Media Piracy: Good Economics?
 

Alright folks, seeing as how the boards are finally back up and running after an abnormally long down-time, I'm hoping we're all ready for a fresh start. But rather than re-hashing all our previous threads, I'd like to offer something a little more brain stretching, something which, for many of us, might be on the outside of the box.

Fist off, the topic for this thread: is media piracy good for the market? If so, Why? Is it unethical? And if so, on what grounds?

We live in the age of the DMCA, when the simple distribution of information "product" outside of the bureaucratized consumer system is branded not only as illegal, but as a form of theft. I've even seen it stated on one CD that "Copying this recording without permission is a violation of the eighth commandment."

In case you haven't guessed, I would suggest this is a grave misapplication of principle, and that, on the contrary, those pulling the strings on these ideas and regulations are the ones guilty of "violation of the eighth commandment."

I'd like to see this proposition debated, rejected, or supported intelligently. For the sake of quality discussion, please make your posts as well thought out as possible.

With that said, have at it!

Media piracy has been going on for a long time. My friends and I used to make mix tapes between all of the music that each of us owned. In some cases if I really liked the tape I would go out and buy it outright. Same with VCR technology. My parents recorded and dubbed pretty much any movie that came out either on HBO, blockbuster, or what not. They also ended up buying many of them as well.

The problem at least in the music industry is that most CDs are crap. They cram 12 songs onto a CD and only 1 is good. They then turn around and charge you $15 or so to buy the thing. So in essence you pay $15 for one song and you will never listen to the rest. I am not saying all CDs are like this, but the vast majority of them are. Systems such as Itunes and the like have helped alleviate this to a point, but they are restrictive, and most likely to get even more so in the future.

As for the movie front, I download movies from usenet all the time, new releases and old. If I like the movie I will go ahead and buy it outright when it comes out on DVD. I just hate to waste $15 to $20 or more dollars on a movie if it is going to suck. I figure I have downloaded more than 100 movies from usenet over the last year. Out of those I have ended up purchasing more that half of them. Other movies were downloaded for curiousity sake more than anything else, IE Brokeback Mountain, bleh.

So all in all I would say it is good from the standpoint of being able to try before you buy.

I would like to sample a movie or an album before buying it. I'll buy it because I like it, and I want a professional copy to add to my collection. If everyone thought this way, piracy will help the market. If it does help the market, the word piracy should be replaced because piracy has a negative effect.

Regardless of which party is correct on either side, it boils down to greed. The seller wants as much money as possible and the buyer wants the best quality for as little money as possible.

Stormshadow is right about the iTunes Music Store (IMS) because being able to buy one good song versus an album of garbage is a luxury. This luxury has caused the record industry to finally convince Apple to start a pricing system in order for them to make more money. All of the current songs will remain $1. In the near future there will be three different prices for songs to satisfy the record industry and their "greed."

If the record industry had five billion customers and lost 1 million, they would attack the reason for the loss. In this case, it's piracy. No matter what, the number of losses will never effect the industry. This world is huge. There will always be buyers and there will always be pirates. Greed greed greed!

As an underground hip-hop artist, I've come to understand one thing - Anyone who is going to pirate your music is someone who wasn't going to buy your shit in the first place.

The RIAA wants to say that P2P on the net and the proliferation of CD burners has caused a significant slide in sales - which is hogwash. In reality, almost all music is marketed towards females 12-29 years old - a demographic that isn't as tech saavy as males of the same age.

In layman's terms: Niggas will bootleg your shit, females largely will not.

The real reason why you don't see artists going 10x platnium anymore is because listeners today have an ever-decreasing attention span. This is why you see artists drop a new single literally every month. With so many music choices in the mainstream and in the underground, you can't ride out an album for 18 months like people used to do. You literally have to be in the studio working on the next album roughly 3 months after you drop an album. This is why the mixtape scene has exploded, because it keeps people's attention with new music at a relatively low cost.

I have found though that many artists though, tend to get "antsy" when asked about the pricing of a CD. If you ask them, they will tend to say, "Well, there are a lot of factors in making a CD!", get angry, and go off. Makes me wonder on that.

