers, you'd hear one song on the radio and buy the album, as often as not, the rest of the album sucked, but that's life, that's just how it goes. Also, the percentage of people who actually purchase a CD after downloading it is infintesimally small.

Yes, I think the RIAA is foolish in its approach, but the response of downloaders is childish "oh yea? if you're gonna be mean, then I'm gonna steal more". I do like the recent judgement against the womand for over $200,000 for making 20 some songs available, because the precedent has been useful in education people and I've converted dozens to anti-piracy since it came out. But you act as though these communities are beholden to each other, to provide as much pirated material as they take for themselves. That's exactly the perspective that is causing this to be so bad. I recently shut down a message board that was pirating around 100 albums a day to its members that had this philosphy.

I don't mind if you publish the whole discussion wherever you want. I'm REALLY trying for an educational approach as opposed to a legal approach.
 

Thankyou for your prompt response and your willingness to debate this issue. I shall try to answer each of your responding points individually, trying to eliminate as much repetition as possible.

1) Thievery. Your bank analogy is again flawed, for it to work you'd have to be copying my money. My funds are limited, whether electronic or not, whereas copies are unlimited. As for softening words and not buying album, you are essentially calling me a thief, and I have bought your stuff, including, in one instance, an album I'd likely never have bought had I not downloaded it first. It's interesting that you say "you're not buying it anyway" as this is a key point I've been making. I suspect a lot of people downloading albums are doing so, not instead of buying albums they would have otherwise bought, but are trying them out because they can do so for free. If this is the case you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from this.

As I've said, filesharing is fundamentally not thievery. It's copyright infringement. Later you again use a flawed analogy related to this. You say "If you want a Plasma TV and can't afford it, do you just go and steal it?" No, I wouldn't steal it. If the technology existed to COPY it I probably would do that, as would many people besides. I wouldn't think of that as having a negative impact on TV manufacturers either, on my part, me not being able to afford it in the first place. So again we come back to a fundamental conflict in opinions, both of us with ample evidence to back up our claims. You say the majority of filesharers are downloading instead of buying albums they otherwise would have. I'm saying that the majority are downloading albums they would never have considered buying, often by artists they'd never have heard of. A personal example (I like to use examples that are familiar to me as they go most toward forming my opinions) I would have never have heard of The D Project's "Shimmering Lights" album had I not been browsing a filesharing community, been struck by the review, thought "why not, I've got nothing to lose but time, which I have no shortage of", downloaded it, listened to it, loved it and subsequently bought it. Now had I been of the viewpoint that filesharing is irredeemably wrong, immoral in exactly the same way as theft, as you are proposing people should, I would never have bought that album. The same can be said for a fair number of other albums.

2) CD copying groups. How widespread are these "CD copy groups"? I've never come across them. One would expect them to be pretty widespread to make a significant dent in CD sales, certainly much more so than groups of friends who do this with cassettes/CD-Rs.

3) Changing laws and the drugs comparison. Many behaviours, some still technically illegal, have become widely accepted to the point that they are either legal or might as well be. Taping songs from the radio, copying albums to give to friend, trading live bootlegs etc. My comparison to drugs stems from a few similarities, chiefly the fact that they're illegal doesn't stop people doing them or instantly make them in the wrong for doing them, but also from the perspective of those whose funds would otherwise restrict them from purchasing albums. Someone who just wouldn't buy albums if filesharing networks were non-existant is not affecting the record industry if he downloads albums he was never going to buy anyway (this can apply to other groups, but this is the clearest example), the morality of his actions are open to debate, the same as drugs, but fundamentally they don't affect anyone but them, similar to drug use.

4) On pricing. For a music fanatic such as myself, I have to agree, CD prices are increasingly reasonable, but usually those released by RIAA labels who I have little interest in doing business with, for moral reasons. Independent artists' CDs, in comparison with corporate label releases and other corporate media, are understandably higher. They have to make a living. But amongst casual listeners these differences are key. Again I ask, who is likely to want to spend £12 on one album when they can buy 2 films for the same price? Hardcore music fans with reasonable amounts of disposable income, not casual listeners and those with limited funds.

