Pittsburg Post-Gazette TV Critic Instructs Readers In How To Get Pirated Copies Of DVD’s…and Fund Terrorism?

 black321 wrote: 
Old news, the Beatles thing won.

could become a moot issue, if the industry moves towards streaming (I recall proposing this a few years back in a journal or post). Streaming seems to make a lot more sense in a world where consumers are perpetually online.

Will Apple Kill The MP3 Tomorrow?


by Nicholas Deleon on November 15, 2010

Apple has posted a cryptic message on its Web site, teasing the world about an “exciting” iTunes announcement that’s coming tomorrow. What could it be? I saw that someone had suggested The Beatles were finally coming to iTunes, but really, who cares? If you want The Beatles on your iPhone you can grab the newly remastered albums that came out last year, “rip, mix, burn,” then off you go. Not very exciting, no. What could be exciting, though, is a streaming music service. In an instant, Apple would have killed the MP3 once and for all. You hear that? That’s the sound of the RIAA thanking Apple over and over again.

A streaming music service would make all kinds of sense for Apple, and it wouldn’t be too bad for us consumers either. Streaming services have already seen much success, chiefly with Spotify in Europe and Rdio here in the U.S. But an iTunes Streaming service, probably given a slick name like “iTunes Stream,” would instantly take the idea of streaming from something only techie geeks care about to something the whole family can enjoy.

Think about it. Every song ever (deals with record labels permitting, of course), right there on your iPhone, your iPad, your Apple TV, your MacBook, on-demand and always at the ready. If you can access the Internet (“the Cloud”), then you can listen to your tunes.

And just like that, your MP3s are worthless. Why would you maintain a giant collection of hard drive-eating MP3 and AAC (the file format iTunes uses) files when you can access the same songs from a handy App?

Let’s see… gigabytes upon gigabytes of music files versus a single App that can stream any song with the touch of a button. Well, the touch of a screen, as it were.

It’s a no-brainer, and everybody wins.

Apple collects $10 per month (or whatever) from you, you get access to an entire Cloud’s worth of music, and the record labels no longer have to worry about pesky kids “trading files” any more. Not because illegally trading iTunes-purchased music was ever a problem for the record labels, but that iTunes Stream would represent a very clear change in the culture of music consumption. Kids wanting to listen to Kanye West’s “Monster” won’t think to look for an “MP3,” they’ll grow up learning to fire up iTunes Stream on their iPhone.

I can see audiophiles not particularly caring about any of this, complaining about the compression used in the streaming, never thinking to listen to music on a phone, but the number of people who listen to 24bit lossless vinyl rips (give me FLAC or give me death!) using Foobar2000 and $500 headphones is non-existent compared to people who are cool with listening to Nicki Minaj on YouTube (read: rubbish quality) using $10 earbuds.

And now we play the waiting game, waiting for Apple to kill the MP3 once and for all.

Hopefully.

 Yibbyl wrote:
This problem/argument isn't new.


It's also not restricted to this industry.
 

Couple of quick thoughts here:

1) Part of this is a discussion of an evolving market. New distribution methods have changed access and made infringement easier as well as changing the cost of the products. The key for the business is finding a price point where they make money and the customer recognize enough value that they will pay for either quality, convenience (which can be simply legal compliance) or some other differentiator.  iTunes seems to have figured out the customer marketing end of this pretty well, but I don't know how it works out for the artists.

2) Copyright has some interesting history. It was largely born from a desire of the state to control information, then adapted to give rights to producers of print material. Historically, there was an eye toward the public commons and copyrights were temporary, but that has changed in the last few decades. Maybe it's not the best model for music/entertainment anymore.

3) Copyright infringement is wrong and will always be. But there are grey areas. Both sides need to rethink their positions. Much like politics, I bet there is a vast middle ground where people agree, but the extreme positions on either side are so polarizing they prevent a solution from emerging.

hey look, I managed to turn this into politics... sorry. 

edit: 4) Software was born into the digital industry, but has faced many of the same challenges. Might be some interesting parallels there. Software is now distributed in many different models.

 

 marko86 wrote:
I also agree with most of what sirdroseph wrote, but here is my take on the situation...

