# Piracy, Torrents, and moral relativism.....



## cchaynes (Oct 25, 2007)

This is a thread for those on the boards to come and type in when they feel compelled to rant, spew, preach, sermonize, etc. regarding their thoughts on downloading, torrents, and so on...

I, as i am certain are others, am tired of every time the word "torrent" appears in a thread, that someone feels the need to point out the obvious, and refer to their supposed moral superiority.


we know that "theft" is wrong, we dont in any way condone theft by using torrents, and wish for you to stop getting off topic in the main forums.:yawn: 

This thread is for you!

Enjoy!:clap:


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

I hope this thread is for me.

I actually appreciate it when someone responds to a torrent thread with a quick note saying (without condemning) that the poster may have come to the wrong place.

I agree, though, that there are some very heavy-handed responses out there that more than make their point.

I hope this is the kind of thing you had in mind, cch.


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

excellent, I'll let 'er rip here!

With the CRIA taxing blank media in this country for 'piracy' it almost is a go-ahead for many. With royalties the way they are for music sales most of the money's going to the labels anyway, who'll just blow the money on some no-talent hack that they'll invent to sell media, not further the artform.

If I pay to go see a movie, I'm bombarded with ads before and during the movie. Anyone see Transformers?!? It was a bloody car commercial with GM/Ford/whoever was all over it. If you're gonna shove ads at me, what justifies the extortionate prices?

DRM, HDCP and all that garbage only serves to hinder me from doing what I want with my media, plus service providers give us watered-down forms of media to start with. Even the HD from satellite/cable looks terrible compared to the HD content you can get from "morally questionable" sites...if it looks better and is more convenient, what are consumers to do?

[phew] that was sitting in my brain from the other forum, thanks for that.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

harpoon said:


> With the CRIA taxing blank media in this country for 'piracy' it almost is a go-ahead for many


I haven't found the prices in Canada for blank media to be in any way different from US retail prices, which makes me think either the "tax" is incredibly tiny or most merchants are just eating it. It's certainly not a license to pirate (and I don't think you were saying that YOU saw it that way) any more than being able to buy a gun means you have a license to kill.



> With royalties the way they are for music sales most of the money's going to the labels


Yes, that's true. But the artist DOES GET SOME OF IT, no matter how small. Which compares to how much the pirates give him, which would be ... wait, let me add this up ... oh yes, ZERO.



> who'll just blow the money on some no-talent hack that they'll invent to sell media, not further the artform.


"futher the artform." Really? I had no idea that's what a record label was supposed to do. I'll bet this will come as a huge shock to them. Tell me, do you think the prospector's job was to further gold creation?



> Anyone see Transformers?!? It was a bloody car commercial with GM/Ford/whoever was all over it. If you're gonna shove ads at me, what justifies the extortionate prices?


1. Your appalling taste in movies is also not a license to pirate. 

2. After the ads, did you happen to notice the state-of-the-art effects in that movie, and note how many of them there were? That can't have been cheap ...



> DRM, HDCP and all that garbage only serves to hinder me from doing what I want with my media


I completely agree with you that such schemes only punish honest customers and AT BEST inconvenience thieves. But given the general lack of imagination on the part of those organisations (hereinafter referred to as "the suits"), they think it's the only weapon they've got. Apple has tried -- repeatedly -- to show them a better way, and met with a lot of success. This has helped change a lot of thinking out there on this. Look at the new Family Guy "Blue Harvest" DVD as a toe in the water of "maybe let's not treat our customers like bandits!"



> if it looks better and is more convenient, what are consumers to do?


Oh so this FORCES you to pirate?

I have to say, of all the weak rationalisations I've seen (and said!) for piracy, that one takes the cake.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

chas_m said:


> I haven't found the prices in Canada for blank media to be in any way different from US retail prices, which makes me think either the "tax" is incredibly tiny or most merchants are just eating it.


Most merchants roll it into the price. Thats why at LD a 50 pack of CDs is 20$ + 10.50$ levy, while at Futureshop they are 33$.


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I haven't found the prices in Canada for blank media to be in any way different from US retail prices, which makes me think either the "tax" is incredibly tiny or most merchants are just eating it. It's certainly not a license to pirate (and I don't think you were saying that YOU saw it that way) any more than being able to buy a gun means you have a license to kill.
> 
> *...if you buy wholesale, and deal with legitimate media use it really adds up and is a pain. I'll look up the number later. They've been taxing since cassettes. No matter now small the tax is, the point is that the tax is stupid.*
> 
> ...


I found lots of your arguments weak too, so fair play. 

I'm just saying our media is given to us crippled, you can't be surprised if others aren't paying. It's like being the one guy on your block paying for satellite and seeing all the other grey-market dishes line the other houses...they get better quality and a better price. Just like a lot of torrents provide.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

> I'm happy to fire the artists money directly if a formula ever was there a la Radiohead. I don't want the labels to get my money...


This makes no sense. The artist SIGNED with the label -- voluntarily, even! Nobody held a gun to their head. Your argument goes that if you don't want the labels to get your money ... then ... you refuse to give the artists ANY money because they signed with the label??

Sounds like you think the artist is pretty stupid -- so why do you like them again??



> Record labels should be about signing and developing talent,


Actually that's the job of A&R and managers but nevermind ... let's say that labels did do that. Wait a minute, the artists YOU like are on ... gasp ... labels! Someone must have signed and developed these guys! But wait ... can't give labels money ... so ... must pirate, but ... label brought band I like to my attention .. so ... must give band money ... but have to go through label ... can't give label money ...

***DOES NOT COMPUTE***


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I have cable TV and use my Mac as a PVR. Therefore, any TV show that I want, I can easily record, hack the commercials out of, and watch at my own leisure.

Therefore, I have no moral issue with downloading TV shows via BitTorrent. The end result is the same.

In regards to watching movies, the industry is way behind in keeping up with technology and what consumers want. Sorry, but I don't want to drive to the video store, rent a movie, find time to watch it, then drive back to return it. BitTorrent piracy has forced the movie industry to change the way they do business and start thinking of the end consumer. Piracy has actually helped the movie industry move forward.


----------



## cchaynes (Oct 25, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> I have cable TV and use my Mac as a PVR. Therefore, any TV show that I want, I can easily record, hack the commercials out of, and watch at my own leisure.
> 
> Therefore, I have no moral issue with downloading TV shows via BitTorrent. The end result is the same.
> 
> In regards to watching movies, the industry is way behind in keeping up with technology and what consumers want. Sorry, but I don't want to drive to the video store, rent a movie, find time to watch it, then drive back to return it. BitTorrent piracy has forced the movie industry to change the way they do business and start thinking of the end consumer. Piracy has actually helped the movie industry move forward.



wow is this thread taking off....

thats cool, the subject matter is great, i just like it in its own place!

regarding TV, i totally agree!, if i already pay 100$ plus to bell or rogers for television, and can record it, should I miss an episode for some reason, give it a quick download and watch it, I in no way feel bad about that! In fact one could argue that it helps the networks keep you up to date and thus interested in their product at all....( miss a show, lose interest etc.)

regarding the movie industry being behind the time, so was the music biz, but looks like Apple is going to lend a hand again.....

i have no issue paying for both quality and convenience, and i have gone out of my way to create an american alter ego on itunes to do so....

i think that as technology and pricing catch up to the realities of technology, that most legitimate consumers will pay for content.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I think Hollywood needs to be a little smarter and selective on what they make into a movie. The countless pieces of crap they produce yearly has got to be a bigger money waster than torrent downloads. And yes special effects for the blockbusters do get costly, but I doubt any more than any pretentious actor they could hire. If independents like Napoleon Dynamite and Juno can become hits with relatively low production costs, why then are big wigs in Hollywood overlooking these scripts? Is it because they think they can lull their audience into liking a flick if it has huge production costs and big name actors, instead of having a decent story line and script? 

If movie making has now become a money loser, they need to re-look at how they are making them. Spending $300 million on a movie with a crappy script and expecting it to make money (taking into consideration piracy) give your head a shake. They need a new business model, need better scripts and more quality movies. If a film is truly good, it will make money, If it's not, it wont. Don't point the finger at piracy because you spent a ton of money on crappy movies that no one watched and now you're in the red. Point the finger at the one that allowed the money losers to be made.