You're right, there are plenty of ways people can save money to buy CDs, and this is one of my strategies for trying to keep struggling indepedent artists going (along with small levies on blank media which covers any negative affects of downloading, similar to that in Canada) however this naturally results losses for other media. People have to be convinced to strike a balance when purchasing, which is hard to do when CDs now have much stronger competition than ever before.

As for people saying they can't afford it, perhaps they're telling you the truth. Kids and young adults have only so much money to spend on video games, CDs, DVDs etc and much more free time to occupy than adults so they're bound to turn to some sort of alternative to fill that gap. If they're buying your CDs they won't be buying video games or DVDs, so these industries will lose out and most probably experience more filesharing of their products. Suggesting people should get rid of their internet connection to buy a couple more CDs a month is rather silly, though. All of these alternatives also rely on the competition factor, clearly an internet connection in this era is going to be much more important to people than buying CDs, regardless of whether they use the internet to download music for free. Getting rid of the internet would also block out the values it has for consumption of CDs. This is before we get into the increasing necessity of the internet for students, a demographic most heavily involved in file sharing.

5) Desire to buy CDs. You say "if they aren't interested in the CD's, they wouldn't steal them." Leaving aside the suggestion that people who download digital copies of albums are "stealing", which I've covered, you're essentially saying "if people aren't interested in CDs SOME people (usually in lower income groups) wouldn't download them for free." The validity of this statement need not be discussed, but I will add that my comments on declining interest in CD sales generally applies to older, higher income groups, the majority of whom don't download. I can, however, fully agree with this statement "I'd also say that declining CD sales are also due to the stagnant nature of radio and never trying to break new artists any more" particularly when it becomes to mainstream artists and thus fans with only a casual interest in music, probably the majority.

6) Cult of entitlement and teenagers. I'm not sure all, or even the large majority, of teenagers feel entitled to free music. As we've established, I download music and yet feel obliged to put back in, so to speak, despite having insufficient funds to pay for all the music I listen to (I'll fix that when I get a good job).

On the face of it, such attitudes do seem wholly negative, but they are around us everywhere on some level, not limited to music downloaders. Take something as common as people complaining about increased gas or stamp prices and that's a form of perceived entitlement. I remember a comedian discussing people moaning about the price of a stamp going up by a few pennies, suggesting that if they really have a problem with paying a few more pence then they should go deliver the letters themselves. I say "entitlement" is irrelevant based on my view of human nature. I dare say many people would download music whether they felt entitled to it or not. That's not to say they're not naturally altruistic, but altruism is naturally grounded in self interest of some form or other.

7) Your comment "that's just how it goes" is unhelpful, I think. It sounds like you have no problem with someone paying good money for an inferior product and indeed that's how it should be. I know I'm always pissed when I fork out money for something and find out it's not worth the money I paid for it. Most people are, I think. So if one has the ability to quality check something for free before buying it, then most people will. As for repeated listening of albums, it certainly isn't BS. I can tell you a number of instances where I've not liked an album first time but kept it on the off chance that it will grow on me. In a strange way I feel obliged to keep albums I've downloaded and don't particularly like on my computer, on the basis that listening to them at a later period might cause a change of opinion and result in me buying the album. Because if I deleted it while not liking it, the chances of me buying it are slim to none. On that note you state "also, the percentage of people who actually purchase a CD after downloading it is infintesimally small", I don't know what figures you have for this, but no one told me or those I know. Two examples, in the last year I've bought at least 40 (probably many more) albums. Around 70% of those I had downloaded beforehand. Similarly, a friend of mine recently downloaded Megadeth's discography and in the last week has bought 4 of those albums. Now I'm willing to bet that had he not downloaded said albums the chances of him buying any of them would be pretty low.

8) If some downloaders are increasing their downloads in response to RIAA tactics, that would indeed be childish, though not without humour. My comments however, were more about resolve in not quitting what they are doing because they are being threatened.