I am hoping things like iTunes would be the solution, but even with something like iTunes working, certain companies STILL can't have enough. I do wonder how much longer this can go on, as those companies are running out of excuses quickly...

Is "piracy" unethical or imoral? Only, and only if you downloaded, kept and made use of something you would have otherwise bought, had it not been possible for you to download it. A very big part of my CD, DVD and videogame collections a made up of items that I have only discovered after first having downloaded them. And that I would never have found otherwise.

And the fact that "piracy" is illegal (in most countries) says nothing, really. It's even illegal to lend a CD or DVD for christ sake. However, this is as much a reason not to buy a CD a downloading is. "I don't need to buy that. I'll just borrow it from ___ instead". Same goes for the second-hand market.

I think if there was more of a debate going on about "piracy", record companies could probably get a better idea about why people download music from the internet. As it is now, all you ever hear is "Record sales are declining. Must be that damned internet "piracy" buisness!!!1, etc".

But still, it's a very complicated issue and I doubt "piracy" would ever be made legal again even if it could be proven that in the end it didn't hurt sales.


Quoted because I've found this to be largely true as well.

What I find funny is that the RIAA and MPAA aren't just sticking to one thing, the not only want P2P of music/movies to end, but CD Ripping, analog copying, backups, and DRM circumvention. If they'd just stick to making good music/movies and being harder on bootleggers and not file sharing, they would't be suing a woman for downloading music that's never had a PC, or a Grandma for using Kazaa when Macs can't even run that program.

I like to buy all of my media legit, as I have some satasfaction knowing that the industry is becoming stronger. If I buy more hip-hop music, the hip-hop industry becomes stronger. If I buy more anime, the anime industry becomes stronger. It isn't the cash value, it's the fact I am a buyer. I am a statistic. I count.

But...

I still shop around for a good deal. I am part of www.yourmusic.com for my new releases, I shop at 2nd Hand Tunes and Reckless Records for hard to find vinyl and underground artists, and whenever their is a sale, I'll check it out. It isn't the cash I spend, it is morevoer the fact I do spend.

I'd buy more of the Anime/VG soundtracks I download, but they charge $30+ for most of them on Amazon. On top of that the Cowboy Bebop CD-Box I bought was a bootleg (I only found that out AFTER I bought the damn thing, some of the tracks have glitches...). Of course some ultra-obscure stuff I'd never buy, it's only on ebay and overpriced...

I admit I don't buy as many CDs/DVDs from what I download, but if I do like something enough, I'll seek it out and buy it.

The music quality has really delined in the last 5 years... but I know the most important thing that needs to be done: Eliminate the RIAA. The MPAA, at least, is trying to get Movies distributed in an online format of thier own initiative, not of consumer pressure. Both mediums have a lack of talent as of late, but the RIAA is the first target I see needing an attack on.

Basically, The RIAA needs to be replaced with a smart and tech-savy organization that actually understands the consumer's point of view and isn't greedy to the point that Mr. Scrooge is a philanthropist in comparison. Of course this is not possible... the RIAA should have been suied a long-time ago for thier business practices, but they are just too large to be attacked by plain consumers. They need to piss off a congressmen first, or at least a very influential private citizen.

Although technically it's illegal, piracy can infact be helpful. At least half of the artists I have downloaded I would have never even heard of had I not seen their work featured in an anime music video, google video, etc. So had I not downloaded, the bands name wouldn't even be in the back of my mind. So it's obvious that sales are no slumping due to piracy. If anything, piracy is only helping sell tracks. Now of course, some people will download the music, decide they like it, and still not go buy it. But that's where an artist could get smart. The previously mentioned demographic is probably more often than not to lazy to get up and go buy the CD. If the artist themselves decided to start selling their tracks at reasonable prices, (I'm talking maybe .60-.80 cents a track) withought DRM, thse lazy people could go get the music, support their newly found artist they enjoy, and all for a nice price. In a utopia world all the artists would start doing this, and Ill bet that the online downloads take over, or at least match the sales of traditional CD's. A good first step has been initiated by Itunes and the likes, but the market needs to be expanded and improved even more to be truly on par with CD sales. Namely as I said, cheaper prices for singles, a lack of Digital Rights Management, a nd an ease of service.

