Just Curious - Please Answer With Honesty...

[AD]

Wow, I was gonna be smart-assed and then Brad comes back with that whopper.

Good going guys, very interesting viewpoints, I'm learning a lot here today.

AD

[StoneMtn]

All intellectual property?

What if I open a company and sell software, and call myself "Microsoft Corporation"? Would I not be earning money based on a trademarked name? Is it not reasonable that the goodwill built up in that name is the reason that people purchased from me, when they really meant to purchase from someone else?

The argument for copyrighted material is, of course, easier. If 10 people download a copy of something, and only 1 of those people would have otherwise purchased it, but now will not do so = financial loss.

There are many other hypothetical examples, and I could go on forever...

[MarcO]

But what if the copier wouldn't have bought (or wouldn't have been able to buy) the work? You can't claim a loss for something you wouldn't have received anyway.

Well, first of all if it is a question that the copier wouldn't have been able to buy the work, than that does not give them entitlement to just take it. We can't afford to have everything we want.

The second point kind of disappears upon itself: clearly if someone is inclined to download the new Red Hot Chili Peppers cd, they want to have a copy of it. But they want it for free. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't download it in the first place. Who wants to own music you don't want, regardless of the price?

[bradm]

But what if the copier wouldn't have bought (or wouldn't have been able to buy) the work? You can't claim a loss for something you wouldn't have received anyway.

Well' date=' first of all if it is a question that the copier [i']wouldn't have been able to buy the work, than that does not give them entitlement to just take it. We can't afford to have everything we want.

Again, you're equating copying with "taking". Back in university, I had a bootleg copy of AutoCad. If you say AutoDesk (the makers of AutoCad) missed out on revenue because I had the bootleg copy, you're wrong: if I hadn't been able to make the copy, I wouldn't have bought it, because it was just too expensive (and I only used it for one assignment). It was still wrong, but it's not the same as me breaking into a store and taking something out of it.

The second point kind of disappears upon itself: clearly if someone is inclined to download the new Red Hot Chili Peppers cd, they want to have a copy of it. But they want it for free. If they didn't want it, they wouldn't download it in the first place. Who wants to own music you don't want, regardless of the price?

The exception to this idea is "trying out" music: if I find an album on a P2P network, download it (violating copyright) and listen to it, you claim I've taken something from the artist. But, after listening, if I decide I don't like the music and delete the files, have I given something back to the artist? I must have, because we're both in the same state we were before I made the copy. (While there may be a small benefit in having heard the music once, that benefit could also have been achieved by borrowing the record from a friend or the library; by "same state", I mean in terms of who possesses what.)

Don't get me wrong: downloading music for free instead of buying is wrong, but it's not in the same category as stealing.

Aloha,

Brad

[Davey Boy 2.0]

i propose the creation of a new term to capture the nuances associated with this newfound naughtyiness. how 'bout

stealoading

downripping

frealoading

gimmenow

[Velvet]

Does an artist suffer if people make unauthorized copies instead of buying his/her work? Yes, because there is revenue the artist would have otherwise received...

Aloha,

Brad

If you view music downloading as the "new radio" (which I think is a pretty fair comparison), then it seems that downloading is no more detrimental to artists than having their songs played on the radio would be.

Come to think of it, getting played on the radio is a great thing for a band!

(And no, artists don't necessarily get money when they get played on the radio. In the US for example, the top 100 artists that get played each year share 100% of the royalties.)

[bradm]

All intellectual property?

What if I open a company and sell software, and call myself "Microsoft Corporation"? Would I not be earning money based on a trademarked name? Is it not reasonable that the goodwill built up in that name is the reason that people purchased from me, when they really meant to purchase from someone else?

We're now into the realm of trademark infringement, deception, and fraud (which has actually happened), an entirely different thing.

The argument for copyrighted material is, of course, easier. If 10 people download a copy of something, and only 1 of those people would have otherwise purchased it, but now will not do so = financial loss.

You claim something's been lost. What was once in the possession of the creator, that's now been removed from his possession? Again, an unrealized gain is not a loss.

It's still wrong, and the one person who would have purchased it should feel guilty, because he's gained something (the possession and enjoyment of the music) without exchanging value with its creator.

Aloha,

Brad

[Northern Wish]

Bwahahahah

Nice one DB.

