Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT: Music downloader fined 1.9 million


Mogut

Recommended Posts

Now, if you want to talk about bands succeeding because of label support, we can talk about System of a Down, who, despite releasing Steal This Album and making it available themselves on Kazaa, still had full support from their label when they released the smash double-record Mesmerize and Hypnotize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The bad things human beings will do to other human beings for money and power is the bulk of our history. Given the opportunity to get something for nothing, too many of us will take it every time if we think we won't get caught. Taking someone's work without compensation is presented here as a complex issue, but at the end of the day it's really nothing more than "right or wrong". Everybody knows it's wrong, but only some people give a sh*t. The more things change the more they stay the same. And railing at the RIAA, or David Geffin, blaming the radio or Brittney, hiding behind technicalities or exploiting loopholes doesn't change the fact that your taking something that doesn't belong to you. But it does help those who lack the stones to be honest, to look in the mirror and not see a scumbag.

+10000000000000000000
A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

 

OK, this analogy is a stretch...

 

Let's drop the analogies, please! They don't seem to assist anyone in understanding what the issues are or how to resolve them. People get hung up on arguing over whether and how the analogy applies rather than the issues at hand. Issues of infringement, theft, and fair use and compensation are not unique to the online world but analogies to the physical world are, at best, of limited utility and, at worst, misleading.

 

Thankfully this thread didn't get derailed by people confused by/arguing over my analogy...

 

I find suspect the idea that a music download = a lost sale. That rationale is used to calculate the "losses" to the industry by downloading. However, in my experience people who are willing to pay for their music are not generally the same people that are heavy downloaders and vice-versa.

 

 

In my experience, when I was young, everyone I knew, no matter how little money they had, they always bought records. Would they have bought them if they could have gotten them for free? I think people who are file sharing today are younger and with less income; if there was no file sharing, they would buy some CDs, obviously not as many as they have downloaded (unless they had a fair amount of discretionary money), but I'll bet they would choose to have music, even if their only choice was to pay for it. So the truth is probably somewhere in between...

 

The bad things human beings will do to other human beings for money and power is the bulk of our history. Given the opportunity to get something for nothing, too many of us will take it every time if we think we won't get caught. Taking someone's work without compensation is presented here as a complex issue, but at the end of the day it's really nothing more than "right or wrong". Everybody knows it's wrong, but only some people give a sh*t. The more things change the more they stay the same. And railing at the RIAA, or David Geffin, blaming the radio or Brittney, hiding behind technicalities or exploiting loopholes doesn't change the fact that your taking something that doesn't belong to you. But it does help those who lack the stones to be honest, to look in the mirror and not see a scumbag.

 

Exactly... I think this is a simple issue from a ethical standpoint, although solution(s) may not be so simple. I understand it is easier to rationalize when it is big corporations or rich rock stars, maybe if you are stealing from people you know it is a little harder. Say you were file sharing your friend's CD, and he said he wasn't selling hardly any, looks like he has to keep his day job after all, and you said, gee, that's too bad dude, by the way, I have been giving away thousands of copies of your tunes for free to total strangers, hmmm... Taking other people's stuff without asking or paying, not too complicated.

 

Of course, Pandora is out of the bottle now, and the solution(s) may not be so simple. A similar situation is the newspaper business; what are all the reporters who got laid off doing for a living these days? Technological innovations do have their effects on society and the job market; some careers die out over time. I'm sure there are sociologists and historians who have studied this phenomena in general, and are looking at these issues today in particular; it would be interesting to see what they have to say from a historical perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad things human beings will do to other human beings for money and power is the bulk of our history. Given the opportunity to get something for nothing, too many of us will take it every time if we think we won't get caught. Taking someone's work without compensation is presented here as a complex issue, but at the end of the day it's really nothing more than "right or wrong". Everybody knows it's wrong, but only some people give a sh*t. The more things change the more they stay the same. And railing at the RIAA, or David Geffin, blaming the radio or Brittney, hiding behind technicalities or exploiting loopholes doesn't change the fact that your taking something that doesn't belong to you. But it does help those who lack the stones to be honest, to look in the mirror and not see a scumbag.