These musicians tried to work within the existing system as it was set up only to get screwed over by a bunch of teenagers at first, adults later, who felt the artist owed them free music and also by the middlemen/record companies, who extracted more than a regular bank would have.  I compare them with banks because really all a record company ultimately does is front the artist some cash to record more musical products, promote them, and for the artist to live off of.  The promotion and reproduction could be orchestrated by the artists if they had the money and time to either do it themselves or hire someone else to do it.  The artists desparately need to get together to find a distribution system that will effectively offer their music, film, etc. at a price that can still encourage them to do it as more than a casual hobby.

Because of my past involvement with music artists, I will never run to defend the PvPers.  Stating things to the effect that "free copies will yield increased revenues later" is the same stupid argument that graphic artists should work for free to gain exposure so that they can get paid later.  Sure, there may be some sales derived from this strategy, but then at what point do you stop giving away your work for free and decide to make a living?  Purposely devaluing one's work or turning a blind eye to it does nothing more than create expectations that all of the works should be free.  Think this isn't true?  The number of people who will buy a whole cd based on getting one free track are far outnumbered by those who think "I just got this track for free, I might as well get the rest or the other 3-4 songs I like (for free).  Or, for you graphics artists out there..."If you won't take this "opportunity" to make me some fliers for free, I'll just find someone else who appreciates the exposure."  Sound familiar?  Most people don't read the liner notes or need the cover art to appreciate the music.  More and more, music collections are comprised of songs on an mp3 player, not a shelf loaded with cd's.

As for stating that the music should be free and the real monies should be recouped from live performances, well what do you do when the artist is (was) someone like Vic Chesnutt, who couldn't travel easily due to health problems?  Thanks for the free music, but tough crap?!?  Sucks to be him?!?  The majority of bands out there surviving while touring non-stop are generally young, living on a shoestring budget, and are having to tour non-stop to generate enough money to live off of.

The distribution system simply has to flee from the old ways and be updated to accommodate digital technology.  Further, the PvPers offering "free" product need to be held accountable at $0.99 per each download, if that is the going average price.  If it causes them to go "out of business", well, they weren't a business anyway, just a bunch of sidestepping people too cheap to reward an artist for their creation, the engineers for their recording and mastering, and those involved with the mass production and distribution of the song or cd.  You know, "thieves".  One of the reasons music costs as much as it does these days is because the price includes an amount to offset lost sales due to these PvP sites.  Same reason make-up and jewelry in drug stores are priced at such ridiculously high margins (often 400% or more!)...to offset the frequent theft.

 Proclivities wrote:

My point being that theft means depriving the victim of something: if I have it now, they don't anymore. Copyright infringement is not like that, and use of the word "theft" is inappropriate.

And Winter: I've had my services stolen. And they were in fact stolen; hours of my life are gone, uncompensated. In the case of copyright infringement the hours required to create the work are already gone. The work remains. When a copy of the work costs literally nothing access to it is a gatekeeping function, like the tent around a circus. There will always be people trying to duck their heads under the tent to see the show, and if even the ticket takers could patrol perfectly most of those people outside the tent aren't going to buy a ticket. They aren't lost sales, they are what economists call "free riders".

The key to converting free riders into paying customers is keeping the price reasonable. There is a whole social science dedicated to figuring out the optimum price so the net revenue is maximized. The farther you are above that price point the more incentive to free ride. When the cost of a tangible form of a work of art is a substantial fraction of the price (as in a paper book) there is a price floor; when the manufacturing and distribution costs are minuscule that floor is at zero, and the price is strictly there to extract the most possible from the audience.

 islander wrote: 
Yes, for music in particular, that would be a much more appropriate and accurate term.

 Proclivities wrote: 
If you want to be nerdy and semantic, then Copyright infringement is the word(s) you should be using.

 Lazy8 wrote:

"Theft" may or may not be an "emotional" word, probably no more than "piracy", but by its general, legal definition, there is nothing which denotes whether or not the taken property is physically tangible or not. 

