Music used to be so simple. You listened to it on the radio for free, but you didn’t get to say what would be played, and there were lots of commercials. If you went to a concert, you paid. And if you bought a record, tape or CD, you paid. People copied CDs to cassette tapes and passed them on to friends. That was just about as far as P2P music piracy got. Stealing music was when you shoplifted a CD or cassette from the record store, and it was pretty clearly understood that it was “wrong.”
Maybe that’s why so many people who are older than say 30 think that downloading music is ethically wrong. They remember that music is something that you pay for. They still download the music, of course. But they know they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing.
But if you’ve discovered and come to love music in the last decade, I don’t see how you can be expected to know when listening to recorded music is ok, and when it’s wrong.
Let’s put the law aside for a moment – this post is about doing the right thing. We’ve been hammered with messaging from the government and the music labels that downloading or listening to music on the Internet is stealing, unless you pay for it. We see the video clips before movies at the cinema saying its wrong. We read about lawsuits against twelve year olds for downloading music from BitTorrent. Our government is even willing to threaten other sovereign nations over music piracy.
But over the last few years the line has blurred to the point where there really isn’t any line any more. We can listen to free, on demand streaming music at MySpace Music and lots of other sites. It’s ok to do it at MySpace, but it’s wrong to do it at Project Playlist, just because the right contracts aren’t in place? Just a couple of years ago anyone listening to free streaming music anywhere on the Internet was violating copyright and subject to being labeled unethical. Today, its no problem. And you don’t even have to listen to audio ads.
But downloading music, that’s still wrong, right? Nope. If you live in China, you can download music legally from Google for free. No problem.
Above I said I wanted to put the law aside for a moment. Now I’ll come back to it. Because the law, and particularly the U.S. government’s willingness to perpetuate the absurdity of copyright law as it applies to recorded music, is all that the labels have left. No one in their right mind could formulate an argument that downloading music on the Internet is “wrong” at this point. All the labels have left is the law.
Eventually the reality of the Internet will force the laws to change, too. One way or another the music labels will eventually surrender, and recorded music will be free.
Until it is, I refuse to feel guilty for downloading and sharing music. Every time I listen to a song, or share it with a friend, I’m doing the labels a favor. One that eventually I should be paid for. Until that day comes, don’t even think about trying to tell me that I’m doing something ethically wrong when it’s considered quite legal, with the labels’ blessing, in China.
Whether it is wrong philosophically or not I don’t know.
But I think AS A LAW, it is a bad law if it cannot be enforced.
I’d say this is simply the free market playing itself out. Ultimately, if this is really hurting artists as much as it seems at times, there will be a lack of good artists. And if that is the case, then we will know because people would be willing to pay again for better music. On the other hand, if there are artists that are crying apeshit about not being able to survive and eventually stop making music, I’d say their music was not good enough to compete with what’s out there.
Again, when we pay hundreds of bucks to watch a concert, we consumers don’t sue the artist for too high of a price because it is a free market. This too is a free market in a sense. Yes, “by law” it may be illegal–but if that is your ONLY resort, you, as an artist or a label, have already lost. Suing half the planet into paying for your service is not sustainable business. Either your product sucks OR has less value than you are charging OR has only free value. Once you know the answer, you get to determine if you wanna stay in the business or not just like any business owner.
“If there are artists that are crying apeshit about not being able to survive and eventually stop making music, I’d say their music was not good enough to compete with what’s out there.”
The problem with this statement is that you confuse art with any other mass produced product. As a jazz musician, I’m well aware that my music is about as unpopular as you can get right now, especially in the country that created it. But I believe there is a higher purpose to what I do, and I’m willing to struggle against the popular tide. I produce my own records, and the modest sales allow me to continue doing what I love and contribute in my small way to the greater artistic goal of keeping jazz alive. I have yet to hear anything in Arrington’s bi-monthly calls for free music to address people like me who play music that is unpopular but not without artistic merit.
Under your logic, only “popular” music would survive, leaving us a world without jazz, classical, and other indiginous art forms that rely on CD sales to eke out a modest living. That’s not a world I want to live in. . .art and democracy are most often mutually exclusive.
Copyright disregard is bad for future of music industry. It would hit financial sustainability of the industry. Unless you want to listen to ’80s music for the rest of your lifetime.
bad only for industry1.0
if they are not good at basic economics and wealth creation, they should probably be out of business and their machinations should defintely be out of the lawbook.
Why cant they plainly *see* the concept behind Youtube video challenges and video responses?
Why can’t they monetise paid-for customized music?
Why can’t they set up a music marketplace which adds music to photo albums?
Why should Microsoft alone be allowed to monetize this using SongSmith?
Why should it not be easy to make digital circuitry to be plugged into your real music system that streams it live to web?
Why should not people be allowed to mix-and-match to make their own music?