----------



## wcg (Oct 13, 2007)

I'll repeat my post here from the "Torrent" topic in the Mac forum:

I believe in authors/creators getting there due compensation but I think many people are starting to mimic the rhetoric of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Here's a few things that let me sleep at night:
- many artists are not getting compensated for digital media (Radiohead's recent approach is the way to go, I'll pay them directly.)
- not accept the "stealing" and "piracy" terminology, P2P/torrents are neither, you maybe violating copyright, but let's be clear, you are not a thief nor a pirate if you do so
- the content distributors (typically large corporations) have broken business models - prices, value for money, availability of content, DRM - are all out of whack
- I pay for what I use (price/value proposition must be appropriate) - much of the other stuff is simply played with no more than a typical demo
- music I own on vinyl or simply impossible to buy physically or digitally is fair use IMO
- I believe absolutely that artists, authors, etc. can compete with "free". The price, value and availability must make sense to consumers not providers. Why can't I buy the DVD of the movie I just saw at the theatre? Why wait 30 days after the DVD to rent online? The artists don't decide this, marketing groups in the distribution companies decide this
- content is too expensive, people download because the value for money isn't there
- don't believe any of the statistic spouted by the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Look at the recent retraction by the MPAA that college students probably weren't causing 44% of their global $6 billion loss to piracy (which has been dissected in the press as being a completely outlandish number)

Further to the discussion of labels, bands, talent etc. Sure we need labels and if they can work with the new business models then all the power to them. Many labels are doing the right thing (for me Epitaph would be an example of a label of bands I like) but they are not really the evil in the whole system. They deserve a return on their investment but give us your content DRM-free at a decent price and make it available now. Like I said, they can compete with free, are they brave enough? Otherwise, don't cry about downloading.

And would everyone stop using "piracy" and "theft" when talking about downloading, P2P and BitTorrent. These are words cultivated by the RIAA, MPAA etc. to bring about the appropriate evil connotation they desire. Breaking copyright (if you happen to be doing so and under the right jurisdiction for it to be enforced) is not piracy or theft.

This is simply my opinions each to his/her own.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Essentially, the entertainment conglomerates have set up a situation in which they continually convince consumers into accepting new expensive formats for their products. Along the way, they failed to provide adequate protection for what they produce and now it's easy to replicate.

I would liken it to someone who figures out how to duplicate apples in their own home. The guy at the orchard might be really unhappy about it, and may produce a few apple variants to spur the market--but these are just as quickly duplicated. 

Someone may enact a law to say that it is illegal to duplicate apples, and might even point to a few people who still come to the orchard and pay for original apples to indicate that a vibrant apple market is being destroyed by dirty apple duplicators.

It's just a matter of perspective as to how you view the issue. Stick a fork in the entertainment industry's business/distribution model--it's done.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I think people jump on the whole Torrent = Piracy bandwagon too fast. Torrents are notably handy in a number of circumstances that are entirely valid. As we all know, TCP/IP is terrible at error correction, and HTTPGet is not always very good at resuming a broken download. The torrent approach is ideal in a number of circumstances, in particular, when connections through the Internet are not always optimal, or when a download link is slow and prone to breakage.

Many releases of Linux, which are entirely open source and free, are available by torrent. As well, many larger sized updates, which are also free and valid, are made available to those that, through other means, would not easily be able to update their machines. For myself who happens to live in an area which is not serviced by high speed Internet, and with a dial up connections that does tend to drop carrier at times, torrents are the ideal solution to downloading these files. Dropped carrier - just reconnect and resume. And I can also go portable, so that I can go to the coffee pub to download, and I can do it in multiple sessions. Although I could do this with a straight download (and quite often I do), it is handy if I need a large file that will not download in the time that I have available.

There are a number of other circumstances, perhaps considered to be "piracy", that torrents come in handy. For instance, when I reinstalled my OSX, I lost both Internet Exploder and Adobe Acrobat Reader. IE is no longer available from the Evil Empire, and Acrobat Reader is no longer available from Adobe. (And before anyone goes on a rant about 'Adobe Reader', for my uses and the large collection of Acrobat files I have, I need either Acrobat or Acrobat Reader. They are distinctly different products, especially when it comes to large numbers of legacy files.) I do not see that it is piracy if the software is both abandoned and originally a part of an otherwise legit system install.

Torrents helped out in a number of circumstances, for instance, when I needed Tiger which the local dealer did not carry (and refused to order in a timely manner), and I did not have the time to travel to Hogtown to buy it. Torrents also make such projects as OS86 available to hardware hackers, and since Apple refuses to make OSX available to the wider public...

Piracy of music and video are in part caused by the lack of retail outlets, and in part by the outrageous prices that are charged when one does find an outlet that carries something of interest. For instance, if I want to buy a CD, I have to do it on a trip to Toronto, since the last music store in The Hammer closed in December. We do have Sonic Unyon (an independent label), and a few used CD stores, oh, and WalMart, which is the last store to carry any CDs or DVDs, but they do not have a very good selection... No wonder why people resort to piracy.

I do not think that torrents are the problem. Torrents represent a method of reliably transferring large files between machines that do not have otherwise stable or high speed connections, and hence, is a valid mechanism for such data transfers.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MasterBlaster said:


> The Government sez:
> Piracy is illegal. We are charging you for piracy on the media you are using.
> Therefore you are guilty of piracy until proven innocent.


Taxation without representation! All of the media I have is for legitimate purposes, either as fair use copies of music for my car, to back up data on my computers, or to publish CDs with genealogical data and photographs. I should not have to pay a special 'levy'. If this 'levy' was fair, then they should have to distribute the collected money to the artists based on the proportion of much much the artists have been pirated. This way, Celine Dion wouldn't get any money, because no one would waste a valuable torrent on her junk...

But as is the case with the Government, the guilty rarely pay. It is as dumb as charging barber shops for playing music because they have customers. Wait, this could be good because of barber shops have to pay, then grocery stores would have to pay, and because they are so greedy, there would no longer be elevator music pumped through the stores. So some times there are benefits...

Their next hair brained scheme is to put tolls on all of the major highways, thus forcing people onto the network of secondary roads. But this will save "carbon", because instead of spending 2 and a half hours burning carbon between here and Windsor, I'll be able to spend six hours burning carbon all along the length of highway 3... The logic of government!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Music industry should be happy about this...

Electronista | Digital music sales up 40%; piracy at 20-to-1?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Music industry should be happy about this...
> 
> Electronista | Digital music sales up 40%; piracy at 20-to-1?


I find myself wondering how much of this upsurge is due to the increase in availability of non DRM files. I'd like to see a study on this.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

oy ve - downloading is up, but music and CD sales are up not down... lets rehash that one again.

First separate legality from morality - very different issues...

Next take the free market capitalist view - provide a product that the market sees value in and is willing to pay for, find the right price point and you're in business. The trick is always to stay one step ahead of the game - case in point, the phenomenal success of the iTunes store.

I agree with the moral statement that you should pay for what you use.
The legal issue of how what you use may be represented, how much your personal opinion is relevant compared to the letter of the law and how you're expected to pay for that and what is enforceable in your jurisdiction is a separate matter altogether.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The one thing that always gets me is how Rog(b)ers/B(H)ell can charge people for there ridiculous TV programming when all I want is to watch 4 specialty channels but I have to buy 40 other useless channels just for the privilege of watching what I want, consumer choice my ass. I have put up a powered OTA antenna to watch local channels in HD and in most cases my HD on those channels is of better quality than the highly compressed signal that people pay an arm and a leg with Rog(b)ers/B(H)ell, as for my specialty content I have a FTA satellite receiver and grab DishNet content from the US. I'll happily pay for Rog(b)ers/B(H)ell when I can get what I want to watch without paying for the extra crap that's also on.

Thanks for the thread and letting me rant on.

Laterz


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

chas_m said:


> This makes no sense. The artist SIGNED with the label -- voluntarily, even! Nobody held a gun to their head. Your argument goes that if you don't want the labels to get your money ... then ... you refuse to give the artists ANY money because they signed with the label??
> 
> Sounds like you think the artist is pretty stupid -- so why do you like them again??
> 
> ...