 

That's all well and good, and I don't think anyone's arguing the "wrongness" of it. What are you going to do about it, though? That's the question. I submit that you're better served by adapting to circumstances you can't control than by complaining about it and hope the world at large comes around. They ain't comin' around. "Wrong" as it may be, it's not going away. So artists and labels can either deal with it and figure out how to make it work or fade away.

 

I think there's plenty of profit to be made despite file-sharing, and, in fact, even because of it. I think major labels would be doing much better right now if they were embracing this technology and finding out how to exploit it rather than fighting against it. Bands like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Prince (just off the top of my head) have already shown that they can make buttloads of money through different variations of basically giving their music away and the honor system. I'll grant that they all were well established beforehand, but at least it's laying the groundwork. The old "major label" paradigm was far from perfect too.

 

I don't know. All in all, I guess I'm saying that at this point as an artist you just have to get over it, plain and simple. Yes, it's wrong, and yes, it's going to keep happening. People thought radio would be the end of the music industry too. Turns out that it's been one of the best publicity tools imaginable for the music industry. Go figure. Every crisis is also an opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks are willing to pay $1 for a song as evidenced by the success of iTunes. Therein lies the new business model. :cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=zephonic

I'm from Kenya, which is considered to be a "developing" country by most. Poverty is still an issue here, thank God starvation is not, and HIV remains a threat to the promiscuous ones. The internet has indeed been vital to many people here, not the least for myself.

And now for you, mr. Tony, have you been to the third world and seen it for yourself? Because you seem to be pretty sure that we don't need the internet.

 

First, I never said the Third World doesn't NEED internet (try actually reading my words instead of putting an interpretive spin on them), I said for the majority of the starving and hungry, the internet isn't a concern for them.

 

Yes, I've been to the Third World, although I suspect Kenya has less in common with the Third World that Ive seen, and more in common with the rest of the urban world we exist in. (The fact that youre on the internet and playing electric keyboards more than suggests so.) The Third World that Ive been to and spent time in is a bit more.shall we say, rugged: Djibouti, Somalia, Chuuk, Micronesia, Pohnpei, Kosrae, Mosul, Najaf, Fallujah, Al Qaim and even sections of Baghdad. The overwhelming majority of the populace in those places live in lean-tos, have no running water or electricity, no agricultural skills, and are much more concerned with somehow providing food for their families than they are about file sharing and their internet service. :freak:

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rarely does any $$ actually get taken from the actual artists with file sharing. Upwards of 90% of commercially released albums never a make a dime for the artist. Artists only get royalties when their expenses (advances, studio costs, materials, pretty much EVERYTHING) are recouped, and since the artists' pay the company back based on their share (usually pennies on the dollar), most albums never make it into the black. And it has been that way since the beginning. So really this beef is coming from the record companies and not the artists, with the exception of a few self-righteous ones like Metallica. I don't say that because I don't think it's wrong to steal, but I think it should be clear just who is getting robbed. Rallying against file sharing in the name of benefiting artists is misguided.

 

Major artists have always made their "real money" from touring, and in my opinion, file sharing can only empower artists by getting their music heard by more people. That equals more fans, more butts in the seats at concerts, more t-shirt sales, etc. I've discovered a handful of my favorite bands through file sharing, mostly a friend who burned a cd for me of a particular band or a mix they thought I'd like. In all those cases, it ended up benefiting the artists rather than hurting them by actually putting MORE of my money in their pockets.

 

Let's face it. Record companies have never had any practical business sense. When radio was first introduced, record companies actually sued radio stations in order to stop them from broadcasting their music for free. Sound familiar? Now, radio is a record company's principle form of publicity. If record companies were smart they'd be embracing all the new technology coming out and use it to their advantage, not fighting a 10-year old losing battle.