Wait to ruin a good intellectual conversation, by stealing their thunder.

[StoneMtn]

an unrealized gain is not a loss.

That is where we disagree. If a person "might" have purchased the disc instead of downloading, then it's a grey area. If, however, a person "would have" purchased, then a real loss of revenue is incurred if that person does not purchase. (That is why I gave the example of 10 people downloading, and even suggested that 90% of those people would not have purchased anyway. The other 10%, however, is a real calculable loss.)

[SmoothedShredder]

I'm not a big fan of intellectual property.

Its' what keeps phamaceutcals from being adequately delivered to those around the world, but I digress,

I cringe when I think of all the time and Money wasted when Apple Computers sued Apple Records or vice-versa over copywrite infringements. WHO CARES!!!

To me an Album's sounds are merely an advertizement for the live experience... even if it is just a composer who travels around and just pushes play on a CD player when they get there. If that's what an artist thinks is a show... we'll just have to see how many people actually pay to see it!

It was intellectual property, the bottlenecking of the music industry trough distribution, and the power brokering of a few individuals at the head of the record labels who did their best to sabatoge and control things to their own advantage.

The music industry is still reeling from this period, but in what I see as justice, or natural evolution for the saving of the music 'species', we reached a new mutation, and we can now once and for all have free access to these resources without having to pay a toll.

Don't get me wrong, I still buy albums, cause I can, and because I do like the artifact, and the artwork, and I know that this is a cashflow game, and that I am helping out... but I also know about things like magnitude, and wonder just how many of those Britany, and 50-cent albums are going to be cherished artifact, or merely dump/used store/value village filler in the next 20+ years. I mean, isn't the environment a big deal, and anything, even something which falls into a grey area, which may facilitate a revolution in the CD distribution has good elements... and it's going to take a while for people to get used to doing it all online...

Ultimately though, the unrealized loss argumet is sound in my opinion, and what I believe is that the unrealized gain which accompanies the loss (cosmic balance don't cha know!), is going to have a great upside...

I believe that live music will become potentially a dominate revenue stream for music artists, and therefore, live shows are going to become better and better, and isn't that what it's all about, people comming together and seeing live music, dancing, feeling good, and feeling that big bass!! Besides, I rarely hesitate buying an album from a band at the show... that would be my prefered form of distribution.

My 2-cents.

PS... If I ever open a restaurant, I'm going to call it Microsofts'

[Booche]

I try to only freeload those cds I have no intention to buy. Lets say Inglewood Jack were to put out a studio release. As an experiment, I would probably 'rip' it from someone and then copy it for all of Brad's Ottawa friends, just to see if his tune would change.

(I would never ever do that but its funny for me to think about)

[bradm]

A couple of minor points, 'shredder: first, it's not "copywrite", it's copyright, which is exactly what it sounds like: a right to make a copy.

Second, Apple Computer vs. Apple records wasn't about copyright, but trademark, which is more of an identity issue than a content issue.

And your comment about live music becoming a dominant revenue stream for artists is bang on: I've read reports about the recent sharp rise in ticket prices (for big-name artists) being due to just that: if artists aren't making as much money from record sales (which can be chalked up to unauthorized copying, record company stupidity, or lack of quality), they're going to try to make more from ticket sales. I don't believe that this will necessarily translate into better shows, though.

Aloha,

Brad

[StoneMtn]

I also have one comment, specifically about pharmaceuticals, but it applies to most areas that require research and development:

Without intellectual property protection, it may not be worth a company's resources to expend them on developing new pharmaceuticals. If they spent years and millions developing a drug and then the day after they released it, anyone who knew how to reverse-engineer could just sell the product under a different name (cheaper, of course, because they did not invest in the R and D) then companies might just choose to invest their money elsewhere = no new drugs.

[color:purple]At least then it wouldn't only be the Third World deprived of new medicine. It would be everyone.

[ollie]

I don't think I've bought a CD since Record Runner closed. I liked shopping there because I felt like I was giving the store my business. I didn't think of it as giving the record labels my business. So in that sense I don't have a moral problem with using a service like oink. Certainly convenience plays a large part as well. I think if online music store prices came down (say, $4.99 for a CD) and albums were available in a lossless format then I would be inclined to start paying again. I still buy CDs at live shows.