The problem is that most bands are incapable of producing more than one decent song every couple of years.

The music/movie studios need the guts to sue us themselves. Anyone who sues on the behalf of someone else is asking for their legitimacy to be questioned.

I'm an anime whore, so my fansubs are legit. In fact, had it not been for these sorts of people who translate basically for donations, many mainstream shows would not get the converage and licensing they do.

Naruto wasn't all that hot in America with the manga so much until the subs were everywhere.

In regards to "the real stuff," I have no problem downloading anything that is shown on television. TV is saying "Turn on your VCR and enjoy the freeness." That said, I'm gonna download a new movie coming out tomorrow.

I think these quotes illustrate two sides of an important truth: In a free market, people will give their support to those to whom they want to give it.

When you hear someone saying that copying media is tantamount to theft, you have to ask what principle drew them to that conclusion; and I think, at least in theory, that the idea behind our system of copyright law is that "a worker is worthy of his wages."

In the reality of the workforce, however, you have a choice as to whom you will hire. By purchasing a director's DVD, or a musician's album, you are essentially saying, "good work, buddy, I'd like to see some more from where that came from." High-paying accounting jobs don't pay you to take a degree in accounting - you have to prove, and improve, yourself. So by these rules, if a first time artist comes on the scene, the law shouldn't force everyone to buy it, or even to pay to rent it, before deciding whether "they get the job". We don't need every B-rated director getting financial backing for his second hapless audience because we were all paying guinea pigs the first time around.

In short, let the market decide whether a viable market exixts for a given product.

That said, however, not everyone who likes your work is going to buy it. Those who have the money and feel strongly enough about it will. Others won't, but please, don't accuse them of stealing from you. You can't "steal" publicly available information.

To drive this home, an example to illustrate the absurdity of the idea: A skilled street performer can make a killing in a well-selected location. (And if good enough, people will even go out of their way to a less well-selected location.) But the price is set appropriately: to what the market will bear. But people who like you and want to see more of you will choose to support you, whether it's a child with a nickel, or a professional with a $5 dollar bill. The people who listen and don't like it, or the people who just like listening to the flavour of the day, or even the people who are just to poor to afford it, are they all stealing from you? No, they're excercising they're right not to support you.

But our legally-backed "entertainment industries" (they seldom offer anything more than mere entertainment) say to one and all, be they rich, poor, adoring fan or arch enemy: "$20 or I'll sue you!"

I'm not sure, but I do believe there is a precedent set by a US court that says it's okay to download TV shows for Time/Placeshifting reasons. Like having a VCR, but no need for a tape!

If you share something that you did not buy with your own money you are a communist.

If somebody you know ever comes up to you talking about sharing, sacrafice, or anything dealing with the common good report them to someone of authority as soon as possible.

Yes simply implying you will share music will get you convicted. Much like dissing the President will get you a one way trip to Guantanamo bay.

I never said that. I just said it was being a communist.

And dissing the president in a public forum still has consequences none the less. We're a nation at war... or something.

So you caught my sarcasm. I don't think people who share files are communist though, I think downloading is a great way to try before you buy and to get a hold of things that are impossible to get (like Photoshop, most people can't afford to pay over $200 for an art program). Just think how much overpriced crap most of us buy to satiate the capitalist system.

The RIAA thought they were in they were selling a "thing" but turns out the were just selling "information" at a very high price. They want to keep the current business model because the one they are shifting towards leads to less profits and more competition from the legal mp3 downloading market. All of this was brought about by people like us, so in that instance i'd say the piracy was good.

Neither do I, just trying to get a rise outta someone.

Individual piracy doesn't really hurt the company in such cases since you're not likely to buy the software anyway.

You sound all negative when you say that, like it's a bad thing. Overpriced crap most people will buy just means a enlarged profit margin for the company, and more debt for the consumer. Doesn't seem like such a bad system from where I'm sittin'! What could go wrong?

I don't think I've read anything that you've said that was anymore agreeable.