 

And yes, it is a losing battle. This "victory" against a mother of four means absolutely nothing. There's also no way that judgment will stand. It'll come down dramatically on appeal I'm sure.

 

Too bad the industry is populated with working 9-5 employees who are NOT recording artists, and yes, actually, that money stolen via downloading is revenue the big evil record companies don't make, and that revenue is reflected in jobs (like administration, recording studios, session musicians, graphic artists, manufacturing, even things like UPS deliveries of product to stores) that the big evil record companies no longer can afford to keep, or services they can no longer afford to avail themselves of.

 

And regardless, when did tit-for-tat become justification morally?

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, you posted an answer regarding physical product: an mp3 is a physical product

 

Can you read this text? Yes, you can. Does this mean that any other user of the forum right now can't? No. Physical products deal with scarcity and exclusivity; when you steal, you deprive someone else of the usage. You have an unique collection of atoms you can't duplicate; if they're here, they're not there.

 

Not so with bits and bytes. I give this unique string of text away to thousands of people at the same time, at zero cost for myself and for them. There's no difference with any other file; it's just that those are longer and aren't human-readable. You have a burning candle. I take my candle and hold it next to your candle's flame; now both of us have the light, and neither of us have lost the candle or the light.

 

I'd welcome if music was a physical product; in that case, the right of the buyer would mean that I could do whatever I want with it. First sale doctrine, anyone?

 

You have a unique perception of the law. I suspect you're not an IP lawyer. :thu:

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, you posted an answer regarding physical product: an mp3 is a physical product

 

Can you read this text? Yes, you can. Does this mean that any other user of the forum right now can't? No. Physical products deal with scarcity and exclusivity; when you steal, you deprive someone else of the usage. You have an unique collection of atoms you can't duplicate; if they're here, they're not there.

 

Not so with bits and bytes. I give this unique string of text away to thousands of people at the same time, at zero cost for myself and for them. There's no difference with any other file; it's just that those are longer and aren't human-readable. You have a burning candle. I take my candle and hold it next to your candle's flame; now both of us have the light, and neither of us have lost the candle or the light.

 

I'd welcome if music was a physical product; in that case, the right of the buyer would mean that I could do whatever I want with it. First sale doctrine, anyone?

 

The more I read this, the harder a time I have believing that you actually BELIEVE this, and that this exonerates you or anyone else from stealing. But in the off chance you really have convinced yourself that you are right, Im wondering if you would have as much luck convincing a cop/judge/jury that making dvd copies of the new Transformers movie and standing outside a movie theatre where its playing and just giving them away is not stealing or usage infringement, or if standing in front of a Blockbuster (or name the video/dvd rental franchise of your choice) with free bootleg copies of The Dark Knight would constitute the same? After all, youre not preventing anyone from using the legit copies of The Dark Knight inside that they would have to pay for. Yeah, Id like to see the Courtroom TV coverage of that criminal case, especially your closing argument. :wave:

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all well and good, and I don't think anyone's arguing the "wrongness" of it.

 

Actually, the entire premise of this thread (and subsequent threads on the internet) is people arguing the wrongness of it. :laugh:

 

"Wrong" as it may be,

 

It's not "wrong". It's wrong. No "" needed.

 

What are you going to do about it, though?

 

I am going to use an analogy, and DAMN the analogy haters! :laugh: :

 

It's a lot like speeding. There is no way to completely stop speeding, yet if cops gave out no tickets, 99% of people would speed all the time. Since they do give out tickets, people have to keep it in check a bit.

 

People bought radar detectors to beat the system. Some people speeded like mad and were rarely caught, they seemed to have beat the system. Along comes the 21st century and what pops up? Cameras! Everywhere. Nobody expected that, all of a sudden something that was beatable is not nearly as beatable as one thought.

 

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read this, the harder a time I have believing that you actually BELIEVE this, and that this exonerates you or anyone else from stealing.