If I like an artist I'll catch 'em on tour, buy a t-shirt etc...not get them money through the label. I don't think artists are stupid (wow, do you ever jump to assumptions mate), I think labels are evil. I used to work in the biz, I pretty much KNOW labels are evil at this point.

From reading the other posts (which I mostly agree with) it seems clear that consumers feel ripped off by a lot of these conglomerates. I think the internet and new media is a great equalizer for all this, it's phenomenal that I can actually get that TV show I missed, hear that bootleg import CD, etc without busting my backside to find it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

harpoon said:


> If I like an artist I'll catch 'em on tour, buy a t-shirt etc...not get them money through the label. I don't think artists are stupid (wow, do you ever jump to assumptions mate), I think labels are evil. I used to work in the biz, I pretty much KNOW labels are evil at this point.
> 
> From reading the other posts (which I mostly agree with) it seems clear that consumers feel ripped off by a lot of these conglomerates. I think the internet and new media is a great equalizer for all this, it's phenomenal that I can actually get that TV show I missed, hear that bootleg import CD, etc without busting my backside to find it.


Exactly, record labels have lost their purpose, artists no longer need them to promote and sell their music. Radiohead is case and point, except the name your price thing, bands make money on touring and t-shirt sales, and very little on cd sales. Big corps who have been hosing consumers for years are now crying foul, screw them, adapt or fade off into the sunset.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Exactly, record labels have lost their purpose, artists no longer need them to promote and sell their music. Radiohead is case and point, except the name your price thing, bands make money on touring and t-shirt sales, and very little on cd sales. Big corps who have been hosing consumers for years are now crying foul, screw them, adapt or fade off into the sunset.


:clap:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> :clap:


You aren't agreeing with me are you?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You aren't agreeing with me are you?


Yes it is true. We actually seem to have some common ground. Who would have thought?
:lmao:


----------



## wcg (Oct 13, 2007)

Interesting  article about success without record labels.

At least music downloading has opened up some of the craziness that exists in the music business. The fact remains that only the top 1-2% of artists make money because they have the shear volume that allows them to do so. All the other artists that don't cut it usually end up with little. Like I said before, I'll pay them directly, no problem, but don't cry to me about lost sales and struggling artists. That has nothing to do with downloading music.


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Exactly, record labels have lost their purpose, artists no longer need them to promote and sell their music. Radiohead is case and point, except the name your price thing, bands make money on touring and t-shirt sales, and very little on cd sales. Big corps who have been hosing consumers for years are now crying foul, screw them, adapt or fade off into the sunset.


Well said.

It's a bunch of things that just drive me crazy too:

- why are we still paying crazy prices for CDs? There's been little to no price drop since CDs have come out.
- the industry fails to recognize that a lot of people have updated back catalogue titles to CD from vinyl/cassette and saturation point on CDs was there years ago. Of course the sales will drop, downloading aside.
- technically speaking, producers and mixers are making sure to mix the music so it sounds good on mp3 first, CD second. It's so squashed and compressed on CD that you don't get much of a fidelity difference anymore (for the most part).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I honestly believe that bands will live or die on live performance in the future, releasing songs as free promotional items, and selling merchandise as part of the "band brand." It's the only way to take advantage of what's happening instead of fighting the inevitable...and that puts me firmly in _Martman_'s corner on this one.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Can anyone answer me this question as it hasn't been answered on these forums in the past.

If I buy blank media and don't use it for music, some artist out there is benefiting from the taxed blank media. Why am I subject to this? If all I do is put photos onto the blank media, why is some artist or label getting my money? 

The above really ticks me off, I'm basically guilty, a pirate and I'm not even using the blank media for music. Does this make sense?

I have used Torrents for catching up on certain T.V. shows that I have missed, the best thing is, they are commercial free! 

I think one day Torrents ( Or the technology behind it) will become a way to wirelessly transfer new OS to customers and other forms of media through a pay service. Apple has already started with the MacBook Air and I believe one day soon we will be purchasing our software via downloads.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> If I buy blank media and don't use it for music, some artist out there is benefiting from the taxed blank media. Why am I subject to this? If all I do is put photos onto the blank media, why is some artist or label getting my money?


The artist or label isn't getting *your* money.
You don't send them a check or let them charge your credit card, do you?

The money comes from the manufacturer or the distributor and it's not going to make one iota of difference to the final price you pay.
Somehow people always seem to think there is some fixed relationship between price and cost.
Blank media is actually a very good example. Take a look at what say a 100 DVD-R spindle costs today. The identical Verbatim product is priced at anywhere from $31.56 to $59.95.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

MacGYVER said:


> The above really ticks me off, I'm basically guilty, a pirate and I'm not even using the blank media for music. Does this make sense?


How can you be guilty of something that's not illegal? You aren't guilty of anything, least of all piracy. There are specific provisions in copyright law explicitly allowing copying of music for personal use. The levy is there as compensation for that right.

The levy is no more, or less fair, than say, on my property taxes where I pay a certain amount for public transportation. That I don't use.



MacGYVER said:


> I have used Torrents for catching up on certain T.V. shows that I have missed, the best thing is, they are commercial free!


Commercials are what 'pay' for the T.V. show.... how is it that people can feel guilt cutting off a revenue stream in music land(by not purchasing a cd) but not about cutting off a revenue stream in TV land?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the libertarian veiwpoint on this issue. (Now let's all sit down and sing Kumbaya together - oh wait, is that public domain? - maybe not  )

Way back before any of us were born (except maybe SINC  ) there was no recording industry. Musicians for the most part probably didn't make a lot of money and any money they did make was probably from performing and possibly some from teaching. These people were musicians because they were passionate about music and were willing to do what it took because they were doing what they loved. No doubt there were some famous musicians who were probably famous because they were some of the most talented and therefore made more money than others.

Somewhere along the line, recorded music became a huge industry that fuelled insanely massive profits for itself and for the relatively few musicians who were marketed by the industry and who had sharp enough managers that they didn't get screwed by the recording companies. Musicians for the most part still didn't make a lot of money, and had to make most of their money from performing or teaching. But they still continued on out of passion. But now many could dream of getting a lucrative record deal. And now some of the most talented musicians didn't make it to the top in the pop realm because they didn't have the right haircut, style or dance moves.



Macfury said:


> I honestly believe that bands will live or die on live performance in the future, releasing songs as free promotional items, and selling merchandise as part of the "band brand." It's the only way to take advantage of what's happening instead of fighting the inevitable...and that puts me firmly in _Martman_'s corner on this one.


I agree with MF about where the industry is headed. Of course those corporations who have made untold billions from managing the music industry and some of those pop musicians who became very rich themselves are not going to go down without a fight and without buying as much political power in Washington, Ottawa and Brussels as they can. It's probably a losing battle on their part.

But still the majority of musicians will still not make a lot of money and will have to make the bulk of their income from performing, but they will still do it because they are doing what they love. They will quit dreaming of getting that insanely lucrative recording contract and becoming super-rich celebrities. I think that the most talented musicians will again gain prominence. And the wealthy descendants of those who made their family's billions in the former recording industry will hire those musicians to play at their weddings and parties.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Way back before any of us were born (except maybe SINC  ) there was no recording industry. Musicians for the most part probably didn't make a lot of money and any money they did make was probably from performing and possibly some from teaching. These people were musicians because they were passionate about music and were willing to do what it took because they were doing what they loved.


Yeah, technology has sure changed.

Hell the other day I went to a movie and bought a box of popcorn. The young lady asked me for $4.50.

My Gawd, I squawked, the last time I bought a popcorn it was only 25 cents.

She smiled at me and said, "Then you're really gonna enjoy the show sir. We've got sound now."

Nuff said.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yeah, technology has sure changed.
> 
> Hell the other day I went to a movie and bought a box of popcorn. The young lady asked me for $4.50.
> 
> ...


:lmao:


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

krs said:


> The artist or label isn't getting *your* money.
> You don't send them a check or let them charge your credit card, do you?
> 
> The money comes from the manufacturer or the distributor and it's not going to make one iota of difference to the final price you pay.
> ...


Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:

_Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio)
_
Wikipedia entry link
[edit] 

...it amounts up when you're not using the discs for anything pirated! They've had this since cassettes. If they're gonna treat us like pirates...well, get the eyepatches out lads.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

harpoon said:


> Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:
> 
> _Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio)
> _
> ...


Good grief is piracy the word of the day today? 

Piracy is violation of copyright law. Personal copying of music is not a violation of copyright. So why do you keep calling personal copying piracy? 

You pay taxes for medical, even if you don't see a doctor. You pay UI, even if you never collect.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

polywog said:


> Piracy is violation of copyright law. Personal copying of music is not a violation of copyright. So why do you keep calling personal copying piracy?


Piracy or not, the levy does not take into account the use of media that is used for purposes other than piracy. Musicians should not be compensated for disks that I use for backup up data from my computer, or for disks that are used to store photographs.



> You pay taxes for medical, even if you don't see a doctor. You pay UI, even if you never collect.


Taxation that is used for medical insurance goes to fund medicine, just like EI is used as insurance if one looses their job. It is for the common good that everyone can benefit from. The levy, on the other hand, does not benefit me because I do not obtain any funds from this levy for any CDs of photographs or genealogical data that I publish. It is certainly not for the common good, and does not even benefit any of the real musicians. I am sure that, after the corrupt government officials score their take for their own "pork barrel" projects, that people like Celine Dion make the lions share. Real musicians end up with basically nothing.

The whole problem with the levy is it has so very little to do with the common good and so very much to make it look like the government is being tough on crime. Of course, we know they are not tough on crime but are only good at wasting the hard earned money of the people on their little garbage projects and white elephants.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> If a film is truly good, it will make money, If it's not, it wont.


Aye, there's the rub. (Although maybe not always.)

Art + money = mainstream

Mainstream = Celine Dion

Therefore tptptptp 

It always happens that way. This was all kind of unavoidable.

As for torrents, piracy etc etc etc that too was unavoidable, in an industrial world that sells you tools capable of copying media with one hand and then tells you not to copy the media with the other.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> The whole problem with the levy is it has so very little to do with the common good and so very much to make it look like the government is being tough on crime.


Absolutely.

Just like it's inventor, that mistress of all things horrific: Sheila Copps.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> If a film is truly good, it will make money, If it's not, it wont.


There's been a lot of excellent and thought-provoking comments from many here, including Jumbo, but I have to say this single line quoted above undermines his entire argument and is, at best, naive.

MOST of the great classics of film did not make money. MOST film releases do not make money. The ones that DO make money (particularly a LOT of money) are largely crap. The quality of the film can HELP it make money, but doesn't seem to play a huge role in whether it's popular (ergo, makes money) as much as does (for examples) the presence of werewolves, explosions or tits seem to.

Saying that profitable films are ipso facto good films is like saying that McDonald's is the finest restaurant on the face of the earth. It's ridiculous on its face.


----------



## MazG (Jan 25, 2008)

*My thoughts*

I admit to downloading torrents from time to time but I also purchase legal copies of software, CD music and DVD movies. 

Personally, I think the movie and music industry are trying to live in the past and are not adapting their business models to respond to the challenges of living in a wired community.

One of the things that really bugs me is how both the movie and music industry do not grant you a perpetual license to listen/play the movie/song when you purchase a copy (unlike some software companies). If you scratch your disk (or wear it out) then you have to buy a full priced replacment. I don't agree with this philosophy but I have no choice if I want to purchase the item. 

If you have small kids that like to put their Disney movies on by themselves then you'll know how quickly a DVD can become scratched. Why should I have to purchase a 2nd copy (and what do I do if the movie is "in the vault") because the distribution media is unreasonably fragile? In fact sometimes I wonder if the reason nobody has bothered inventing a more robust solution is because of all those extra sales! I think the problem could be simply solved by offering replacement disks at cost (every disk has a serial number and could be registered like software). Therefore I will non-guiltily download a copy of something I already purchased once (or just make a backup copy before I use the disk).

Another poster already mentioned having to wait 30 days to rent a movie after it is released. Why? The Internet has helped contribute to our "have it now" mentality. If software or a CD is released, I can download it immediately. Why not movies? Why would I want to get a babysitter, commute to a movie theater and sit in an uncomfortable (often dirty) environment? I would rather sit in the comfort of my own home and watch the movie and I'd still be willing to pay for the experience. But the experience isn't available until at least 30 days later, surely that encourages people to illegally download a copy in the meantime?

I believe that until the music and movie industry face the reality of doing business in 2008 and stop trying to exploit their loyal customer base (people that are actually willing to pay a reasonable sum for a reasonable product) then the issue of piracy won't go away.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

harpoon said:


> Allow me to quote from Wikipedia:
> 
> _Canada's current levies are as follows: $0.24 per unit for Audio Cassette tape (40min or longer); $0.21 per unit for CD-R Audio, CD-RW-Audio & MiniDisc; $0.21 per unit for CD-R, CD-RW (non audio)
> _
> ...


I have a hard time believing those numbers. The Wiki does not show any reference where these numbers were obtained.

The last spindle of 100 16x Philips DVD-R disks cost me $19.99 at the retail level. That's 19.99 cents per unit. The Wiki shows a levy of 21 cents per unit, so someone lost money on that transaction big time, not only the 1 penny on each unit, but also the manufacturing and transportation cost and any profit at the manufacturers, distributors and retailer level.
Typical prices for DVD-Rs always run around $21 to $22, CDs are usually much more. I just wonder if the levy does not apply to DVDs and that explains the difference in price compared to CDs. The Wiki doesn't mention DVDs in the Canada section at all - they are covered in the section for some other countries.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

chas_m said:


> The ones that DO make money (particularly a LOT of money) are largely crap.


Now don't get me wrong here, because I have to agree with that statement.

But people vote as to what they think is crap or not by buying tickets.

You can't help but cry when you think about the reams of monumental art that's undoubtedly been relegated to obscurity because it wasn't mainstream.

And the crap survives forever. It's nothing new.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

Everybody "steals" something from someone.

If you condemn others for piracy stop and take a long look at your own history for the following:

- have you ever snuck into a movie? That's not silly hijinx, that's stealing.
- have you ever walked out of a store knowing you didn't pay full price for an item due to a teller's error? That's not "their fault", that's stealing.
- have you ever fudged on your income tax to help shave a few points off your contribution to the biggest thieves of all? That's not "well, they screw me so it's okay to screw them", that's stealing.
- have you ever read a magazine at the check-out and then put it back without paying for it before leaving the store? No, that wasn't a trial run, that's stealing (no, you didn't keep the mag but you got the scoop on Brittany's latest scandal for free).
- have you ever broke recently purchased merchandise and then returned to the store claiming "it doesn't work" but failed to mention that you dropped it down the stairs? That's not being vague, that's stealing (own up to your mistakes).
- have you ever helped yourself to the candy in the bulk food section of a store? That's not sampling, that's stealing and BTW, keep your dirty paws off the chocolate chips for crissakes!

I'm sure there's a lot of other stuff people do everyday that is considered "minor" or justifiable in some way but when you cut through the BS it's really taking what is not rightfully yours. Let he who cast the first stone blah blah blah...

So for all you anti-buccaneers who live spotless lives and take ONLY WHAT YOU'VE EARNED and not a fraction more please introduce yourselves to the world and let us make saints of you all so that we can worship at your website and have a model of purity and justice that we all can aspire to but never really achieve.

The Pirate's Prayer

_We beseech thee, Master, to be our helper and protector.
Save the afflicted among us; have mercy on the lowly; 
raise up the fallen; appear to the needy; heal the ungodly pirates of the internet; 
restore the wanderers of this site; 
feed the hungry with legal downloads; ransom our prisoners (US model only); 
raise up the sick; comfort the faint-hearted._

How was I? A little over the top or not too bad?


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

No, no, no, yes, no and no.

I wouldn't touch anything that had Brittney on the cover however, and I think the point about magazines is a lengthy reach anyway.

Anxiously awaiting my new halo...


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

doole said:


> No, no, no, yes, no and no.
> 
> I wouldn't touch anything that had Brittney on the cover however, and I think the point about magazines is a lengthy reach anyway.
> 
> Anxiously awaiting my new halo...