However I would like to say that while most of the stuff I pirate is shit I wouldn't have bought anyway, ocassionally I do download stuff as a try-before-I-buy. I had no idea I would like certain artists/albums until I listened to them. That said, there is stuff I never owuld have bought had I not been able to listen to it all the way through. Stores with the "listening stations" that give you a poorly downgraded 30 second sample of a song don't do the album justice. You can't listen to say, a Pink Floyd album and hear a random 30 second clip from "Time" and be satisfied. You'd walk away thinking, why the fuck is this song just a cocaphony of clock chimes?

But, for everything I've pirated and truly enjoyed, I've eventually bought or intend to buy. Not even really for the artist (and fuck God no for the label) but for collection purposes. $20 is a fine enough price for a CD I will listen to 10-1000 times throughout my life. $20 for a one or two good songs, though?

Based on what I've read - and perhaps it's all or partially just pro-piracy propaganda - the artists aren't really getting shit for their CD sales, but CD sales are an idication of which artists need to be nixed and which ones don't. If you want to support an artist, that's all an album sale is ever good for. If an artist isn't at least selling albums then they might never make it that far. So I try to buy a good album especially when the artist is obscure.

Piracy isn't unethical. People claim it is the same as stealing, but it's not. If I download an album, somewhere in the world where I might have bought that CD, that CD is still sitting on the shelf. Eventually, after collecting dust (or perhaps not) it will be sent back to the label (I actually didn't know this until I saw it happen while working retail; massive amounts of CDs gather, boxed, and shipped). The store itself gets its money back, and the record label has lost the money for its shitty item. But I have not taken anything physical, therefore I don't think it counts as stealing.

Let's say I have the magical ability of alchemy and I could turn dirt into food. Would it be fair to accuse me of stealing from the local grocery store because I have replicated the essence of food instead of buying it? What if I start sharing alchemized food items and giving them to people who don't want to pay for them? Am I doing something wrong because me giving away which rightfully belongs to no one causes the original creator to not get paid?

Filesharing, in my opinion, is indeed a very pure form of communism. People don't want to admit it, and lots of people have an automatic bias toward communism, but I feel that's what filesharing and the free trade of information is leading to. There will (perhaps very soon) come an age where we don't need people to mop our floors or slap together our fast food. Only the most complex physical tasks (like surgery) won't be automated. Perhaps even those tasks will be automated and merely only watched over.

As cliche as it sounds, I can easily imagine machines mopping the floors and our fast food being made on conveyor belts. It's a logical progression as the cost of technology and its repairs becomes cheaper than the cost of paying real humans.

So, in an age where physical work and physical property cannot be sold because they are of no value, what will be left to sell? Information; intellectual property. Music, books, paintings, etc.

But information can be duplicated, and at an alarming rate. Likewise, our world is becoming so connected due to the internet and cellular technology, it will be impossible to keep it under control. Unless the future is Orwellian, there will be no way to keep us from broadcasting music that we've heard right out of our own brains and into the brains of others.

So the end result no sale of information, no sale of physical goods. At that point we'd have no choice but to throw away our selfishness and share what we know, what we've thought of, and what we've experienced.

It's a scary thought, indeed, but only because we were born into a selfish world. Or perhaps we are inherently selfish and can never be content unless we know that if we truly wnt something we can have it?

You jump awfully far in your reasoning by saying that allocation of menial jobs would make the physical products of such jobs of "no value." The fact is, the owners of organizations that produce either goods or services will always require some compensation for doing so. This will always remain true, even if their overhead were to drop to zero.

By the same token, no matter how far technology increases, I think humans will always find themselves facing a full workweek. Looking at the current trend, if anything, the industrial and information ages have only increased the speed at which things occur, and how efficiently. The workload itself, however, remains constant.

In spite of its utopian illusions, technology will never eliminate or even significantly reduce humanity's workload nor the capitalist drive within its entrepreneurs.

I left a chunk out of my reasoning, yes. My point was the replacement of humans with machines and AI; the replacement of salespeople with online interactive demos and music samples, etc, will make a lot of jobs nonexistent (unless companies are forced to employ humans over machines) and eventually there would be so few jobs that cannot be performed by humans for the most part, having a 9-5 steady job would be a thing of the past, and only maintenance and surveillance of machines would be necessary. Surely we will need programmers and scientists, but burger flippers and janitors?