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)

"Larceny" is more often the term specifically used to indicate the taking of tangible or physical property.  I know, nerdy semantic points...

 sirdroseph wrote: 

I probably agreed with this post the most. No matter your feelings on it, it exists and its not going away. I would be curious to see a pie graph on the distribution of the 99 cent song and all the useless/worthless middle people getting a cut. The model should change to cut those people out. Record companies are obsolete and unnecessary. I have hoped that that todays environment would foster having better live bands that can perform and entertain, as concerts are still where the artists can make money directly, but then you get crap like American Idol that rather skews that. Still there a few artists that have done well touring, building audiences the old fashioned way, without much airplay. There is also a large proliferation of current music used in commercials/tv shows. Though I don't really listen to him, Lil Wayne gave away everything for awhile, but did quite well when he decided to start selling his wares.  Personally, since I listen to alot of music, Rhapsody has worked pretty well for me, though their software sucks. I have found emusic worthwhile because much of what I like is old and obscure and they are more reasonably priced. It irks me some that when I download stuff from long dead artists like Lightnin Hopkins/muddy waters/johnny adams the record co. that screwed them over are ones getting the profits these days.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Loss of intellectual property is perhaps more like theft of services: sure, I can still sell those same services, but someone still took advantage of them without anyone paying for it. It's not like they borrowed it from a friend for a listen or checked it out of the library to read - in either case they went to some trouble to avoid paying for what the artist is trying to sell in order to make a living.

If you managed to make a perfect copy of my phone, I wouldn't be the one at a loss because I don't have the intellectual property rights on that phone. I didn't design it or produce it, I just own a copy. So if you make a copy of my phone and I'm none the worse off, I've no cause to complain. On the other hand, the makers of the phone would have a bone to pick with you for it - and I suspect you'd say they had a good case for it. Clearly you wanted the phone, since you went to the trouble of copying it. So I'm not sure the "you weren't going to buy one anyway" argument holds up well.

I think it boils down to two things: the lost opportunity cost of a sale, and the basic fact of people doing something they really have no right to do. If you want to check out an artist's work before paying for it, fair enough: there's radio, there are libraries, there are friends who've already bought copies. All perfectly legitimate ways to check it out at no risk to yourself and no loss to the artist. If after that you decide you'd like a copy of your own, now you get to weigh how much that's worth to you. If you think it's worth the price, you can buy a copy. If it's not worth as much to you as the artist chooses to charge, so be it - they lose a sale through overpricing themselves, through the simple fact that you like them but not that much. The "overpriced" argument for piracy is basically people trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

And your sarcasm aside, I'm not trying to sell the writing on my blog. It's free, partly because it's a blog and partly because there's frankly nothing there that I'd consider worth selling. (You could, of course, take the Cook's Source route and copy my work without my permission, then say I should thank you for not screwing me harder.) So that's not money out my pocket. That's just me sharing stuff for free, which is my choice. Now if I chose to charge a nickel a month, and someone decided to repost my work without paying for it, that would be an opportunity cost - I had the chance to sell to those people who got the free repost (since they liked it well enough to look it up online).

Intellectual property isn't like real (tangible) property, so high-emotional-content words like "theft" don't really apply. If I steal your phone you no longer have it. If I make a perfect copy and hand it back to you nothing has changed for you—your phone still works as it did before and provides the same value to you.

Of course I can't make a perfect copy of your phone, so the only way to have it is to deprive you of it. But one of us can copy a tune and pass it around to friends (as a bunch of us just finished doing for the mixtape club) without depriving anyone of anything.

Oh, but the artist! OK, let's look at a couple of scenarios.

1. I send a song out, somebody likes it.
    Maybe they buy the album (that actually happened this time, BTW), maybe they go see a live show, buy a t-shirt, buy the singer a beer. Net positive for the artist.

2. I send a song out, nobody likes it.
    Well, they weren't going to buy it anyway, but now they have an song they'll never listen to. Net to the artist: a wash.

3. I send a song out, somebody likes it, and that's as far as it goes.
    Maybe this represents a lost sale, but likely not. Either they already liked this song and might have bought it but now don't have to or (more likely) they would never have heard it or known of its existence and would never have bought it.

Only one (well half of one) of these represents anything like a loss to the artist. And it's not like I broke into the artist's kitchen and stole bread from his mouth—I might have deprived him of a sale s/he might not have made anyway.