Why not put out some ways of making money (at a portal) for all of those unlucky musicians who got it hammered into their heads that music does not pay?
Why should creative people be at the mercy of corporations when they can be favorites of the public?
Why does not industry understand this simple economics of the new web?
And if they don’t understand this much, why should feel bad about them, especially when they’re been committing all sorts of injustice for the past few decades, and crimes before that?
Why should they “be in the competitive market in the first place”?
Tell you what, I’m not even an economist, and i can understand this much, so why have they no economic advisors who cannot even think this?
If they cannot hire people who understand the new economics, they should not be in business, for they are neither creating jobs nor are they entertaining the public, nor helping the artists. They are merely sucking money from every possible source using the most unethical of means – manipulated laws.
First grade mafia-level organized crime. No less.
Yup..It will surely affect the industry a lot as now people mostly Google things(music,movies) which they want to get for free and yes they really get it for free.
http://www.smartbloggerz.com
Haha, that’s funny because really all I do want to listen to is really great (not pop crap) old 80’s music that I haven’t heard in forever….
I don’t see how anything changes.
My definition of “popular” is not at all the same as the common notion of “pop music”.
My definition of “popular” would include jazz, classical and other indigenous art forms UNTIL people REALLY love to pay for, especially when they know that if they don’t pay they will cause the thing they love to die. That is popular for me. You determine if you’ve got such fans. And if you don’t, then if you are relying on making money from music, you need to make music that people are willing to pay for.
So, no, I don’t believe my model leaves jazz etc. out because I think each of these have lots of people that would really miss it and be willing to pay for it should they know that ZERO jazz music can be made until they pay.
And should it happen that jazz can find no one to like it enough to pay for it and rescue it from death, then, this does not mean “jazz” sucks but that it just isn’t the right fit for the market. You can make jazz for free and more than zero people(number that want to pay for it) would listen to. But if you make it more than for free, you will lose all your audience. IF that were to happen, you’d clearly have to question jazz’s place in the current music market. Of course in this example JAZZ IS JUST USED AS A MERE EXAMPLE.
What if what you or I think about ethics has nothing to do with what ethics is? What if ethics is embedded in the action itself? I mean people thought Earth was flat for a while before we realized that it was round. Is listening to music without paying money right or wrong? There is only one answer. Chances are this answer will always be right until the end of universe. So does it really matter what we really think about this? Well it sure makes it interesting to hear it as some of us will get it right and some of us will be dead wrong.
How do you judge ‘artistic merit’?
I like to sit on my ass and watch TV. This has a higher purpose for me. Therefore I should be paid.
Who paid Mozart?
What is with EVERYONE asking for money right now?
Just because you don’t want a day job doesn’t mean we should pay you for something that not very many people believe has monetary value.
> Who paid Mozart? What is with EVERYONE asking for money right now? <
Because everyone, like you, is trying to make a living – including people you don’t like, doing things you don’t support. But they are still trying to make a living.
More on topic, the record companies will never make a sustainable business model from criminalizing their customers. One assumes they’ll work that out one day. I hope before it’s too late.
European royalty sometimes paid Mozart.
free is never wrong
Sure it is. If I take your sandwich, it’s free. By your logic, it’s not wrong.
Jay your reasoning is correct. In general I think people only think it’s taking something if you take it away.
If you took his sandwich that would be wrong.
If you look at the sandwich and then somehow copied it immediately and ate it then I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.
See the problem?
So Plagiarism is perfectly fine.
It would only be plagiarism if the person who bought (or in this case magically duplicated) the sandwich claimed that he / she had was the chef… Use a dictionary…
It’s a good point. Plagiarism is making a perfect copy of something. And it harms the original author did the hard part of creating something unique – surely you can see the parallel.
I’ve still never seen any present a sustainable business model for anyone but a mega-star. Madonna might be able to tour for 250 nights a year and still make mega-bucks, but what about everyone else? Selling t-shirts and gigs with 50 people is no living.
What about if the owner of the original sandwich asks you not to make infinite copies, regardless of whether or not you could?
Is the sandwich owner your friend?
Is it someone you’ve never met?
How does your relationship with the sandwich owner affect your respose to these questions?
Let’s not debate the terminology used, but address the real issues.
It’s simple economics. If you copy a sandwich and eat it for free, there will be one less sandwich sold by the person(s) making them.
The fact that it is impossible to “copy a sandwich” makes it hard to use as an example. But, let’s just say that you COULD copy the sandwich. If the “chef” made the sandwich with intentions of SELLING it, I GUARANTEE you he would mind.
@Phil McThomas
“It’s a good point. Plagiarism is making a perfect copy of something…”
No, plagarism is claiming someone else’s work as your own. You can plagarise a CD without copying it, just play it to someone and tell the you wrote the song.
“Making a perfect copy of something” is completely legal in the sort of situation that plagirism is usually a problem – provided you credit the original author it’s then called ‘quoting’ and is often encouraged.