I'm not entirely sure how this would play out, when the only jobs are the jobs that require true human intellect and fuzzy logic beyond that of a machine; I'm just saying that there's going to be significantly less work to go around (let's also add in a growing population into the equation.)

Less physical work means increases sales in intellectual property.

"I designed this new robot; not only does it mop floors but it waxes them."

Company A buys it, Company B reverse engineers it and makes an imitation/improvement and sells it. Perhaps the tools are available to make one in your house, so a "pirate" takes the concept and tells you how to make a mopbot in your house for cheap instead of buying one. Another dude creates custom firmware for it, now it will mow your lawn too. You no longer need to buy that lawnmower bot, that's a sale lost for Company C. Needless to say, you can't do this type of thing with real people.

You can't even say this shit is ridiculous. Robots that sweep floors are already available; they just aren't mainstream.

So do you think it's accurate to say that the amount of work we find ourselves doing today is nearly the same as the amount we would typically be doing, say, a hundred years ago (on any given part of the planet)? Several hundred years ago? Certainly this is easier and less time consuming than foraging for food and trying to find fallen pieces of wood suitable for making fire.

I don't consider my vision of the future "utopian", I look at it as very scary but realistic. Granted, a lot of things don't turn out like they're supposed to because of singular grand events that alter the course of time. I'm saying if things keep going the way they do now, society will eventually be this way or something like it.

Secondly, I think our workload is reduced constantly thanks to technology. We have the potential to get any song we want for free right off the internet, at our convenience. Previously - say, twenty years ago - how easy was it to get a copy of a book or tape you didn't want to pay for? You might go the library, but that takes physical effort and some time. You might copy a tape by connecting two tape players, but that takes effort and time as well.

Today, I can download a book in maybe thirty seconds, I can acquire nearly any album I want in thirty minutes. I could theoretically gather more (subjectively) useful information in a week, maybe in a day than I could process in perhaps my entire lifetime.

This doesn't necessarily count as "work". I'm not getting paid for it, but it just shows how thanks to the internet and digital technology I can do shit exponentially faster than I could in the past. This has, does, and will apply to all things we do, as time moves on.

So, I've just pointed out examples of how quickly I could use computers/the internet/software to accomplish tasks that previously took hours, days, or weeks. I ask you, what has come to be as a direct result or indirect result of such technologies that has slowed us down and given us just as much work to do today as we had to do in previous decades?

You might not be able to take the drive out of the entrepreneurs, but with the right effort you can inadvertently have them shove it up their asses.

Rant:
I think, if anything, a larger number of people are getting fed up with capitalism and what it's brought about. (I consider the concept of communism every day.) One of those things are $20 CDs with 1-3 good tracks, $9 movie tickets to blatantly shitty ass movies that they practically have no choice to see because nothing better came out that Friday, gas prices, etc. But no one wants to step up their game and make good shit, they just want to sue kids and hope it'll stop if the sue enough people to scare millions of users off of The Pirate Bay so they stop downloading their shitty movies.

Go to a fast food joint and get the same goop on top of goop on wedged between a stale bun with a piece of microwaved soybeef in the middle of it. This is capitalism. You can tell these kids are getting paid well and they haven't lost the will to work because they took turns spitting in my burger.

Can't buy a jar of mayo and a box of toaster waffles without knowing either item is probably paying the same conglomerate that's ultimately going to buy another conglomerate until I'm buying my jeans, tootbrushes, and waffles from the same conglomerate.

Capitalism sucks ass.

i know that there's no chance in hell i'm going to buy any anime dvds, unless they're not a horrible deal like the kenshin entire series for 90 bucks. i mean seriously, do i really want to pay 25 bucks for four episodes?

anyway, capitalism may suck ass, but communism isn't really any better.

On one level this might be true, at least if it were cost effective to replace minimum wage workers with potentially expensive robots. But for sake of argument, let's say we reach a point where this is the case. So sure, then maybe janitors and fast-food places might have autocleaners and ordering kiosks as their respective replacements for menial laborers. But what about, say, a high-class restaurant? Do you see servers and chefs getting replaced in such establishments as well? Frankly, I don't.