As for precendent, I think it's been firmly established that deterrence isn't working. I just think independent label support for RIAA "victories" are causing them to be caught up in the war against the RIAA. Using force is not educational in the slightest.

I'm glad you're trying for an educational response, for the sake of the industry and for the downloaders. You make some credible, eye-opening, valid comments and I strongly suspect that this is one of those social issues that many different, intelligent people can disagree substantially about the cause of a problem, with large amounts of evidence on both sides. I shall end by stating, succinctly, what I think should be done about the declining revenues of independent artists and distributors:

1) Impress upon those that download albums and seldom/never buy them that what they're doing has a negative impact on independent artists and that they shouldn't think that because an album is free to download they shouldn't have to pay for music.
2) Remind people that, when they are considering what to spend their money on, that there are factors other than price and estimated amount of enjoyment to consider, eg the benefits of paying extra to support independent artists and the negative consequences if they don't.
3) Lobbying for enforcement of levies on blank media such as CD-Rs and DVD-Rs to cover any costs incurred from filesharing, and that such money should chiefly benefit independent artists.
 

Though I usually have an eloquently written response when it comes to arguing, I will keep it simple on this one:

If you think downloading music without eventually paying for it is not stealing then you're a fucking idiot. There is no debate. You are just simply wrong. I could make a list of reasons that would throw a stick in your circular reasoning wheel, but doing so with someone who seems to demonstrate a total lack of logic would be a waste of energy I could spend making music for you to steal.

Regards,

Kenneth Wilson

 

You assail my logic skills? Your "argument" consists of nothing but bragging about how you could "throw a stick in my circular reasoning wheel" and trite ad hominems.

 

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact. You are a fucking idiot and if I were so inclined I might argue with you, but since you think it is OK to steal and violate copyright laws there is no point. People like you are what intelligent people like me would call narcissists.

Here are the DSM IV-TR criteria for being a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD):

has a grandiose sense of self-importance

is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status.

requires excessive admiration

has a sense of entitlement

is interpersonally exploitative

lacks empathy

is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

I made sure to bold out all of the traits that you have shown already, but I'm sure in your "real" life you probably exhibit most, if not all of them. Since a common trait with all narcissists is a perpetual state of self denial, arguing with one is useless. No matter what facts are presented, you will "refute" them, because you believe that you have already "won" the argument. Whether it be through the use of straw man arguments, such as the one you just used on me (I wasn't even attempting to argue with you yet you claimed that I did and then ran with it), flagrantly twisted definitions, or through selective ignorance, your "argument" will prevail...in your mind.

..

Thumbs up from me to you, buddy.

Regards,

Kenneth Wilson

 

So you add a trite, pseudo-scientific ad hominem to the argument, which of course isn't an argument because you can't be bothered with me, despite having responded to me on no less than three occasions. I would ask to see your psychiatric qualifications, but I have the funny suspicion that you don't hold any. Instead I think you've stumbled across these criteria on Wikipedia or a copy of "Psychiatry For Dummies" and have since used it to smear anyone who disagrees with you when your oh so witty and original "you're a fucking idiot" line doesn't have the desired effect. Well I have a smattering of knowledge when it comes to psychology too, enough to suspect that you're projecting. I'm even more sure of my A level psychology deductions when it comes to your criticism of my logic, as pretty much everything you accuse me of you are more than guilty of yourself.

You claim that I use circular reasoning, a claim you never backed up, and then go on to use the line, 'Since a common trait with all narcissists is a perpetual state of self denial, arguing with one is useless. No matter what facts are presented you will "refute" them, because you believe that you have already "won" the argument'. This is doubly humorous coming from a man who prefaces his attacks by assuming he's already won, while taking on an air of dismissive superiority. As for me strawmanning you, responding to your "points" hardly qualifies, as you made definite claims only to disingenuously attempt to side-step the burden of proof. Stripped down to its core, your comments read like, "I'm not arguing, but you're stupid and wrong." But by saying I'm wrong you are arguing.