“… but what about everyone else? Selling t-shirts and gigs with 50 people is no living.”
If hardly anoyne is coming to your concerts then hardly anyone will buy your CDs either, even if there was no free download alternative.
free is ALWAYS wrong
one big missing here, and keeping with the sandwhich metaphor: what did the original sandwhich cost to make?
The labels are taking a back seat on the production side of things, artists are pulling large sums out of their own pockets to RECORD the music, or they’re taking enormous loans from labels to do it.
CD sales pay back those loans, like any other business investment. The music costs money to record. When you download music for free (that IS stealing, by the way) it’s not a matter (as John S. states) that there is one less sandwhich to sell. Song downloads are obviously infinite, and a customer who got his fill on a stolen version will not then buy a legal one, this is true.
However, the issue remains, who ends up paying for the studio time, production, mixing, mastering, duplication, distribution of CDs??? The artist does. You really are stealing from the artist when you accept pirated music into your computer. That’s a huge startup cost that they are unable to recover, unless they factor in the volume of lost revenue due to theft, and use that exposure as a marketing strategy.
I for one applaud the software developers that have been seeding malware-infused installers to P2P networks.
Chris,
I live in Russia where it is actually very difficult to buy non-pirated music even on disks, even in shops.
Yet, we still have music here (lots of it) and the musicians still make a living. How do they do it?
Well musicians make money from touring, personal appearances, endorsements etc And if they are popular, they make a lot of money.
The concept of labels in Russia is pretty redundant. They are replaced by management teams which concentrate on everything other than the distribution of physical discs.
Who pays for the studio time? The artist, of course.
Does this mean that there is a less diverse physically produced music selection? Yes. But the live scene is very lively. And the bands which get a following on the live scene are then in a position to make a recording.
I think what you fail to see is that the labels are exploiting the music scene like a parasite. Once they are gone, I think you’ll find that music actually blossoms.
Plus, how much does it actually cost to record a disc? Millions? No. Thousands? Yes. so to be honest, if a musician has a following, then they can get a disc made. Which should mean that by the time the music hits the internet, it means the band is already pretty good and the extra publicity will help them make more revenue from their gigs.
I’m really crying about all the cocaine that the labels have to miss out on due to the plummeting disc sales. Boo Hoo.
This “piracy” is a reality that should be built into their business plan.
If it were .25 cents a song I might pay sometimes.
I have something close to 40,000 songs now, and never have anything to listen to. I have acquired all of that since my last full system format (just started fresh) 2 years ago. So my habit, which is still not at a satisfactory amount, would cost me $15,000 or more per year. If it cost 25 cents, then it would be over $5000 / year.
The system is flawed. The artists are not gods gift to man and they shouldn’t expect to live that way. We can’t even expect 80% of them to be good role models, even with the fact that many of them make more in a year, then I will my entire life. Drugs, spousal abuse, other addiction, rehab, murder, gluttony, rape, pissing on children, touching children, bad movies, DUI; All ok now – committed often by people with millions if not billions of followers. So sad that so many of these people are given a voice when hard working middle to low income people are made to feel as if they have none and are completely alienated from what these people push as “cool” and the “way to live” as well as the politicians meant to represent…
Downloading 1 song at a time doesn’t work with my lifestyle, and only about.. well 1 in 20 albums that I own are actually worth owning more than 1 or 2 songs off of.
Without P2P the music industry would not have the power that it has today. Smart emerging artist love and utilize the internet to its fullest. Old greedy artists don’t understand it and refuse to try because they’re EFFING greedy. has anybody seen that Lars Ulrich video of him talking about bitTorrent last week? ‘Seriously’, if I could choose one person to watch shoot themselves on accident, it would be him.
I know there are a lot fo things to be said against piracy in the “downloadable” form vs. streaming, but I just don’t care. It’s not worth the money, they don;t need more money, if they’re not careful there won’t be any record labels left because now EVERYBODY has a voice and you DON’T NEED a million dollar investment to make something happen.
Give me a record industry that doesn’t need 18 channels devoted to it’s scandalous ways and I cannot say with confidence that it is a major contributing factor of why I will not bring children into the world, maybe it’ll be something worth paying for.
Done rambling – Coffee time.
Very well stated!
Andy’s self-dubbed “rambling” is ridiculous.
If you don’t think it is worth it to own 40,000 songs, why do you own them? Apparently you value them in some way, otherwise you would not keep them in your library.
Quality over quantity, right? Well, if you want quality, you should be willing to pay for it. It’s not about artists being greedy. Heck, I had a Gold record and was on many soundtracks, yet I’m struggling to get by just as every other Mack the Musician out there is. I
If you want to live in a world full of sub-par music, go for it. I, for one, am willing to SUPPORT artists that I enjoy, because I’d like them to be able to stick around and keep creating.
screw you guys i am going home
“Maybe that’s why so many people who are older than say 30 think that downloading music is ethically wrong. They remember that music is something that you pay for. They still download the music, of course. But they know they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing.”