I keep repeating a fact that you can't dismiss:

 

- if I steal your car, you can no longer use your car

- if I "steal" your music (to use your words), you still have it.

 

The former deprives you from an asset, the latter deprives you of possible income, because I could've heard your track anywhere and feel no intention of listening to it ever again; hence, I wouldn't want to buy it.

 

Exactly nowhere in this thread have I claimed that I download music; but since you find my arguments disagreeable, you seem to enjoy painting me as such - without actual proof. Your "guilty before innocent" attitude towards me is not exactly flattering.

 

Im wondering if you would have as much luck convincing a cop/judge/jury that making dvd copies of the new Transformers movie and standing outside a movie theatre where its playing and just giving them away is not stealing

It's not; it's infringement. Transformers was a pretty cool movie, by the way, once you suspend your disbelief and grab the popcorn.

 

if standing in front of a Blockbuster (or name the video/dvd rental franchise of your choice) with free bootleg copies of The Dark Knight would constitute the same?

It's not. It'd be stealing if I would take the DVDs from Blockbuster.

 

Again, a civil case, not a criminal case. That's all I'm arguing for; one can be settled, the other can't. One is the organization vs. whoever did it, the other is the State vs. whoever did it.

 

In the meantime, I get people complaining about "semantics". If anyone's not a lawyer, it's them - after all, law is all about these "semantics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read this, the harder a time I have believing that you actually BELIEVE this, and that this exonerates you or anyone else from stealing.

I keep repeating a fact that you can't dismiss:

 

- if I steal your car, you can no longer use your car

- if I "steal" your music (to use your words), you still have it.

 

 

 

Identity theft isnt really "theft" then. I didnt "steal" your credit card, I didnt touch it. I didnt do anything, you still have it. I didnt touch the money, you never had it as it's all 1s and 0s.

 

Plagiarism doesn't exist, as you still have your words. I could take your novel you worked ten years on, put my name on it, and it would be fine. I took nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read this, the harder a time I have believing that you actually BELIEVE this, and that this exonerates you or anyone else from stealing.

I keep repeating a fact that you can't dismiss:

 

- if I steal your car, you can no longer use your car

- if I "steal" your music (to use your words), you still have it.

 

The former deprives you from an asset, the latter deprives you of possible income, because I could've heard your track anywhere and feel no intention of listening to it ever again; hence, I wouldn't want to buy it.

 

Exactly nowhere in this thread have I claimed that I download music; but since you find my arguments disagreeable, you seem to enjoy painting me as such - without actual proof. Your "guilty before innocent" attitude towards me is not exactly flattering.

 

Im wondering if you would have as much luck convincing a cop/judge/jury that making dvd copies of the new Transformers movie and standing outside a movie theatre where its playing and just giving them away is not stealing

It's not; it's infringement. Transformers was a pretty cool movie, by the way, once you suspend your disbelief and grab the popcorn.

 

if standing in front of a Blockbuster (or name the video/dvd rental franchise of your choice) with free bootleg copies of The Dark Knight would constitute the same?

It's not. It'd be stealing if I would take the DVDs from Blockbuster.

 

Again, a civil case, not a criminal case. That's all I'm arguing for; one can be settled, the other can't. One is the organization vs. whoever did it, the other is the State vs. whoever did it.

 

In the meantime, I get people complaining about "semantics". If anyone's not a lawyer, it's them - after all, law is all about these "semantics".

 

SORRY, but you get the buzzer again. 1) I never said you were downloading, Im only debating the illogic you and others are applying. 2) Actually I am talking criminal case here, have not approached the possibility and probability of civil litigation: at the beginning of recorded dvds/videotapes/laser discs, software, and many cds is the expressed FBI warning of criminal behavior and the likelihood of prosecution if caught.

3)You are conveniently ignoring the fact that stealing in this case refers directly to revenue, and the fact that the hypothesized you does not have the right to give that product (whether the cool Transformers movie, or the not so cool music that you wouldnt buy anyway). Its NOT yours to give away.