I borrowed this halo so you can only keep it temporarily.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

doole said:


> But people vote as to what they think is crap or not by buying tickets.
> 
> You can't help but cry when you think about the reams of monumental art that's undoubtedly been relegated to obscurity because it wasn't mainstream.
> 
> And the crap survives forever. It's nothing new.


Actually, I have found over the years that people "vote" for crap primarily because they are unaware of the non-crap. They often try to pick the "least crappy" of the mainstream crap they are fed by the corporations, but it's mostly complete crap (by this I mean "as objectively as I can determine, this is in fact crap.").

You can make the case that people willingly allow themselves to be boxed into limited ranges of music (ignoring other genres of music, listening primarily to one station, a bias against non-english music) which naturally lead them crapward, but the fact that unusually good things occasionally break out and do very well indicates to me that MOST people still have some semblance of musical judgment and can spot non-crap when they are given the chance to hear it. The big media companies, however, find that messy and complicated and so desire to herd people into liking very identifiable (and largely interchangable) songs of one particular type. I know how to market to a "rap" lover or to a "rock-n-ROLL DUDEZ!!!" lover but it's harder to hit the spot of people with more cosmopolitan tastes.

Thus, the argument that "if it were good, it would be more popular" is the same logic behind the age-old question "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" 

And of course a certain percentage -- that I try _really_ hard to make as small as possible -- isn't crap really, it's just crap to me. I'm just ignorant of it or unappreciative because of personal tastes or just at this point of my life I'm not ready to learn about it. Case in point: growing up I just *hated hated hated* Charlie Daniels' "The Devil Went Down to Georgia. It represented everything I can't stand about the deep south. It doesn't help that Mr. Daniels is a major-league ass.

Still, when Tenacious D came out with "Tribute," I began to understand how influential that song had been. TDWDtG has influences in celtic story-songs, medieval folk, hillbilly music and of course square-dancing. It had more depth than I had, as a young man, appreciated.

Just today I happened to catch Mr. Daniels actually performing the song on television. Actually watching the fiddle work gives you a WHOLE new level of appreciation. I wasn't moved enough to buy the song, and Mr. Daniels remains an ass, BUT I really do have a lot more respect for his accomplishment and the song.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

skinnyboy said:


> Everybody "steals" something from someone.


The following is NOT meant to suggest I'm morally superior to ANYONE, but just to provide an honest data point:



> - have you ever snuck into a movie? That's not silly hijinx, that's stealing.
> - have you ever walked out of a store knowing you didn't pay full price for an item due to a teller's error? That's not "their fault", that's stealing.


No and no. Honest. Never done it. Some "rebel" I am, I guess ...



> - have you ever fudged on your income tax to help shave a few points off your contribution to the biggest thieves of all? That's not "well, they screw me so it's okay to screw them", that's stealing.


I've gone to GREAT lengths to research and exploit existing tax loopholes, but I've never lied or exaggerated on a tax return. I recognise that this is abnormal behaviour, but my dad got audited 11 times in his life and each time he came back visibly aged (whether he'd won the day or not). None of that for me thanks! 



> - have you ever read a magazine at the check-out and then put it back without paying for it before leaving the store?


Call this rationalisation, but I disagree with this premise intensely. I have certainly skimmed through a magazine to verify that the cover blurb was followed up by an actual substantive article (it's surprising how often they're not!), but no I haven't sat down and read an entire magazine (or even most of) one without paying for it outside of a library -- where I am led to understand this sort of "stealing" is encouraged. 



> - have you ever broke recently purchased merchandise and then returned to the store claiming "it doesn't work" but failed to mention that you dropped it down the stairs? That's not being vague, that's stealing (own up to your mistakes).


Nope. I have met people who bought prom dresses and returned them the next day (and similar activities). I genuinely don't know how those people sleep at night. I wouldn't associate with such a person if I could help it.



> - have you ever helped yourself to the candy in the bulk food section of a store?


If you mean eaten one to determine the quality, then yes I certainly have. I never _used_ to do this until grocers started ACTIVELY TELLING PEOPLE TO. Go ahead -- next time you're in the save-on or whatever, go up to a clerk and ask him if you can taste one chocolate raisin (or whatever) to check quality. I will give you a dollar for every "no" you get, if you'll give me one for every "please do" YOU get. I am the pathetic idiot who actually puts a quarter in the Brach's "3 for 25¢" tin and actually takes three. I've never taken two newspapers out of the kiosks when I only paid for one either. I beginning to detect that I am deeply weird. 



> I'm sure there's a lot of other stuff people do everyday that is considered "minor" or justifiable in some way but when you cut through the BS it's really taking what is not rightfully yours. Let he who cast the first stone blah blah blah...


By your logic even Jesus Christ would fail this test. Who paid for those loaves and fishes hmmm? 

Lest anyone think I'm mother theresa or something, let me say up front that in regards to the whole music-stealing thing, I don't think I hold a morally superior position: I just *like* music, therefore I like the people who *make* the music I like, and that leads me to not WANT to steal from them, and let's make this absolutely clear -- NOT paying someone for something they've put out for sale IS STEALING. Period.

I *want* to pay them and if more artists had models like the Radiohead album (which, btw, less than half of their of "fans" actually paid for, and even then the average was $4) I would _gladly_ cut out the middlemen. Even as poorly as Radiohead's fans are, the band actually cleared more money than they would have from a major label (but note with interest that they've since dropped their own download and turned to iTunes, indicating that they think there is plenty of money left to be made in downloads!).

The problem is that the artists WILLINGLY use these middlemen as the primary way to make money from music. Why don't they just "rely on tours and t-shirt sales" as the pirate line of reasoning du jour goes? Well because believe it or not you're not going to be a 20-something _forever_. You're going to get married and have kids and need to go to PTA meetings or work late and_ surprise surprise_ you're not going to shows very often anymore. Before you know it, you're your parents -- going to a live show about once a year, if that.

So that line of reasoning is just pure BS for any artist who hopes to continue making a living from music beyond the teenybop/emo kid market.

Nobody would like to see the RIAA disbanded and big record labels demolished more than I would. But until the ARTISTS come up with a more direct alternative, my original argument stands: by buying a CD or an iTune, the artist gets SOME MONEY. Under filesharing, the artist gets NO MONEY. To my way of thinking, this is insulting the artist you're allegedly a fan of.

But really, my sense of ethics doesn't come from moral superiority, it comes from simple fairness. If I use something, I should pay for it. I'll certainly try to get the best possible price I can for it (hopeless capitalist, me) but theft just isn't on for me.

So there. Worship me, I'm an imaginary beast, like Mr. Snuffleupagus. But that's my honest outlook, and for some strange reason I have no trouble meeting people who think like I do on these topics.

I'm sure if you probed around you'd find areas where I'm more morally ambiguous, but when it comes to rewarding people who provide with services or objects of value, um no I don't think I am.

Just my two pence.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

chas_m said:


> Thus, the argument that "if it were good, it would be more popular" is the same logic behind the age-old question "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"


Not to belabor the issue, but I never mentioned the word, "good" - purposely, actually.



chas_m said:


> They often try to pick the "least crappy" of the mainstream crap they are fed by the corporations, but it's mostly complete crap (by this I mean "as objectively as I can determine, this is in fact crap.").


Sounds to me like your crapmeter is actually very reliable but people do have some responsibility of their own to locate art that is as crapless as possible. There will always be mindless cattle wandering about though, and I suppose that will always guarantee the survival of the more craptastic works.

This has turned into a kind of neat thread...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Wow a lot of hounest people here, sounds like some of you should be running in the next election, we could use some hounest people in Ottawa.

But me I'll take the MLB approach, if haven't cheated, you ain't trying.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Edmonton city council imposed a bylaw on developers stating they must set aside one per cent of their budget and use the money to put public art into their projects.

The developers are livid and the people, by reading the letters columns in local media are solidly behind them.

Seems developers and the general populace, unlike city council, know crap when they see it.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

SINC said:


> Seems developers and the general populace, unlike city council, know crap when they see it.


As for the art I suppose it remains to be seen. The bylaw itself certainly sounds crapular.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

doole said:


> Just like it's inventor, that mistress of all things horrific: Sheila Copps.