I’m 48, and I have never download an application or sound file without paying for it. I have a degree in MIS and am a year away from a BS in Computer Engineering.
Downloading without paying means that the artist that you like will not be supported, which means that they will not be able to produce music. It looks like the generations that followed me on to the Internet were to ignorant or had low morals to understand that very simple bit of logic.
But you listen to music on the radio, right? Ever pay to do it?
Here’s the point: It costs nothing to download a track from the internet, so people will pay nothing for it.
In reality, this actually means a great deal of money not going into the pockets of labels, duplicators, retailers etc. In this regards, the music retail industry is no different from any other retail industry – going on line cuts out middlemen. What is does not mean is a lot of money not going into the pockets of artists (apart from major artists). Smaller artists rarely recup the proceeds of vast advances they are obliged to pay back the labels.
Music is also unique as it has (or should always be) crowd sourced – it is discovered by hard core fans attending gigs. As such, nothing changes, and artists will continue to rise out of the swamp. All that will happen is that the labels will not be able to push crap upon an unsuspecting public via the collusion of the commercial radio market.
Finally, music production costs are plummetting – one Mac and a copy of Logic is all that is used by a vast number of artists now. Commercial music production is in the hands of the masses.
Michael is right – it will change because it has to, and because it can. Artists will still make a living. Good music will still be found.
“But you listen to music on the radio, right? Ever pay to do it? ”
Most absurd statement ever…have you heard of ADVERTISING oN THE RADIO?!
I’ve never really been down on the side of paid-for music, but some of these arguments are starting to sound really childish and unrealistic.
I’m all for sticking it to the major labels. Clearly their business model is flawed. But what about those smaller artists who “rarely recup the proceeds of vast advances they are obliged to pay back the labels”?
How are they going to promote, distribute and sell their music? Oh…that’s right, they don’t have the money, because they’re giving away their product!
I write a music blog, and I focus on bands who are unsigned and need some help promoting themselves. This argument that “Artists will still make a living. Good music will still be found.” is pie in the sky, moronic nonsense. A free album on the off-chance that you’ll go and see them live? Wise up.
You are an absolute moron. Seriously.
Intelligent discussion lives on through Jason. Way to go!
The world has changed.
Free is not the question – stealing another person’s property is the question.
Personal property (copyright) is tied to freedom. That’s why you can steal it in China, because they’re communists. Personal property (copyright) and personal freedom are intertwined – you can’t have one without the other.
Do you like your property? Would you be pissed if someone took it because they could? And because it was convenient for them to take?
Do unto others as you want them to do to you. If you don’t want people stealing your stuff, don’t steal theirs (music).
I’m a Chinese.
If you came to my country to steal things, for sure this is a crime. Why do say it is OK to steal in China?
P2B, Bittorrent, illegal music downloading..where were these invented? not in China.
People in China pirate music because it is still a poor country, it is nothing to do the Communist party. In fact, it is not a communist country anymore, please don’t be deceived by name.
Daniel, I guess you are American. You people seem always think you have personal freedom, but I think you don’t really know what it is like in other countries. Last time I went to USA, the bar couldn’t sell alcohol after 2 am. Is this freedom?
Many years ago people thought that taking someone’s picture was “stealing” their spirit. So our concepts of property and ownership are different in different time and culture. We should all keep an open mind to the future.
alright why dont they just put adds to the songs so theres advertising and no problems.. like there problem solved and stop charging 1 for each song thats 2 much
Amen to that!
I’m 20 and I’m raised with this music-is-free-thinking. it’s just totally normal and I’m looking forward when the labels will surrender!
So our ancestors are right in promoting slavery.. Coz they were raised in ’slaves-are-good’ thinking?
Don’t mix up ethical arguments with business arguments…
Don’t confuse music and business…
MY ancestors? My ancestors were living in europe since ever. I never heard that europeans had slaves. and during the ww2 my ancestors went to russia and came back before the wall was destroyed.
Russia is Europe unless your talking about the far east or siberia
@Que (I can’t reply on your comment)
I’m talking about germany.
“I never heard that europeans had slaves”
!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?
http://en.wikip...rg/wiki/Slavery
So that means all content should be free from movies, TV shows, music, software and any other product that can be reduced to binary?
Im all for this revolution, but wonder about economics? Can advertising revenue sustain prior cable TV, record label, TV and software industry business models?
That’s doubtful and bandwidth capping like what Time Warner Cable is doing maybe our Internet future http://bit.ly/QwW2l & economy!
“So that means all content should be free from movies, TV shows, music, software and any other product that can be reduced to binary?”
Again, this is not a philosophical rule IMO. It’s more about where the LARGE mass is going.