I've discussed this with a lot of musicians (I have family in the business) and the consensus from them is that most file sharing is done by people attracted to the idea of getting something for nothing. They get that song/movie/whatever and maybe only play the file once; they weren't really after it for its own sake but for the sake of having it. They weren't going to buy it anyway.

Most of the rest is done by people curious about something but unwilling to fork over the cost of buying it on the off chance they might like it. Face it, searching for a decent copy of something you want is a pain in the ass—even if you find it it may be a low-res rip, or a remix somebody's cousin did, or a live show recorded on a cell phone, or truncated, or mislabeled. If the price is low enough and the process easy enough most people's time is worth too much to mess with that—it's easier to just buy it.

In any case these folks aren't likely customers either. Back before record companies were suing people for file sharing I used the heck out of the networks...and bought an awful lot of music because of it.

There are artists who get completely wrapped around the axle that you didn't pay to discover them; as one relative put it "they don't want anyone for a fan who isn't willing to pay for the privilege." I guess I should honor their wishes and never so much as hum their music, but I've noticed I don't like most of them anyway.

So ask yourself: what does a free copy of your work as an artist really cost you? Is it really money out of your pocket, or are you seeing a loss that isn't real? Because if it really does represent money out of your pocket you'd better take that blog offline pronto. I don't recall ever putting a nickel in the slot for that.

 islander wrote: 
I guess you're right about my not seeing the grey areas. If it's no longer available, all you can do is search the used media stores for a copy, I guess. Or find a way to do without.

I can understand making copies for yourself of something you've already paid for. But copying it for someone else, or acquiring another copy that you would otherwise have had to pay for? Less grey for me.

If, like Monkeysdad, you want to share a musical discovery with your friends, you have options. Invite them over to listen. Loan them your copy. Buy them for your friends as gifts. Just don't make copies and send them to your friends because it's easy.

Let's face it, the only thing that keeps books from being so readily ripped off is that photocopying a whole book is a time-consuming pain in the ass. As e-books become more popular, books will become more readily bootlegged. And as someone who'd like to make money writing books, I find that alarming. I'm sorry, but the more I can support myself by writing the happier I'll be. I'd like to think my readers would want that for me and be willing to part with a little cash in exchange for the fruit of my labor. If people don't buy what I'm selling because someone is distributing it without my permission, that harms me financially. That limits my ability to produce new work - my time and energy are just as finite as anyone else's, and I have bills to pay just like anyone else.

That hardly seems like a fair consequence for my fans to wish on me.

 winter wrote: 
Interesting. Did she like it?
Seriously though, what about the RP CDs that I hand out - I'm honestly not sure where that falls. It's a recording of a webcast. I'm actually a bit surprised it's okay to cut them under fair use.

 islander wrote: 
Honestly? Yes. Not something I should have done, nor something I'd do now, but I did it.

 winter wrote: 
I'm mostly in agreement with you, and I think there is a whole lot of "I just don't want to pay for it" which is wrong (but still not theft).  But I see a lot more grey than you do apparently. Out of print stuff, out of region stuff, how about if some one owns it on one vinyl and wants a copy for their MP3 player, but doesn't have a way to convert it, or the DRM on their CD prevents them from making legitimate copies?  They have a license for the music already right? so is it still wrong to download a copy? what if their CD was damaged?  they still paid for that license...

But yeah, little Jenny downloading the latest bieberbob instead of buying it from Amazon is wrong.  Now what should the punishment be? Is there a remedy short of the multiple thousands that the XIAA is extracting from those they catch?  Is the legal system the right channel for that recourse?

 winter wrote: 
Interesting. Did you ever make a mix tape?

 Monkeysdad wrote: 



My opinion? Ripped him off.

If your boss is so pleased with your work he loans you out to other companies free of charge (and with no compensation for you), has he done you a favor or ripped you off?

If an artist wants to give away free samples for publicity, that's their call to make. Likewise it's your choice whether to do volunteer work.

 winter wrote: 

If I buy a CD and I'm totally transfixed by what I hear and decide to burn 3-4 copies and mail them to my friends whom I'm pretty sure will agree with my stellar taste in music....and they say "whoa,...where'd this guy come from?" and go out and buy more of his CD's...have I done that artist a favour,....or ripped him off?