Well, that certainly might be true. On the other hand, I suppose the military's always looking for fresh recruits!

(Although this is sort of a joke, when considering the people who end up signing their lives over to an organization to do with as they please, it does stand to reason that desperation at having nothing else that's significant to do plays a part in it. And mark my words, if as you say, jobs do significantly decrease in the coming years, the military will almost certainly have no further problems in meeting their quotas for enlistment.)

Actually, in some regards, we live far more stressful lives today than people did, say, a few hundred years ago. The Industrial Revolution brought people together into cities, ending the largely agrarian based society, and planting the seeds that would eventually lead to many of our modern day problems (traffic congestion, urban crime, overcrowding, pollution). See, a few hundred years ago, while people certainly lacked many of the modern conveniences that we have, life also moved at a much slower pace, which by some people's standards may have actually been "easier" in the sense that it was less stressful.

Oh, and they certainly weren't "foraging for food" or "trying to find fallen pieces of wood suitable for making fire," either. Farming has been around for quite some time, believe it or not, and a few hundred years ago, as I said, society was primarily agriculturally based. Life was slow, and productivity certainly wasn't what it is now, but it wasn't like it was a day-to-day struggle just to maintain sustainence.

Maybe utopian wasn't the right word, but you seemed to indicate here that you believe technology will eventually lead to virtually all goods and services becoming free for all members of society--which is essentially utopia from the perspective of a Marxist-Communist.

(By Marxist-Communist, I mean Communism as originally defined by Karl Marx, a society in which all individuals have free access to that which they need and all classes are disolved; Communism as it applies to Soviet Russia or Communist China or other such countries are not included in this definition.)

Like I said:
How so?

Unless you intend to regulate the market to the point of no longer rewarding people for their efforts as per the capitalist ideal (which has already been shown historically to not work--see Soviet Russia), then besides mild regulations to avoid monopolies and other negative market factors, there's not much that can be done.

And let me reiterate here that technology, although it will certainly increase the speed and productivity of society, will not ever eliminate work. We've already got tons of machines that could in theory produce everything we need. And yet, workers are still employed. For instance, why does FedEx still use workers to sift through packages, when a machine could be created to to through the packages and take care of the sorting? I think the answer is that machines just aren't up to the challenge of handling things with too many variables. In the case of FedEx, there are many different shapes of packages that come through its offices, so while yes, it does use machines to help with the workload, it always has workers to make sure that things are running smoothly. You might employ a kiosk at McDonalds, but then you'd want some workers standing by in case the thing failed. In retail stores, humans will always work better at handling customers needs, for reasons I hope should be obvious. A bank will always want humans who are trained to know how to deal with robberies, fraud, and any other sort of problem that might emerge (the ability to act well with people again is key here). And the list goes on.

By and large, the point here is that computers function better as supplementary tools for humans rather than as complete replacements, for the simple reason that computers, while efficient, are, well, pretty stupid.

No one's forcing you to buy anyone's shit. It's not like you're going to die if you don't see a movie every Friday.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism per se. But with the United States government giving massive tax breaks and allowing big organizations like the RIAA to flourish undisturbed (and allow themselves to be lobbied by the RIAA and MPAA while ignoring the people they are supposed to represent), it's not good capitalism. anymore. But I digress. I wish copyright law had it's original usage: to prevent plagarism and sale of other's work (while still allowing unofficial distribution).

What I know is this:

A. On copy-crippling: I absolutely adamantly refuse to own non-standards-compliant CDs. This means no crappyright protection. And for those wise-asses who mention forms of crappyright protection that fall within acceptable boundaries of standards, I'll simplify: if I cannot copy it, back it up, put it on an iPod, put it into a compilation disc, move it to my portable hard drive, and otherwise have complete freedom and autonomy with the contents of the disc, I will never buy it. Ever.

B. On the RIAA: I don't support businesses that sue. I use the RIAA Radar religiously to find out which of the albums in which I'm interested are safe to buy.