One thing free music has done for my collection has expanded its diversity. There are definitely albums on my mp3 player which I would never dream of listening to if I had to go out and spend money on them. But in turn I am much more likely to buy a ticket to an artist's live show should they come to town or close by. In this sense the act serves like a radio station and the band gets money from me that they wouldn't have otherwise.

I also agree with QQC that exhorbitant ticket prices give me a sense of entitlement to something more. I'm taking my slice of the pie just like everyone else involved in the transaction. Prince was smart to sell his CD as part of the ticket price.

[SmoothedShredder]

Alright... someone get a spell checker in here!!!

And as far as copyright and trademark... they're both little squigly characters found on advertizing, they're kinda the same thing... atleast when compared to say... rasberries... and to me they represent the same thing... the attempt of a corporation to distinguish itself from everything else that it cannot make money off of. I don't trust them shady corporations, they're monsters bigger than people themselves, and they only have their own survival at stake, even at the expense of humans who both work within and outside of its structure... once again though I digress...

I should of been more neutral, or atleast expanded my thought on why I think shows will be better. No doubt there will be a period of adjustment (to which you elluded it's already begun re: raising ticket prices), but I believe these high prices will, get people out to see more grassroots shows. A bigger audince for these bands means a faster growth curve (more feedback, greatersense of accomplishment). There will just be more good bands out there, because the cash flow will reach further, and in a more significant and sustinble way for musicians as a whole not just those with major backings from these corporations/big record labels who used tours to sell the album and not vice-versa. And that's why I think it's better.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Guest

[afro poppa]

atleast when compared to say... rasberries...

indeed.

[SmoothedShredder]

I also have one comment, specifically about pharmaceuticals, but it applies to most areas that require research and development:

Without intellectual property protection, it may not be worth a company's resources to expend them on developing new pharmaceuticals. If they spent years and millions developing a drug and then the day after they released it, anyone who knew how to reverse-engineer could just self the product under a different name (cheaper, of course, because they did not invest in the R and D) then companies might just choose to invest their money elsewhere = no new drugs.

[color:purple]At least then it wouldn't only be the Third World deprived of new medicine. It would be everyone.

I don't think people would give up on trying to make others healthy if they are sick simply because there's no money to be made. And if cash flow is important for R&D I think we have things like taxes... but we also have things like marijuana which are illegal, but could be used as medicine... it's such a complex issue, but I've seen a general trend in Medical Corporate structures to suggest that they to have become so self preservationist that they would even comprimise the well being of the humans inside and outside of their corporate structure for their own survival. No need to invent a new drug until you invent a new disese kinda thing.

[StoneMtn]

Alright... someone get a spell checker in here!!!

And as far as copyright and trademark... they're both little squigly characters found on advertizing, they're kinda the same thing... atleast when compared to say... rasberries... and to me they represent the same thing... the attempt of a corporation to distinguish itself from everything else that it cannot make money off of.

Copyright and trademark are entirely different, and in Canada neither one requires a "squiggly mark".

The word "copywrite" has an entirely different meaning and I think that is why Brad pointed out the error.

Not all copyrighted works and trademarks belong to large corporations. In fact, there was once a small "jamband" that consulted me about their trademark, because it turned out that another band had the same name. (I doubt you'd consider this particular group an evil corporation trying to distinguish itself from everything from which it couldn't earn money.)

By the same token, that group (and every other one you are aware of) holds copyright in their own songs and performances. Again, I don't think you'd consider this particular group (or others like it) an evil corporation trying to distinguish itself from everything from which it couldn't earn money.

[SmoothedShredder]

Yeah yeah, that's all good, but is it that hard to find another name? Is a name THAT important? If they were that small and they picked a name of a band which may object to them using the same name so close to them isn't that kinda lame? (they obviously were hoping to get big enough that they would cross over the geographic territory of the other band... which was much more of an issue when gas was $0.40 a litre)... and if you're a small band, and you know of another band with the same name wouldn't it be the kind thing to do to just change it when your small and you have to tell the least amount of people? Also with the internet, if a band is smart, they will check online to see if their band name already exists (a benefit of free and readily available information), then they can call dibs... if not, get bitched out on the message boards.