 

To be more correct, I wasn't arguing with you, but merely insulting you for my own pleasure. Not much of a debate tactic is it?
 

You win, I submit to your genius.

See what I did there?

 

I'm gonna keep this short.

Since you are pro thievery, there isn't an analogy that will ever seem valid to you because you think it is fine to steal the music. Making a copy illegally is, well, illegal and if people don't stop, then I'm all for starting to throw them in jail. Legal deterents work. Imagine if the death penalty was strictly and quickly enforced for fairly minor crimes, people would really stop doing them because there is a very real possibility that they will die because of it. Just using the recent case of the woman fined $250,000 or so for uploading files has worked as a deterent for a large number of criminals that were stealing music, I've seen it personally.

Making copies of music and giving it to other people is a crime. If you do it, your a thief and a criminal, and that's pretty much the end of the story. There is no business model that will ever make giving away the music make sense, you cannot make it up on touring or anything else. Gene Simmons of KISS had a great interview recently that you can read at http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003671447 and he talks about it there.
 

I'm not pro-thievery (i.e. someone in support of depriving personal property from others), I'm anti-copyright. Please learn the distinction between law and morality. Imagine if the death penalty were applied to those who smoke weed, I'm sure a few less people would smoke weed - although I'd like to point out, as a Criminology graduate, deterrent isn't so simple. So what? The state has never been shy of enforcing laws that are immoral.

 

Cuote: Imagine if the death penalty was strictly and quickly enforced for fairly minor crimes...


fascist?
 

Did you read the whole quote? Probably not. I don't know what it is with you pirates always calling us Fascists - we are CAPITALISTS, very different.
 

Oh so YOU are pro-thievery, more so than I, in fact. Capitalism stems from the exclusion of the majority from the means of production and can trace its roots back to the Inclosure Acts in the United Kingdom where massive amounts of land were stolen from the people.

 

A Fascist imposes his will upon others. I would argue, a pirate is imposing his will, when he or she obtains free music without permission. If taking music that others worked to produce is OK, then give is your address so we can help ourselves to your possessions. Its not like we would be stealing your stuff, we would just be downloading it to our homes. You can alway buy more stuff right.
Pirates and those who condon it are and will forever be mentally vacant. The world owes them it their pathetic minds. No matter how eliquintly they put forth their argument, when disseted it falls apart. There is NO legal or moral justification for stealing music. A theif is just a repugnant, worthless excuse for a human. Their life will never amount to much in any area.
Long live Capitalist Proggers!
 

I'm getting tired of debunking this copying digital media = stealing someone's stuff argument. If you have a stuff copying machine, by all means come round and clone my possessions. Of course even this wouldn't be fully analogous as at no point does a "pirate" have to invade a musician's home to copy their music. Yet apparently I'm the mentally vacant one, even though I can drawn elementary distinctions such as this one.

 

Funny, I'm tired of you thinking you've debunked anything. 

Read my above post about Narcissistic Personality Disorder and have a great day!

 

You just love these needling, hit and run attacks, don't you. Well two can play at your childish game: You're a kiddy fiddler, and if you deny it you're just lying to hide the truth.

 

i would like to point oiut that he is in no way "pro thievery" from his posts. He admits to being a music downloader, but all he is doing, quite validly, is taking common misconceptions, and correcting them, with evidence. As are you.
 

Is Shawn Gordon killing music? Not exactly, but the debate stirring around his efforts is very interesting in the current context. Recorded music and the by-products of that process, i.e. the mass-production of fetish objects to be purchased, owned and coveted, have only existed since the 20th century. Any study of the history of 20th century music reveals how easily musicians were exploited(ripped off) by shyster corporations and their greed for profits. If an album didn't meet commercial expectations the artist was dropped, no matter how interesting and innovative their music was. Many musicians were forced to meet corporate expectations by recording songs(aping the hit music of the day) that supposedly had hit single potential. If a musician, or band, were too uncompromising about their music, their album might not be released at all! I was a dj at an AOR radio station in the late 70's and, although we had quite a bit more freedom then than now, the playlist was still a revolving card file of the same 300 albums or so(if that). The radio stations, then as now, were totally in cahoots with the record companies for sake of promotion and profit.