Let’s say there are 10 TV programs. The public decides that it wants to watch everything for free now. 5 of those 10 programs may be able to make-do in the free model. Then 2 of the 5 left may shutdown for a period of time until they can convince their viewers that they can’t exist without being paid…but because their viewers are so loyal, they will not begin paying. The other 3, they will shutdown for good as they simply cannot compete.
Survival of the fittest, friend.
ooops
“they will not begin paying”
should be
“they will NOW begin paying”
I pay for napster. 10 bucks a month. I have it installed on my computer at home and on my work computer. I don’t mind spending the 10 bucks.
happy guy!
10 bucks=5 days of food for most of the families, down there in Lao PDR.
Your bucks could help them make a living instead of feeding the old proprietary world!
I work 15 to 20 hours a day. I only get paid for 8 I’ll spend my money where ever i want. You should donate money if thats what you feel like doing.
Why would you spend money to have country music on your ipod? That’s the real question.
BTW the country music has been deleted.
Edit:
“On the other hand, if there are artists that are crying apeshit about not being able to survive and eventually stop making music…and are not missed by their fans enough that they’d be willing to pay, I’d say their music was not good enough to compete with what’s out there. (They still may be good artists, but it is all relative to what else is out there)”
I often judge what’s wrong by looking at the net impact on society. The sharing of digital goods is quickly becoming an unstoppable force for equality in this world similar to the goal of communism, except without the corruption through concentration of power and money. It is instead a true spreading of the wealth. As far as incentives go, open source proves that people are willing to do excellent work for free. The difference with music is often that musicians will have to look to a different field for a profitable day job. Something that has been the case for most musicians anyway.
The difference between the music label and the the GPL programmer is choice. The programmer chooses to work for free. The label did not.
Sure you make a copy no one is at a loss right? Wrong, What about all the working people who bring that music to you, drive trucks to the record store, work the board at the recording studio, sell CDs in the record store.. The copyright violator is hurting all those people.
I know you love to say “I would have never bought it any way”, be real – you prize it enough to download it, or bit torrent it.
But I suppose this is all falling of deaf ears. Too many think “I can copy it so I will. I don’t care”
You’re right. Pirating digital goods is different than using free ones. However free digital goods are often as good or better than ones that are for sale.
Remember in many cases, the programmers don’t work for free. Many open source programmers are paid to work on the project. Businesses support the projects that they use. Some companies even sell support and use this money to pay for improvements to the project. Most serious open source projects have someone writing checks. They just choose to distribute it with an open source license because it helps them.
This no such thing as a free lunch—Oops, I mean download.
True, the money goes to ISPs, PC manufacturers and software developers.
Don’t give Vivendi or Sony any ideas for real we dont need them buying or becoming an ISP
I’m of that 30+ generation and do think that as long as the LAW says it’s illegal, then it is wrong. Good law or bad law. It’s the law. I’m not on that side of the music business, so I don’t stand to directly benefit from people paying for their music as they currently should or not.
Music is much cheaper than the days of CDs only, so I’m quite content to pay my $8 to $10 per album now…and even higher for special releases with lots of extra-crap.
Until such time as the law says its ok to download and redistribute as you or I like, I’d like to think we have even a tiny bit of conscience left, which tells us that it is RIGHT to pay for it and we do just that.
There have been many many stupid laws made by stupid personens now and in the past.
I will never ever obey a law that only does harm to society, just because it’s a law. Then the law is pointless or only there to serve a special few on others expense and should not be followed by anyone.
There are guys like f.x. Hitler and Stalin that would be very very happy to have a complete population consisting only of people with your thinking, in their hands..
classifying people into 30+ generation and younger generation is just a result of ‘thought poverty’. I’m not 30 and I still feel the same way as u do..
Good law or bad law? Really? The hell is wrong with you?
I grew up in SA. When I was young, the law said that black people had fewer rights than white people. It was a bad law. The people who disobeyed it and ultimately overturned it were right to do so. There are lots of other examples. The last people who tried “the law is the law and it must be right”-style argument were Nazi prison guards. They did not get away with it and rightly so.
So the law has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
I think it is wrong to copy music for free if it stops people’s livelihood. If someone records music with the express purpose of selling it, then taking it without paying for it is wrong.
Otherwise you could just steal physical goods from a shop. After all, they’ve already paid for it (recorded it), you weren’t going to pay for it anyway, so they’ve not lost your sale, and they’ve got another one for the next bloke is willing to pay for it.
If there are musicians out there who are willing to give their music away for free, then that’s great. But if others want to charge for it, then you should respect that.
Downloading music and songs when I’m not legally allowed to is stealing to me…a song to me is a special kind of intellectual property. Just like software is intellectual property that you (in most cases) have to buy.
I don’t think it is the right thing to do…I feel guilty, especially considering small artists and idependent labels, just using their property without paying for their work and efforts.
Imagine we project that kind of behaviour on to other things in our life…that would be a disaster.