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of thoughts ...

 

1. I read of at least one originals band (name escapes me) who does not record. Their product is their live performance, and it is the only way to hear their music.

 

2. Wasn't it in the '40s when the likes of Duke Ellington were fighting radio stations who were replacing live musicians with recordings? It used to be that every time a radio station played it's jingle it was done by live musicians.

 

3. ASCAP didn't form until 1914. As I understand it the problem back then was songwriters died penniless even though their songs were being performed by bands everywhere.

 

4. Is the music industry the only industry for which copyright law applies? Sure, software folks haven't had much better luck with pirates, but what about the visual arts?

 

5. It's been a long road since the piano in the parlor, or the chest of viols, but I believe people still view music as an enjoyable pastime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. ASCAP didn't form until 1914. As I understand it the problem back then was songwriters died penniless even though their songs were being performed by bands everywhere.

 

 

Handel (1685-1759) had constant fights with publishers, as did Beethoven and almost every classical cat. Some composers (Johann Strauss) made millions off of publishing. It's been going on for a LONG time.

 

4. Is the music industry the only industry for which copyright law applies? Sure, software folks haven't had much better luck with pirates, but what about the visual arts?

 

Laws apply to all mediums. As I said earlier, I think the movie industry will be the one to tackle the problem. With 1 TB hard drives and blazing speeds, movies will soon be downloaded as much as mp3s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I've been to the Third World, although I suspect Kenya has less in common with the Third World that Ive seen, and more in common with the rest of the urban world we exist in. (The fact that youre on the internet and playing electric keyboards more than suggests so.)

 

There, you just did it again. Don't bother to check, to just "suspect" will suffice, of course.

 

I will retire from this discussion now because it's getting me all worked up.

 

PS Wanna know about slum children in Kenya learning about web design?

 

http://www.nairobits.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

And is this okay with you? Is stopping music piracy so important that we give up basic human privacy rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

And is this okay with you? Is stopping music piracy so important that we give up basic human privacy rights?

His point is that it's not ok, and that this kind of society is what IP piracy will likely lead to
A ROMpler is just a polyphonic turntable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

And is this okay with you? Is stopping music piracy so important that we give up basic human privacy rights?

 

I couldnt possibly be more against it in any way, shape or form. I oppose it with every fiber of my being.

 

I didnt say I was OK with it, I said that it was coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

And is this okay with you? Is stopping music piracy so important that we give up basic human privacy rights?

His point is that it's not ok, and that this kind of society is what IP piracy will likely lead to

 

Correctomundo. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

Tax you per mile of driving? But...why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I've been to the Third World, although I suspect Kenya has less in common with the Third World that Ive seen, and more in common with the rest of the urban world we exist in. (The fact that youre on the internet and playing electric keyboards more than suggests so.)

 

There, you just did it again. Don't bother to check, to just "suspect" will suffice, of course.

 

I will retire from this discussion now because it's getting me all worked up.

 

PS Wanna know about slum children in Kenya learning about web design?

 

http://www.nairobits.com/

 

I honestly have no idea what your point is. As I said (if you would actually READ and then think about it before putting words in MY mouth), the Third World places that I have been to (which does not include Kenya, but does include other places in Africa) are not concerned about the internet as their primary instincts are focused on staying alive, finding food, living conditions. And by extension, those places and its inhabitants are not all that concerned with copyright infringement, downloading music, or their internet provider. Your situation in Kenya may be totally different (and if it is, then I am right, your world resembles more of the rest of the urban world); if it is as poverty stricken as the places I have mentioned, that makes Kenya the exception rather than the rule. I can tell you that in all of those Third World places I had been to, there was not one synthesizer or keyboard to be found anywhere, nor a computer to be found in any non-military installation in those places (which was my point). The fact that you have internet service and an avatar with you playing a digital keyboard puts you in a different predicament than those I spoke of specifically (which is what I said). I dont know about Kenya specifically, but in the Third World places I have been to, they dont give a rats ass about file sharing and illegal mp3 down or uploading. I never said the Third World doesnt need or want the internet. I do know that at this stage of the game, for the GENERAL PUBLIC OF THOSE PLACES, this is nowhere near as high a priority as some of the more basic human needs of food, clean water, health care, etc. If you have been to those places and can tell me different with firsthand knowledge, not only will I retract, but I will personally be happy that things are improving in those locales.