Just start going around to all the music blogs to see the obscurities that we never even knew existed because the music didn't earn enough profit to warrant promotion or reissue of these albums. There's a fuck of a lot of richness out there that FM radio never turned us on to. Where can ANY of this music be heard today?? Most of it is out-of-print, unavailable, never reissued, forgotten about, buried. It is the blogs that are keeping it alive. But digging up the grave of any corpse has it's unseemly side now doesn't it? So, it's time for the squeamish bloggers to speak up and give an account as to WHY they are doing what they do...

To me the whole promotional canonization of the rock idol gods, you know, the ones we keep hearing about decade after decade, the Beatles, Hendrix, Zeppelin, Stones, etc, is just a means of franchising and re-franchising their output for profit over and over and over again. The sooner this system dies the better. When I read about the major record companies and their loss of profits from illegal downloading I laugh. Over the years I've spent way more money than a person ought to on my music hobby! But people are curious, they want to HEAR music they haven't heard before, they want to follow their whims in exploring this music, they want to move between the correlations from within the music they are listening to. But the corporate powers-that-be keep trying to tie us to the fetishistic object (lp > reel-to-reel > 8 track > cassette > dat > cd > mp3 > ? > ? >)- which they then make obsolete every ten years so they can market a new format with a more modern profile. The old "new and improved" shtick used to work, but it's sheen is worn out now. They've been charging us over and over again for the same damned thing and people are sick and tired of it!

Why do musicians create their art? Do they want their music to be heard? Is music a means of communication? Or is this communication only available to the few who can afford to buy it? If so, in my opinion, that is elitism to the Nth degree! Making music, at the very heart of it, is a process quite different and independent of the commodification of the music after the fact.

Here are some important links in considering the dilemma of music bloggers posting unavailable and unheard music for the illumination of others:

David Byrne's Survival Strategies For Emerging Artists: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne

Bob Ostertag Makes His Music Available For Free: http://www.bobostertag.com/index.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1143308280&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&

The Professional Suicide of a Recording Musician by Bob Ostertag:
http://www.alternet.org/story/50416/

Here's what Shawn Gordon thinks:

Prog Against Pirates Blog: http://progagainstpirates.blogspot.com/

Prog Against Pirates MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/progagainstpirates
 

Hi PBK,

The main question is:
Does the bands have the right to decide about their own work?

All ideas like "music shall be free", "develop a new business model"
or "how to survive as an artist" are based on the idea that one shall
say "ok" to an unethical situation were people enjoy someone's work
without giving anything in return.

Basically there is nothing wrong with the existing business model.
It's the same as for food, clothes, books or anything else you want
to buy. And to most people it is not expensive.
But it's had to compare with "free".

There are corrupt regimes here and there on this planet making
it hard for their people in many aspects. Making music expensive
is one of them. That, of course, sucks. Big time.
But I can not see why the musicians/music industry shall adapt to that.

The downloading problem is very simple.
Music are made avilable for free against the copyright holders (which
basically is the bands themselves in one way or another) will.
Nothing can justify that. Nothing.

Please check out the "common sense thread" at http://progagainstpirates.blogspot.com/

We are NOT discussing blogs putting up a copy of some rare hungarian
album from 1972 that was only made in 300 copies. Ok?

What we ARE discussing is that we do not accept that people are taking
the bands works without giving anything in return. That's it.

It's a mystery to me that people are spending lots of time discussing semantics
and this and that in order to justify illegal downloading. Always with arguments
intended to convince artists that they shall give away their work for free.

The "threatening" paradox often coming from pro-downloaders is:
"If you don't give it to me for free I will not buy it".

For more info: http://progagainstpirates.blogspot.com/
 

David Byrnes paper is totally out of touch with reality, I've written on it before. Most other survey's or papers that pirates like to point to were written 5 or 6 years ago before the situation was this bad. All the current studies show that 2%-%5 of illegal downloads convert to a purchase, so the "i'm only checking it out" is also bogus, as I've said many many times.