Agree with Alex
By Michael’s argument, we should all be downloading TurboTax, Windows 7 and Mac OS illegally and distributing it to our buddies and feel entitled to “free” software.
You “should” feel guilty with a weak moral argument like the one you made above. “Chopping off a thief’s hand” might be “permitted” in certain countries.. does it mean it is permissible in the States? (downloading music is legal in China so it is legal here : argument doesn’t hold much water)
Blame it on our poverty of imagination that wants everything “right now” that we cannot imagine innovations in this field that will make the law obsolete.
Perhaps you should read the title of the website before you formulate your argument. Michael is clearly talking about Music, he never once even hinted all forms of piracy was acceptable.
The fact is that no matter what ethical view you hold on the downloading of music, the industry’s approach is unsustainable and eventually music will become free. The curse of the Internet is that along with its enormous potential, certain ways of doing business will either die out or need to evolve in order to stay relevant.
We can go on bickering forever talking about how we think this might be wrong, but at the end of the day nothing any one does will ever stop it. The can of worms has been opened, and either the music industry can embrace it and find a way to make themselves relevant or they will end up as an ancient relic in the history books about how life was like before the World Wide Web.
Perhaps you should think about how the trials of the music industry can be applied to other industries and their content.
So what if Mike’s talking only about music? Does this not apply to everyone? By the way, if you haven’t noticed, lots of premium software apps are pro-DRM to the extreme.
People rail against iTunes for having DRM, but it’s ok when Adobe’s apps are all locked down?
Content is content… if you don’t see the storm coming you are a fool.
Perhaps we can then think that certain types of crime are okay then. If Music is okay but Software is not – then how about domestic violence is okay but murder is still not.
Let’s all go beat the shit out of someone – it’s free. Sounds idiotic doesn’t it? So does singling out the intellectual property that YOU want to steal as the one should not be included with the others.
If you go to a certain extreme then of course stealing music seems like such a horrible thing. You could also argue that when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, she too was breaking a law that while we believe was unacceptable now, was completely tolerated back in the 1960s. Comparing downloading music to different things such as domestic abuse is not only a fear mongering tactic but is comparing apples to oranges, they are completely different aside from being illegal under law.
I never stated that I download music, nor did I ask for my own exception from the preexisting laws. Just pointing out that these tactics are failing to work, and after all these lawsuits the rate of illegal music downloads is actually accelerating. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my philosophy, because that is quite impossible especially as early into the Internet revolution as we are.
We all want artists to continue to create great and inspirational music, but it just cannot continue to be done in such an unsustainable way. Concerts, advertising deals, etc is the future for these artists. We are seeing more artists embrace this futuristic-way of thinking and it is very promising.
Music downloads need to look less like a product and more as an advertising tool that will act as a gateway into getting a consumer to buy into that artist. For anyone who truly loves music you know the real experience is in the concerts, and that those CDs/Cassettes just act as a commercial that tries to get you to buy their product.
Content owners should still get to decide how they want to distribute.
Mike if I syndicate full posts of techcrunch to my blog, is it wrong? should you be paying me?
Yes, that is wrong because ONLY you are doing it or only a relatively small select group is doing that activity.
But if half of the world is doing that, from diverse demographics, then Mike needs to take a moment and wonder “hmm, may be I need to change my model instead of suing half a mil people”.
Scale shouldn’t play a part in right or wrong. If I litter it’s wrong, if everybody litters it’s still wrong. (not a perfect analogy but you get my point)
Should the labels changes their business model, yes. If they choose not to, then I think they have a right not to.
If copyright doesn’t apply to music then should it apply to movies, books, ect?
“If I litter it’s wrong, if everybody litters it’s still wrong. ”
Not the best analogy as you’ve picked something that is INHERENTLY bad. Littering in itself is bad. Downloading music in itself is not bad. It is only good or bad in the context and the context is what’s up for debate.
“If they choose not to, then I think they have a right not to.”
Sure, just as if the consumers choose to buy the music, they can. Otherwise, they can choose not to. When millions of ‘em are choosing not to buy your music, you’ve a decision to make: sue all of ‘em, reduce your price and try again, or make it totally free. Have your pick.
“If copyright doesn’t apply to music then should it apply to movies, books, ect?”
Consumers and corporations both decide that. If consumers decide they don’t want to pay for movies tomorrow, they can. Corporations can then decide they don’t want to make movies if consumers want it free. Then some customers may budget and be willing to pay. And corporations will start making the movies again and may be reduce the price. And even more customers may start paying.
OR corporations may find a model to make it work for free. Or they may not, creating the tension I described earlier.
Scale should not matter at all. Millions of people did not start stealing music all at the same time. It started with one person sharing and another downloading and grew.
So to the extreme, if someone starts stealing Windows 7, and we fan the flames of the internet and get enough people to do it, then Windows 7 will end up free, right?