Wasn't Zappa the guy who kept saying

"They're only words"

edit:

Oh yeah, and as far as owning songs and rights... as an artist, I just want to be heard... and the best is to be heard with an attentive audience, which means touring, and traveling which is a great honour and really expensive, so I think those people should be rewarded for their labour by compensating for the performance, not that of a performance recorded and duplicated in the past.

[StoneMtn]

This unnamed small band learned of another small band from England that was planning to come to Canada. It would have been at that point that there could have been confusion between the names, and a potential trademark dispute could have ensued.

As well, the Canadian band already had three CDs released under their name, an active website, more than one active message board regarding them, and were finally getting noticed (including in the US where the "real money" is).

A change of name would likely have been fatal.

[bouche]

I wholeheartedly believe that sharing music helps the musicians and artists out all the way.

I don't know how many of you bought the Wolf Parade on disc or downloaded their material, but because of your recommendation, I BOUGHT IT from iTunes. Who won there though? Did the Wolf parade get anywhere near 1 buck from my 10 dollar purchase?

I'm also gonna likely pay 10 bucks or more to see them at Barrymore's when they hit Ottawa.

Also, if I get a CD (from a promotional company for instance), and I send it to someone and they write a favorable review, and I host it on jambands.ca with links to purchase the disc I would say that helps out the artist, the promotional company and any label that's involved.

However, that CD wasn't purchased. So why couldn't I just download the mutherfucker and give it to someone and ask for a review?

Basically, I think that as long as you're spreading the word and getting OTHER people to buy or go see a band, you're paying the ARTIST bigtime.

Anyway, most of the discs that I get my hands on are sent from either the artist, label, or promotional company so I am hearing a lot of music I would not have otherwise.

I also download shitloads of music. Mostly live, but I am not ever going to pay for music again if I have already bought on LP years ago just to have a digital version. I will always buy discs of artists that I love. The SisterS Euclid's Run Neil Run will likely be my next purchase unless I can get someone to ask Kevin to send me a few copies

One other thing, those Dual Disc releases are really the way that music should be put out. One side is audio CD and the other is 5.1 DVD audio (Talking Heads). Other releases that include a VIDEO dvd (like NOrah Jones Feels Like Home) are all very enticing and worthy of purchase. You can't download that shit anywhere.

[SmoothedShredder]

Hmmm, I don't consider that small, but that's okay... still the resultant court case would of been great publicity!! You're really into this unrealized loss thing eh?

And it still strikes me as odd the whole "going to the states where the "real Money is"", they're the ones fucking this up!!! It was in their best interests not to pander to those creeps (and by creeps I mean the record companies and investing interest, not the audience which would and is generally very receptive, and if the economy could just knock out some kinks (fucking border issues!), they could of made a decent living without having to worry about a band from accross the Atlantic Ocean.

Did they try calling up the other band to see if they could tour with an alternate name before they came to talk to you? Like the whole Bush, Bush X comprimise...

[StoneMtn]

Needing to break in the US, rather than just Canada, is simply a practical reality of economics. Although this band was known to pretty much every potential fan in Canada, that was not enough to generate an income stream that would make the band a workable venture, such that they didn't all need day jobs to support their musical habits.

As far as striking a deal, I believe that if this band had contacted the British band, that would likely have brought the matter to a quick dispute. It never did happen, and the Canadian band no longer exists so we'll never know.

[SmoothedShredder]

Yeah, that's my fear... there's the big dream, then there's the reality that 9 out of 10 bands don't last 5 years.

[Alexis]

i hate to disagree with you shredder, but i kinda have to. certain canadian bands, who play certain types of non main stream music NEED to break into the US market if they hope to be able to continue touring and actually earn an amount of $$ that doesn't require supplemental income. There are 30 M people in this country spread out over a huge geographical area. and yeah like you said, touring's expensive. i think if bands don't make it big doing their own thing in canada AND the US, their music might actually start to change to become more listenable to the pop loving ear.

who knows, maybe it's artist growth? maybe it's people who love making music subconsciously turning away from the wall they've been walking into for years and finding a path to success they can walk down and gain some ground on.

yeah the US record label system sucks and is a problem, but dealing with the reality we live in and finding success to enable a voice for change i think is the answer (which i think is already happening).