 

If I have insulted you personally or Kenya as a whole, I apologize, but I think you have gone off on a tangent here and formed an impression that was not delivered or intended.

 

What exactly is your point in terms of this discussion regarding stealing music?

 

Hitting "Play" does NOT constitute live performance. -Me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A LOT more cameras are coming, one on every corner someday. Mass. is planning to put a GPS in EVERY car by 2014. They will tax you per mile of driving. If that succeeds, there's no reason why they won't try to tax the internet. If they can stick a GPS in your car, they can monitor your internet use too.

 

Tax you per mile of driving? But...why?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090217/1353483804.shtml

 

http://informationalwarfare.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/transportation-agency-attempts-to-gps-geotag-every-car-and-charge-drivers-by-mileage/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I want to tell the mothers and fathers of our great country never to permit their children to become professional musicians, because if they do, they are going into a starvation business."

 

"Making a recording is like playing for your own funeral."

 

James Petrillo, AFM President, 1940-1958.

 

Sorry to just jump in with these quotations, but I can't recall reading a more disheartening thread. Musicians, many of whom are barely eking out a living, arguing about the morality of stealing each others' work product.

 

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have insulted you personally or Kenya as a whole, I apologize, but I think you have gone off on a tangent here and formed an impression that was not delivered or intended.

 

What exactly is your point in terms of this discussion regarding stealing music?

 

No, you did not insult me, I guess I'm a little sensitive when people talk about Africa. FWIW, Kenya has large rural areas that fit your description. But for perspective, mobile banking etc. is bigger here (especially in rural areas) than in Europe, I can tell you from first-hand experience. And you'll see internet cafes in even the smallest villages.

 

The net is a vital tool for just about all the urban population, and the rural youth as well. It is the great equalizer, making information available that Africans had no access to in the past.

For example, during the last elections it let us know what was happening since there was a media freeze-out.

 

Another example, a bassplayer I know spent many days in cybercafes looking for Jazz to listen to. He is now one of the best musicians I have ever played with. If it wasn't for the net, he would still be confined to root notes under triads.

 

 

As for illegal downloading, I never said it was right, but I do say you can't stop it, so get "with it".

 

I also said that anybody who has ever taped a song off the radio or copied a friend's album should not be so sanctimonious when it comes to filesharing as it is essentially the same thing.

 

I would advice caution to all who wish for stricter regulation of the net. You just may get what you wish for.

 

Finally, the popularity of iTunes etc. conclusively demonstrates that people will pay for downloadable music if it is brought to them in an attractive manner.

 

And now I am really done. Thanks for listening, folks, and good night.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I can't recall reading a more disheartening thread. Musicians, many of whom are barely eking out a living, arguing about the morality of stealing each others' work product.

 

Larry

 

I think one of the basic human cognitive abilities is to compartmentalize, which is necessary for rationalizing, which I think is one of the things that is going on here. Just look at recent politicians who condemn others for moral lapses and then are caught having affairs, or in general people who condemn behavior in others while partaking in it themselves. Of course, compartmentalizing is related to classification, which is an even deeper and more basic cognitive skill, lying as it does at the core of consciousness. In other words, it is a necessary cognative skill. Nonetheless, it is always fascinating to observe people who are unaware of their own behavior. Another way to look at all this is via Game Theory. While I am not very knowledgeable about it, it does seem to seek to classify human behavior in terms of each person or entity trying to maximize their position. From this standpoint, why shouldn't I download music for free instead of paying for it? However, others should not download my music, they should pay for it.

 

- jarrell

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...