C. For those bands who do right by me, I will attempt to do right by them. If a band puts out good music, does NOT copy-cripple to deny me my Fair Use rights, and is not involved with the RIAA, I will try to buy their album ASAP.

I bought 7 albums in the past couple months.
Therion-Lemuria/Sirius B
Therion-Deggial
Leaves' Eyes-Lovelorn
Leaves' Eyes-Vinland Saga
Epica-Consign to Oblivion
Epica-The Phantom Agony
Lullacry-Be My God

These are CDs I would NEVER have bought had I not downloaded them first. Lullacry was an impulse buy on recommendation from a friend, and in all honesty, I can do without it now that I have it and have heard it. If I'd downloaded it first, I probably wouldn't have bought it. It only ran me $9, so I'm not really that upset, but I intend to download the rest of Lullacry's work before I decide whether or not to buy. As for Therion, I stumbled across them by accident on a DC hub and they promptly became my favourite metal band. I'm working on getting their entire post-death-metal discography.

Also, I downloaded After Forever's "Remagine" album, immediately fell in love with the band, and headed straight to Amazon to order it...only to find out that the CD was crippled. There's not a single song on that album I don't like. I would love nothing more than to have it in my collection. But I will NEVER buy it, unless they come out with a non-crippled version. Do you hear me, Transmission Records? DRM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

As for movies, I don't see movies in the theatre anymore, as it's really not worth the price of tickets when I have an HDTV and decent sound system, with the ability to pause/rewind/etc. As for renting movies, I try to get them from the library so as not to have to pay, but I'll occasionally rent from a video store if the library is behind on a title. I always make sure to rip & copy anything I rent from the video store, though, and watch a few times to decide if I want to buy. Movies I rent from the library that I really enjoy and think are well-done, I buy. I usually buy used for the price break. If it's a Sony film, I will ONLY buy used in an effort to punish Sony for the XCP rootkit and their plans (at one point) to implement per-console licensing for PS3 games.

The ONE exception to the theatre/Sony rule may wind up being Silent Hill. I have a lot of respect for Christophe Gans after seeing Brotherhood of the Wolf, and SH might prove to be something truly special.

Independent films are the general exception to these rules. I'll buy them new, and occasionally see them on the big screen (if they're playing, doesn't always happen depending on niche status).

So...what businesses do you support? I imagine even Ben and Jerry's would sue you if you stole their formula for Chunky Monkey.

Ladies and Gentlemen



Since I have your attention, I'd like to take this opportunity publicly congratulate KrazyTaco for actually posting something in direct response to the stated topic.



Legato and Ridan Krad: You have a good discussion going. By all means, let's have technological progress and the human workload as topics for a new thread; but please, let's not derail this one.



By and large, I think the sentiments expressed in this thread reflect the ideals of a free market. The organizations that currently control consumer distribution of media are attempting to use legislation to create a monopoly for themselves. This is the opposite of a free market; they are making an enormous effort to ensure that they control the market.

In the 17th century the Westminster assembly formulated the documents that for a long time became an important influence in western law. Because it is of particular interest, I'll offer an abridged excerpt:

Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? (Thou shalt not steal.)

A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment... are, theft, robbery,... fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land-marks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits,... ingrossing commodities to enhance the price;... and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbour what belongs to him, or [unjust or sinful ways] of enriching ourselves...

I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you. Nothing is perfect.

That's just a "good" democracy. :biggrin:

Your misconceptions about a "free market" are simply wrong then. For example, how is the "invisible hand" at work when the Federal Reserve is setting the interest rates? Think about it.

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on this. First of all, how is it conducive to a free market to say that a commodity ("information") which is all over the place and easily available, is legally owned by one person or corporation, and only they have a right to decide what happens with it? Imagine if this were done with, say, coffee mugs for example: everyone had mugs, and everyone had the equipment to be able to reproduce them cheaply, but then it was legislated that only company X was allowed to do it. Anybody caught making a mug for themselves or for someone else would be shut up in jail. Now company X controls supply, even though there's no real reason they should.

As per the second part of your comment, I think I know what you're referring to, but you'll have to explain what you mean, as I don't live in the US.

Except that we have a thing called copyright law which means that if you write a book, produce a TV show, record a song, that you have the sole right to distribute it in whatever way you want.