Getting a copy of something without paying for it, when that is not allowed, is thievary, no grey area, nothing.

"big bad labels" - well, these guys were putting up hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases millions of dollars to develop and put out acts and they want a return on their investment, they are taking the risk. If the artist wants to take the risk, then don't sign with a label.

Even Bach, Mozart, etc., were sponsored and paid for their works, they pretty much didn't write a note they didn't get paid for, so don't pretend that getting paid for art is new.

I too use to work at a radio station, and we use to be able to discover and break new music, one of our local stations here is the one that "broke" the "grunge" style and the band No Doubt and many others. Today DJ's are entertainers with little to no interest or information about the music they play, and this is indeed a big problem.

The "oh, it's out of print, how do I discover it, blah blah" excuse is soooo freaking old at this point. Go to an internet radio station, my station has 22,000 songs on it, any of which you can request, but it plays randomly otherwise, tune in and discover new music. If the blogs want to write about obscure stuff and then spend the same amount of time finding legal places to hear samples as they do illegal downloads, then you'd have no problem. The simple fact of the matter is that the pirates want and expect music for free, everything else is just an excuse, and if you get in to their private forums and blogs as I've done, you'll see them discussing it with candor and all the lies are revealed.
 

"All the current studies show that 2%-%5 of illegal downloads convert to a purchase, so the "i'm only checking it out" is also bogus, as I've said many many times."

I'll accept this bogus claim, despite having read studies to the contrary, for the sake of argument. Of course people are downloading more than they buy. They'll be downloading stuff they don't like and also downloading a lot more music than they could ever afford.

 

I almost went blind trying to follow the length of this debate, but I have to say that the answer should be crystal clear. There is so much free music out there that is being given away, there is no reason in the world for someone to "Take" music that is for sale, and say they are OK in doing so.

Mints at a restraunt are usually given out free. but some people think the steaks should be. I think it is completely up to the owner of the material to decide wether the music should be free or sold.

I am building a rather large collection of music that consists of free music - I mean that from the standpoint of the artist is giving his music away completely free. There is some amazing stuff in that collection and I never cease to find more material than I can ever listen to. Its free, and its perfectly OK to have it to share it.

Those of you who think its OK to take and then share King Crimson for free - or any other artist who is affiliated with a label - or is copyrighted on their own, should go to jail as a thief. You have no understanding of ethics or of ownership. If a signed artist says "I dont care if you download all you want" they may not own the music - because they've sold it to the label, and they have no right to give it away because it doesnt belong to them. They have already reaped the benefits of the music and are undercutting the ability of the real owner of the music to recoupe his losses, or god forbid, turn a profit from his investment.

But you complain: "All that free music sucks - I dont like it, I like the popular good sounding music!" well, first of all, you are dead wrong and you are listening to the wrong free stuff, and secondly, you are stealing. The good stuff is good because generally speaking, it costs money to release a better product, and those who do that to your liking deserve your financial support. Shut up about your high moral intentions - they are flawed, go out and find good music you dont have to pay for and share that all you want. Leave those who are trying to make a living (or at least recoup their losses) alone. You wont be missed.

As an artist I've been on both sides - I've given music away, and I've sold it. Ive never been able to document a single giveaway that resulted in a sale. I also listen to internet radio, and have purchased dozens of CD's from that experience. filesharing is completely the opposite. 99 percent of people who say they buy music after they download it are lying. They dont. They use their I-pods and mp3 players all day long and have no use for the CD's, so, they never buy them. It takes a conscientious choice to delete what you dont intend to buy and not one in a hundred do that. and dont paint yourself stupid by insisting thats not true.

hint: there is a site with over 10,000 FREE albums for the taking called JAMENDO - go there and enjoy GREAT music for free. Turn your friends on to it, and stop bitching about wether or not you are stealing when you take something that is for sale that you havent paid for. Its a STUPID argument! Go, take stuff thats free!