It’s illegal. If you do it, you should feel slimy about it. You can blame it on big corporate labels, but just like the millions of people worried about losing their jobs in the auto industry, there are millions of great people (artists, agents, managers, label people, publicists, manufacturers, records stores etc.) who have lost their jobs and are still losing their jobs because you are stealing.
Go talk to all those mom and pop record stores that don’t exist anymore. YOU SHUT THEM DOWN. Not the mean corporate labels.
Thanks dickhead.
A relatively large number of the population worldwide are doing drugs too.
Drugs are now free and legal. SWEET!!!!!!!!!!
YEP! That is why we are seeing a push against marijuana laws because SO MANY people take it and are OK health-wise.
was wondering about the same thing!
Crazy Scenario:
What if nobody would visit Techcrunch anymore (no ad-revenues for TC) but people would “embedd” TC’s articles in their Blogs (let’s assume they’re not trying to make money themselves)…
I don’t think that’s the same thing…
I think a better analogy would be me downloading the TC article and storing it to my hard drive, so I can read it whenever I want.
Your comparison is more like a radio station ripping the music, and playing it on air with ads.
That’s a weak analogy. Nobody reads the news over and over. Nobody has a TC collection.
Just because it’s easy to break the law, doesn’t mean you should do away with a law.
It’s pretty easy to hit a pedestrian with a car and drive away, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
That’s pretty much my point. I switched the analogy up so you can see how ridiculous the statement was.
Music is something you CAN consume over-and-over again, so why compare it to something more disposable (i.e. an article)?
its wrong bc you are pretending you’re me. It would be like creating a cover band and playing Beatles songs and pretending they’re your own. Different logic flow.
Hold on Mike, I don’t think this is about someone pretending to be you.
You’ve raised the basic question of “copyright” to intellectual property. The question is simple, if you create some intellectual property (a song or an article on TC are really the same thing when it comes to intellectual property), do you , as the creator of that property have the right to control how it is licensed?
If you say that as a song writer/musician I lose that right as soon as I “play” (release, make a CD, sing, whatever) that song, and its ok for people to spread that around the world with me the artist having no say in that… then you must also logically agree that the same applies to the intellectual property you create on TechCrunch.
Here’s the test:
1) Is it ok for you to post an MP3 of your favorite song on your personal website?
2) Is it ok for you to post an MP3 of your favorite song on TechCrunch?
If you say yes to either of those, then you most be ok with people taking your content from TechCrunch and pasting it wholesale up on their own blogs. You must also be OK with other media companies like say The Wall Street Journal or CNN taking your content as is and putting it up on their site and selling adds around your content.
Now that Google has behavioral targeting, you must be ok with Google detecting that their visitors also visit TechCrunch and simply offering a custom Google view which is a complete copy of TechCruch, except with their ads not yours.
That’s essentially what you’re advocating with your stance on music.
Note: It’s important to understand that the open source movement is based on the foundation of copyright. All open source licenses MIT, GPL, CC, are in fact clear that the authors retain copyright, and they specify the license under which the intellectual property (the open source code) can be used, distributed, etc. But the copyright is left intact.
The Grateful Dead’s handling of bootlegs is another classic example of an intellectual property owner who has decided to retain their copyright, but license their IP under terms which are atypical but more consistent with their fan base. They were one of the earliest “businesses” to develop a business model based on free content.
I doubt Mike would lose much sleep over your logical conclusions… I think his stance in that statement leans more towards ‘give credit where credit is due’… Making money off ADs may be a primary source of income, but like the music industry has discovered, when the opportunities run out (and they always will), it’s times to look for others… Yes, industries will wither up and die… But it’s natural… Kicking up a fuss over laws that no longer reflect the spirit of the times is short-sighted and inevitably futile…
no, its not about that. there is a real difference between taking content and reselling it v. simply consuming it.
I wouldnt say it’s like them copying your content. The content on techcrunch is free already… this is like sending it out on an RSS feed so more people can have it, then emailing the link to your friends
So you’re saying that if somebody were to create a website that reprinted all of techcrunch’s content, in full, with proper attribution, and no ads, you wouldn’t have a problem with that?
Actually you are wrong. You are only choosing to view it from the angle of the 2nd party thief. The original thief took the music and posted made it available for you to then download.
Both of you are breaking the law.
If I take your articles from Tech Crunch, and I store them on my server and then I build a separate “search engine” to find them and feed them to all who wish to “find” and “read” them – then I’m completely legal in your eyes.
I am merely offering your content, and the search site is finding and making them available (not me).
So get off your high horse like music should be free but your words (which by the way did NOT cost thousands of dollars to record) should not be.
Preach on Swin!!! Wow, I wish this conversation could be heard by the masses!!!
Your logic is completely flawed. If I make a copy of your posts, you still have your original copy, so I haven’t taken anything that is yours.