Trying to protect musicians is honourable, but the way they have been doing it serves no practical purpose. Piracy exists for a number of reasons. There are those who are cheapskates who want everything for free, so they pirate. Then there are those who would like to perhaps purchase a product but can not because it is unavailable locally, so they pirate. And there are those who do such things because the product is simply not available, whether it is "vaulted" or just not available. Of course, Sheila is not smart enough to see such things, so instead of dealing with piracy (especially when pirated material is resold as "genuine" for cash), she choose to promote a fake "levy" scheme to punish everyone. Sure, it is pennies per person per disk, but I think the true measure is that the levy does not go to the benefit of musicians - but to the whole machinery of corruption in this nation. And the levy does not address the fact that DVD media is used to pirate films, hence, film makers are loosing out on the same deal. And the same for software makers (who are subject to piracy via CD/DVD as well).

It is a policy simply made to make it look like the government is being tough on crime. And really, the only punishment that a pirate can really be charged with is that covered by the Telecommunications Act, charged with the same crime as "theft of telecommunications", or in other words, climbing a pole and stealing free telephone service or free cable tv. If they wanted to be serious, they would have serious punishments. Instead, it is just anohter cash cow to collect money that they could collect by raising taxes, but without the lost votes that greater taxation would yield.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Edmonton city council imposed a bylaw on developers stating they must set aside one per cent of their budget and use the money to put public art into their projects.


Developers are notorious cheapskates... Perhaps they should forget about the art, and insist that developers actually use nails, or otherwise secure the houses they build to the foundations so the houses don't fly off in a windstorm. Wasn't it Edmonton that had a whole subdivision burn down because of vinyl siding, and houses being built too close together without proper fire hydrants??? They are also trying to ban Drive-Thrus as well...


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

chas_m said:


> But really, my sense of ethics doesn't come from moral superiority, it comes from simple fairness. If I use something, I should pay for it. I'll certainly try to get the best possible price I can for it (hopeless capitalist, me) but theft just isn't on for me.
> 
> So there. Worship me, I'm an imaginary beast, like Mr. Snuffleupagus. But that's my honest outlook, and for some strange reason I have no trouble meeting people who think like I do on these topics.
> 
> ...


Really? In our society most of us are truly blind to our position of privilege relative to the rest of the world's peoples...

I'm not trying to beat you or anyone else up, but when folk like us try to take the moral high ground (I know, you said you're not but in the end you did) all they have to do is pick up almost any item in their house and then ask themselves how fair a price did they pay? Some of your possessions were made with slave or near slave labor in some far flung part of the world. Did they get a fair pay for their work? But I guess most people are not concerned about these non celebrities.

I really don't care if the top of the food chain people aren't getting paid, at least not now. Someday, when I hear that they're selling their daughters to brothels or working in a sweat shop making designer clothing then I'll start concerning myself with not paying for their work. Until then I don't think any of us in this part of the world is suffering too greatly (yes, I know there are exceptions such as northern peoples on the rez, but there are opportunities to escape that reality as well, unlike peoples in Asia or Central/South America). 

And no, I'm not getting carried away. That's just the reality that most of us don't think of when we're shopping at Wal-Mart


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

skinnyboy said:


> Really? In our society most of us are truly blind to our position of privilege relative to the rest of the world's peoples...
> 
> I'm not trying to beat you or anyone else up, but when folk like us try to take the moral high ground (I know, you said you're not but in the end you did) all they have to do is pick up almost any item in their house and then ask themselves how fair a price did they pay? Some of your possessions were made with slave or near slave labor in some far flung part of the world. Did they get a fair pay for their work? But I guess most people are not concerned about these non celebrities.
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

skinnyboy said:


> And no, I'm not getting carried away. That's just the reality that most of us don't think of when we're shopping at Wal-Mart


I hate all 'marts' and accordingly I don't go there. But most people do, judging by their financial performance.

I really don't think it's the consumer's fault, although that effect has actually forced me into an early retirement. (Used to run a 'local' hardware store.)

The unfortunate reality is that parts of this world did not experience the industrial revolution. (Or maybe the unfortunate reality is that the other parts of the world did. It is what it is.)

So various parts of the globe are out of phase with regards to culture, resources and so forth. It's a relatively new moral dilemma and nobody has learned how to deal with it properly, yet. (That I know of.) Add to that the fact that most third-world governments seem to be openly corrupt and it's hard to know how to help their have-not citizens.

All you can do is keep trying to do right things. I try to buy fair trade stuff, for instance. Does that help? Hard to know. If so, not much, probably.

It's been going on for a very long time but for the greater part of that time, we citizens of the western world have been blissfully unaware of it. The advent of electronic media is probably the only reason we're aware of it now.

But the fact that we are, and discussing it, is a slightly optimistic beginning, IMO. However, there won't be any quick fixes.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Unfortunately "Fair Trade" organizations are run in third world countries, and the certification can be aquired by farmers with the money to pay for it. What the farmers do after that is anyones guess. A better run organization is the Rainforest Alliance, but their products are hard to find.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> Unfortunately "Fair Trade" organizations are run in third world countries...


Well, yeah. Their own worst enemies, in a lot of ways.

You have to wonder how much "federal aid" goes directly into the pockets of despots, into the bargain.

Again, at least most of us are starting to get it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

skinnyboy said:


> Some of your possessions were made with slave or near slave labor in some far flung part of the world.


Well, since I don't shop at Wal-Mart for precisely this reason, I'm hopeful that not TOO many things I own were made with "slave" labour.

(I put "slave" in quotes because the Chinese workers do not actually meet the definition of the word "slaves" but I certainly see and respect your point.)



> And no, I'm not getting carried away. That's just the reality that most of us don't think of when we're shopping at Wal-Mart


I definitely appreciate your post and don't feel "beat up" in the slightest. I _do_ make a conscious effort to avoid buying things that are obviously made by forced-labor or otherwise unsafe-condition type manufacturers. Not shopping at Wal-Mart is _part_ of that effort, but one tries to go beyond that whenever possible. It's all part of that overall sense of ethics I was speaking of.

To me, ethics is a lot like spelling. I'm a good speller and generally have no use for a spell-checker (apart from a few tricky words my brain thinks look "right" when they are in fact misspelled), and I find it almost impossible to turn that function OFF and deliberately misspell things (like if you want to look "hip" and L33T and crap).

Similarly, having been lucky enough to have hung out with a lot of people of very sharp ethical vision, I feel like ethical behaviour comes naturally to me and have a hard time even TRYING to be deliberately dishonest. Even in situations where simply OMITTING the truth (ie not saying something false, just avoiding saying the "whole" truth) would be to my huge advantage, I have difficulty. This sometimes works against me! 

I very much doubt I'm the only person here who feels that way, and thus I'm not "superior" to any of them.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

To me, there is one answer: downloading copyrighted material is wrong.
I do it on occasion and I am wrong to do it. 
The companies or musicians holding the rights to the material will vigorously defend their right to make a dollar on the work they own. I can't begrudge the shareholders making a few dollars. 
There is no excuse for my actions. 

What is wrong is the way they try to pry the money out of me.

Looking at the big picture, the multimedia companies brought it on themselves.
There are large corporations owning thousands of radio stations with pre-programmed playlists and d-jays' prerecorded voice overs. Formulated playlists of radio ga-ga. (thanks Freddie Mercury)
Commercials freely intermingled with the same music played over and over again till you can't stand it, hearing Nickelback's latest release every 2 hours drives me up the wall. Chad Kroeger is a rich man by all accounts.

I have the freedom to turn the dial but the dial is owned by too few. 
FM Radio has lost, the winner is the internet and satellite radio. Radio as I knew it is not dead but evolving. 

Where has all the good music gone? 
Internet!
It's there but hard to find. I can find it with patience. I am constantly amazed and impressed with the quality of music on YouTube and their ilk. (Lots of dreck too.)
How many artists have made to the mainstream after being viewed on YouTube? I can think of a few.