The example you provided isn't an accurate representation of what's really going on.

Not to attack you or anything, but you're really naïve.

Do you really think you're helping a musician when you buy a CD? The real answer is: no it doesn't. A majority of the sales in a CD goes to the record label, and maybe a few dollars goes to the band/musician/artist.

The numbers have proven this. Reports about it have been out for years. The music industry is easily the most broken industry in America, and we've let it go to that. To say you buy an album to support an artist is almost mocking them.

This is why I refuse to buy any CD's. It not that I don't want to support muscians that I like, it's that I know it's not really helping them regardless. I'm using my wallet to send a message that I don't like how the record industry does things.

Artists who really want to make something stay on an independent label, specifically, one that isn't owned by a major record label (aren't they referred to as "The Big 4" or something?). They may not get all the glory as other artists, but they still at least control what they produce. And when you buy a CD, you really do support them. Usually you have to buy it right from the artists themselves.

Notice that he didn't say it was actually helping out the individual musician directly.

Okay, walked right into that one. Let me clarify.

I don't support businesses that are litigious bastards. Lawsuits on proper legal grounds are one thing. Mass-filing hundreds or thousands of "John Doe" lawsuits against IP addresses, for unreasonable amounts of cash, hoping to use intimidation tactics to coerce private individuals into paying up even if they haven't done anything wrong (simply because they don't have the money to defend themselves in court) is quite another.

What I'm basically saying is that the "free market" concept is pretty much bullshit. We can talk about supply and demand, and ignore resource scarcity and depletion. We can talk about the free market, when really all the world's economists base their decisions upon the flow of equidity coming out of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the dollar's status as the reserve currency.

With the Federal Reserve wielding that much power and influence I'd say it's a pretty visible hand. Not the "invisible hand" of the market.

Most Western countries regulate alcohol in such ways. Yes, I know we're talking about information; and more or less the free flow of it on the internet. But in the capitalist system commodities are commodities to be bought, traded, and sold.

Since when are companies able to legislate anything for themselves? That's what lobbyists are for. And enforcement of such legislation? At this point you're not talking about the "free market" at all.

Hope that helps illuminate my perspective a little bit more.

lollerskates :tpg:

I'm gonna go on a leap here and say that we all can agree that the music industry would be pretty boring if no musicians were in it.

Heh, I see what you mean. And while I do, personally, hold to largely libertarian viewpoints, by no means would I assert that we are currently operating under any ideal sort of free market. Obviously, I would say that we would be better off trading in a monetarized wealth medium. A currency directly tied to the reseve would be a little better than what we have now, but even this has problems I don't need to mention.

Exactly. What I meant to get at, was that music, movies, games and such are available in a basically unlimited supply at essentially zero price. In a natural state, without the historical anomaly that has become copyright law, what value does it have as a commodity? The answer to this is the reason that, more and more, it is necessary to regulate it artificially to create value for the enormous amount of business built up around it. And personally, I don't think it will be born out in the long run. (Now I may very well be wrong on this - controlled economics often sustains itself in cycles for quite some time.)

You're right. I was actually talking about copyright law. ;)

Just as long as you don't make the mistake that these are largely capitalist ideas from a cynical yet slightly eccentric capitalist. :biggrin:

In essence we have that already. First it was gold, now it's 'black gold'. The trade in oil only take's place in USD. So the Federal Reserve is free to print as many dollars as it pleases. Well up until recently... as in roughly sometime this month. Ahh interesting times we live in. :)



Regulation is impossible in such a... how should we say... "pure democratic enviroment" such as the internet. Since commodities are information which can flow freely on the internet. :)

I know, just more food for thought over my original point about a "free market" being a joke that we tell school children on a daily basis. Did I mention I was cynical? heh.

But what I figured he was saying is he's supporting a specific branch of the industry. If the RIAA sees that hip-hop sales are doing well, then the industry will continue to promote hip-hop artists. If he likes New Age Fusion Improvisational Jazz, then they would see that there's interest in that part of the market and perhaps try to get more artists exposure to the mainstream than would have otherwise had that opportunity.