There is so much music and video freely available (legal too!) and there are only so many waking hours. 
Technology allows me to see and hear more music and video than I ever dreamed.
I have to be able to quickly recognize the garbage and filter it out. Get to the information I want, without fuss.
Have the multimedia companies done that? Not yet, though they are beginning to figure it out. Do multimedia execs expect everyone to go to every movie ever shown at the cineplex? The way they whine about losing profits it makes me wonder what planet they live on.
The battle for my dollar is about quality and value. 


Video is relatively cheap to purchase if you have patience. I don't mind waiting a month after a new DVD release to own The Departed for $10. (used)
New release CD's are available for $12. I think that's a fair price. 15 years ago CD's were $20. 
The market is evolving as it always does.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

One has to wonder about the legality of a new music download service called Qtrax, which is just starting up tomorrow. They even plan to support OS X beginning in March.
More info here.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

ErnstNL said:


> Where has all the good music gone?
> Internet!


tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp 

All the good music is where it always was: in the hands of the performers.

Go to any small town in Ireland. (Or for that matter, Newfoundland.) On Saturday night, git yerself out to the local pub and wait for the players to arrive.

In no time, you'll be sitting around a table sharing beers with some of the best musicians you ever heard in your life, who earn pennies a day thatching roofs or some such, plus a few extra bucks at night from tips from the likes of you & me.

No corporations. No crap, just f*ing good music.

Mass media has tried to destroy this, but now it's beginning to lose that battle. I'd like to say I was sympathetic, but I'm just not. In any imaginable way.

The age of music as a multi-billion dollar business is coming to a (thankful) end, and that's what all this is all about.

Good riddance, too.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

doole said:


> tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp tptptptp
> 
> All the good music is where it always was: in the hands of the performers.
> 
> ...



Doole, you are preaching to the converted.

(Just to let you know I was a performing musician in the 70's and 80's. I know lots of musicians. Been there done that.)


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Here's a followup to the QTrax post I made yesterday. Apparently something stinks about their claim to having made deals with the major labels.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some of the best music I hear is at "open stage night" at our local every Monday from 7:00 to midnight.

Fantastic musicians of all genres. Hell, Adam Gregory even dropped in for the jam one night this past fall.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> Piracy or not, the levy does not take into account the use of media that is used for purposes other than piracy. Musicians should not be compensated for disks that I use for backup up data from my computer, or for disks that are used to store photographs.


Indeed. I wasn't trying to evaluate the value of the levy as much as point out that personal copying of music isn't illegal. Agree with it or not, the levy is there though and it pays for the right to make personal copies.



EvanPitts said:


> Taxation that is used for medical insurance goes to fund medicine, just like EI is used as insurance if one looses their job. It is for the common good that everyone can benefit from. The levy, on the other hand, does not benefit me because I do not obtain any funds from this levy for any CDs of photographs or genealogical data that I publish. It is certainly not for the common good, and does not even benefit any of the real musicians. I am sure that, after the corrupt government officials score their take for their own "pork barrel" projects, that people like Celine Dion make the lions share. Real musicians end up with basically nothing.


You might have misinterpreted the analogy. You don't pay Medical insurance to pay doctors. You pay medical to be entitled to medical treatment. You don't pay UI for everyone else that looses a job, you pay it so that you can elect to use that service if you need to. You don't pay the levy to pay musicians. You pay for the "right" to make personal copies of music. If you elect to use those is up to you. 

I have met a few doctors that I would consider the Celines of medical practice. But I cannot elect to not have them payed - that's not what medical insurance does directly for me - all it does is allow me to use medical service, regardless of the practitioner's competence.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

polywog said:


> Indeed. I wasn't trying to evaluate the value of the levy as much as point out that personal copying of music isn't illegal. Agree with it or not, the levy is there though and it pays for the right to make personal copies.


What you say is quite interesting.

However, I can remember listening to Sheila blather on the day she introduced this, and as I remember, there wasn't a single word said about music. It was all supposed to be about software. It was supposed to help pay for damages caused by piracy.

In other words, a single, perfect, floating golden orb of liberal hypocrisy.

And why should should the government make money off people's right to make personal copies of anything anyway? That seems impertinent to me. It amounts to paying for a right you already had.

And it's not like the owners of the copyright are getting anything back from it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

As a big advocate of personal copying, I will read up on the differences between the US and Canada in this area. If anyone has a good resource, please point me to it.

This has been and continues to be a very interesting and enlightening thread.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterBlaster said:


> MP3's and iPods are crap.


I understand where your friend comes from, but this is a bit unfair. There are facts.

IPods, in particular, contain one of the best d/a converters ever engineered, in a consumer-grade unit, at least. Beats most consumer component CD decks hands down.

MP3's are of varying quality, depending on the sample rate used. If you use the Apple zero-loss mp4a encoding format, you can listen to classical on an iPod without any pain at all. (And I frequently do.)

If he's one of those vinyl freaks, you may inform him that he's got no business complaining about iPods, however he is of course absolutely correct about tubes. Vacuum tubes are the correct way to amplify audio.

Vacuum tube amplification versus solid state amplification is like Mac versus peecee. You can put a 16 watt tube amp in your living room and it will sound like a 150 watt solid state amp, with the right speakers.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

MasterBlaster said:


> I used to record music from the radio onto cassettes long before we had a public internet.
> 
> We can also videotape shows and movies from the TV...


Still true. Legally, whatever comes into your house over the airwaves is a gift, like whatever arrives in the mail. The radio/tv station is responsible for licensing issues, and you are responsible for not using any such recordings to make a profit or in any way compromise the recording artists - or their agents - ability to make a profit. If they can prove you did, however - God help ya.

I tend to feel the same way about downloading, i.e. "it's the service provider's fault", but that hasn't been tested in court, yet. Betcha it comes out that way.


----------



## harpoon (Sep 7, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> One of my previous co workers was a big stereo and music buff.
> 
> In his opinion:
> 
> ...


I consider myself an audiophile and I see what your friend means.

To me the problem is that the iPod's EQ isn't very good. I listen to everything with the EQ off as the settings just ruin the sound quality, particularly mp3 (AAC seems to jive with the iPod EQ better somehow, to my ears at least).

I have an old iRiver H320 and the EQ is AMAZING in that thing, my mp3s come to life in it and it has a line output that I can use into my stereo...but it's artificially enhancing what's in there.

Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread on this tangent, carry on...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

chas_m said:


> As a big advocate of personal copying, I will read up on the differences between the US and Canada in this area. If anyone has a good resource, please point me to it.


For Canada, go to the horse's mouth
Copyright Board of Canada : What's New


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

doole said:


> And why should should the government make money off people's right to make personal copies of anything anyway? That seems impertinent to me. It amounts to paying for a right you already had.
> 
> And it's not like the owners of the copyright are getting anything back from it.


That is not true.
The levies collected are distributed back to the copyright owners - the percentages of who gets what are spelled out in detail.

There was also a 2003 ruling that explained why DVDs are currently excluded. Basically because this levy is intended to compensate artists/studios when music is copied (not software) and DVDs are not considered a media that people use to copy music.


> The Board denied the Canadian Private Copying Collective's (CPCC) request to establish a levy on blank DVDs, removable memory cards and removable micro hard drives. It finds that the evidence available at this time does not clearly demonstrate that these recording media are ordinarily used by individuals for the purpose of copying music.


Copyright Board of Canada : News Release: Copyright Board Sets Private Copying Levies for 2003-2004


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

krs said:


> For Canada, go to the horse's mouth
> Copyright Board of Canada : What's New


thank you!


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> I tend to feel the same way about downloading, i.e. "it's the service provider's fault", but that hasn't been tested in court, yet. Betcha it comes out that way.


Why do you feel that way? Are stabbings also Ginsu's fault?

The service providers don't provide content, they provide the means of retrieving (And sending) content. I could see the hosting service being held accountable for infringements, but more the actual individual who placed the shared files where it is in the first place since they are providing copies of copyrighted material without permission.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

krs said:


> That is not true.
> The levies collected are distributed back to the copyright owners - the percentages of who gets what are spelled out in detail.


Point taken.

Do you happen to know where they're spelled out? (I'm not challenging your statement; I really would like to know.)


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> Point taken.
> 
> Do you happen to know where they're spelled out? (I'm not challenging your statement; I really would like to know.)


Might be somewhere in here : Royalty distribution - General information


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

polywog said:


> Why do you feel that way? Are stabbings also Ginsu's fault?


Watch what happens to a radio station if they broadcast something that is copyrighted, without permission.

I would also be thankful if somebody would respectfully request service providers to please quit delivering viruses & worms into my house. (Well, much more so if I was still a Windows user, at least.  )

I'm almost positive they're responsible for a hell of a lot of spam, too. I moved onto a tiny, private email hosting service several years ago and haven't seen a single unsolicited message since. I'm pretty sure the last idiots were selling people's addresses, including mine.

Totally off topic, of course, but - still.

BTW good link, tnx.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> Watch what happens to a radio station if they broadcast something that is copyrighted, without permission.


A radio station violates copyright by broadcasting a song without permission, and the authorities will go after them for it, I completely agree. My point is, they don't go after the _company that leased the radio station the facilities._ Nor the equipment manufacturers, or the hydro company that powered the equipment. There is only one party that violated the law, the "radio station". A corporate entity, and its staff. 

Even if the authorities were inclined to go after those other companies, I'd wager they all provided terms of service restricting illegal activity...

Tying it back to your original comment - the hosting service did not violate copyright. They are the company that leased _virtual facilities_ to the individual or group violating copyright. Likewise, the ISP did not violate anything. The entity that shared the music without permission did, be that an individual or an actual "site."


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

doole said:


> Point taken.
> 
> Do you happen to know where they're spelled out? (I'm not challenging your statement; I really would like to know.)


I came across a link spelling out the details yesterday. Otherwise I wouldn't have known either. Also a link that detailed the financial statement of the government organization that does the distribution, of course one has to pay for the admin costs first. All Government of Canada sites I believe, but I looked through some of the links in my history file and of course can't find either one.
Maybe chas_m comes across these when he does his study on Canadian Copyright - there seems to be tons of information on it on the net.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Just found the distribution of royalty payments:

* 66 % to eligible authors and publishers
* 18.9% to eligible performers
* 15.1% to eligible record companies. 

Comes from this page:

Royalty distribution - Information for copyright holders



> Allocation of funds
> 
> The Copyright Board designates the proportion of total royalties that forms the basis of CPCC’s distribution amongst each of the three eligible groups: songwriters and music publishers, recording artists, and record companies. These proportions are recorded in the private copying tariffs. It is then CPCC’s job to allocate and pay the royalties to individual copyright holders. CPCC and its constituent member collectives have developed a distribution process that is enabling royalties to be distributed fairly amongst tens of thousands of copyright holders.
> 
> ...


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

polywog said:


> the hosting service did not violate copyright. They are the company that leased _virtual facilities_ to the individual or group violating copyright.


But they're also the entity who delivers content to end users, and as such have the same responsibility in the analogy as the radio station, no?

(If this is tiresome, leave it - I find the subject really quite interesting. Apologies in advance if you don't.)


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> But they're also the entity who delivers content to end users, and as such have the same responsibility in the analogy as the radio station, no?


Deliver the content, or provide the facilities to someone else so that they can deliver the content? I believe the latter. And since one of the terms of service they imposed on their customer would likely amount to "don't do illegal stuff" I don't see how they could be held responsible.

The way I see it, for example, if I were to host a blogging site, and one of the members created an Anti-Canada blog, or a terrorist blog, or a music sharing blog. If I specifically stipulated in the TOS as a condition of hosting that the person could not do anything illegal, and they did, the most I should be expected to do is a) force the person to comply or b) end their service.

QUOTE=doole;632078]...I find the subject really quite interesting....[/QUOTE]

Likewise! Granted I'm no authority on the subject, but I sure do have opinions


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

polywog said:


> And since one of the terms of service they imposed on their customer would likely amount to "don't do illegal stuff" I don't see how they could be held responsible.


Hmm. Smith & Wesson like to use that one too, but I think it's starting to leak.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> Hmm. Smith & Wesson like to use that one too, but I think it's starting to leak.


Suppose they are liable for what someone else did with their product? Suppose they could be sued and shut down. No more guns! The next person who had the motivation to assult or murder someone would need another tool... perhaps a crowbar? And if that person did use a crowbar to murder someone - do we then hold crowbar manufacturers responsible, ban crowbars, or make them out of rubber?

I'm mourn the absence of personal responsibility in society. Bottom line is, it's the person who chose to use the device for an unintended purpose who should be culpable. 

Certainly a nice tangent!


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

polywog said:


> I'm mourn the absence of personal responsibility in society. Bottom line is, it's the person who chose to use the device for an unintended purpose who should be culpable.


Me, too. I was once part owner of a gun shop.

I'm just your faithful correspondent.  

Tangent, perhaps. But as any lawyer can attest, tangents are still connected.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

doole said:


> You can put a 16 watt tube amp in your living room and it will sound like a 150 watt solid state amp, with the right speakers.


You can say that again. I have never been able to turn my 1967 Sony tube amp to the maximum. A friend of mine once said that 9 Watts was paltry, so he turned it up and ended up with ringing ears for three days. Even then, the preamp was not turned right up. I once used it as a PA amplifier, and even then, I couldn't use full volume in small auditorium. I used to own a Fisher of the same vintage, and the 20 Watts per channel was good for outdoor use, and that was louder than the 150 Watt Marantz, which was a pretty high quality solid state with lots of headroom. Fender Quads are 40 Watts, and are much sought after by Punks because they can completely fill a bar with ear busting noise...

I don't think that tubes would make for a good iPod sized audio solution - but they do make an iPod dock that has Vacuum outputs.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

Ya, it's in the way they measure output; something about DC offset. Tube amps make more undistorted sound.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

doole said:


> Ya, it's in the way they measure output; something about DC offset. Tube amps make more undistorted sound.


DC offset?
You're not thinking about cross-over distortion, are you?

From an electrical point of view, a watt is a watt is a watt. 
A watt produced by a tube amp is no different or more powerful than a watt produced by a transistor amp.
Where the confusion started was with the marketing guys. They needed their product to be better than the competition and of course, to the average consumer, more watts was better.
So they took the amp that delivered 5 watts at say 0.05 IM distortion and rated it at 10 watts (with 0.1% distortion) or even higher.
That was RMS watts which is what is typically measured.
But we are talking about music here, not amplification of a repetitive signal like a sinewave, so let's invent something called music power that somehow takes into consideration how well and distortion-free the peaks in music are amplified. The music power rating typically ends up being double the rms rating, so now we have a 20 watt amplifier.
But wait, music power only looks at the normal peaks in an audio signal stream, not the real big peaks, so we take this concept one step further and create a term called "peak music power" - that allows us to double the rating again - now we are at 40 watts.
OK, seems we exhausted the wattage we can reasonably assign to the amp, so is our initial 5 watt amplifier now a 40 watt amplifier?
No way - don't we have two channels or even five channels? So we could really advertise this as a 200 watt amplifier! 
Sounds much better than a 5 watt amplifier.

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's not that far from the truth.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

krs said:


> DC offset?
> You're not thinking about cross-over distortion, are you?
> 
> From an electrical point of view, a watt is a watt is a watt.


Of course I'm not.

A watt (or 15 - or 150 watts) of DC going through my speaker coils is of absolutely no use to me.

I want music - not a space heater.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

doole said:


> Of course I'm not.
> 
> A watt (or 15 - or 150 watts) of DC going through my speaker coils is of absolutely no use to me.
> 
> I want music - not a space heater.


This is a better tangent, I think


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

doole said:


> Of course I'm not.
> 
> A watt (or 15 - or 150 watts) of DC going through my speaker coils is of absolutely no use to me.
> 
> I want music - not a space heater.


If you have a direct-coupled amp and any more than about 10 mv DC offset, I would worry about the distortion that creates, not the wattage.


----------



## doole (Jan 6, 2008)

krs said:


> If you have a direct-coupled amp and any more than about 10 mv DC offset, I would worry about the distortion that creates, not the wattage.


Well, certainly true. AND - they measure "music power" at 10% distortion, which is about 1000 times more than I would ever want to listen to.

All I really know is my 15 watt tube Cary sounds at least two billion times better than my neighbor's 400 watt mass-produced behemoth.

Polywog: [/tangent]


----------