The copy I have is mine to do what I will, so if I decide to make other copies for people whether via my own blog post, on a xerox, or otherwise – it’s the same exact premise you are relying on.
I won’t say your words are mine, I’ll simply put a quick review with it that “the text is really clear and clean PDF” like the torrent sites review the quality of the MP3s.
How could you fault me for then copying and digitally distributing your content? How is that any different from copying and digitally distributing MP3s? It’s not dude. If MP3s are not protected, your fucking words are not protected either.
Wait, it’s illegal to listen to it on Project Playlist?
Isn’t the illegal part of music online Sharing it? If you download a file on the internet, that’s perfectly legal.. but the person who is giving you that file, they’re the one legally responsible for it’s legal status, right?
nope.
Music was free to radio stations because they promoted the music. Why not use the internet to have thousands or millions of individuals promoting your music? Then you can get paid for concert performances, sponsorships, merchandise, etc.
Your analogy breaks down, When music is played on a radio station, you really for the most part don’t get to choose what they play. Yeah I know that one out of fifty stations take requests but still you don’t choose. You also don’t get a a ‘perfect’ copy even if you tape it off the radio station.
MP3’s on the internet – you choose which to download, and when to play them – and you don’t get a degraded copy with disk jockeys continuing to speak for the first five seconds of the song.
I don’t think you can say it’s right to “steal” music. It’s wrong, and it’s stealing, plain and simple.
If I make a piece of music and sell it under the assumption it will be protected by existing copyright laws, I deserve to feel safe that people can not disregard those laws and redistribute my work on their own. Unless those laws are changed, it is wrong to violate those laws and make up your own rules.
The same goes if I make a piece of software, or take a photograph, or write a blog or newspaper article. I put the time and effort into making that product knowing that the existing laws, license agreements, etc. will protect my work.
People make all kinds of excuses to convince themselves that what they’re doing isn’t wrong, but it is. We all know it’s wrong. It’s just easy to pir8, so we pretend it’s OK.
right. unless you’re visiting China on a business trip, then it’s ok. like smoking pot in amsterdam.
When you find a band, that you like, that is willing to donate all its non-performance generated revenue away, that is not 100% anti-capitalist, only then will I be convinced.
I guess I’m old school. But, I love the act of buying a CD, an artifact, to hold in my hand, take home, unwrap, and then unlock the mysteries of. It’s like a ritual. And I don’t mind paying for it.
What I do mind is paying overinflated prices for it. That’s where the labels went wrong. It’s a simple case of overharvesting. And as to the ethics of it, this is not new. Back in the 80s, there was the ‘home taping is killing music’ thing. And the funny thing is, home taping was in many ways doing the absolute opposite of killing music. It was feeding it. We owe mixtape culture an enormous debt for the promotion of both grunge and hip hop among consumers, both genres (ironically) having subsequently fattened the wallets of the record industry in the 1990s.
It is very simple. Music fans want to turn each other on – to new stuff, to old stuff, to everything. So, we share. It’s what we do. It is still staggering to me that the labels haven’t figured that out. Isn’t the first step to success in business knowing who your audience is, and what it is that motivates them?
Well, perhaps there is a way that you can “share” with your friends, charging a certain amount, then if they share with THEIR friends, the charge is a little less, and so on and so on. At least THIS way, there is SOME pay structure, and by “sharing” with others, you ARE actually HELPING the artist/songwriter!
how can it be wrong when it feels so good?
sorry, couldn’t resist the obvious
I’m going to stick with the idea that someone had to create and produce the music, and they are asking for payment in order to have that music, and I am not so broke-ass-cheap that I won’t oblige to pay for my own entertainment.
However, I really wonder if that’s your stance on freely copy-able digital goods. In your opinion– a site fully reproducing your content, using none of your bandwidth, maybe naming but not linking to you, without your ads, that’s cool? Because as I’ve said before I bet there’s a market for a TC page somewhere south of a 200K download without all the flash and JS. But based on your RSS feed and copyright notice, I am guessing you think that would be wrong.
I’m starting ZuzzCrunch, lol.
ADblock and some trivial tinkering with your browser settings can achieve what you’re looking for… Give credit where credit is due… This paradigm shift is not about advocating plagiarism…
If someone produces good content, and they are accessable, they will most likely always have an audience… Sure 1 or 2 articles / tracks / episodes / films etc. may go uncredited, but anyone wanting more of the same stuff / quality will seek it out…
Produce good content, open your eyes and be opportunistic not nostalgic.
the only time i EVER download without buying the music is if it isn’t available anymore like some songs by certain artists are. at that point i’d say if they really had a problem with me doing it, make it available for purchase and i’ll gladly pay the 99 cents.
(: thats all lol.
I do the same thing for exclusive bonus songs that get released in Europe, Japan etc. If I could buy it here I would but I’m not getting the chance to do so therefore your losing out on my money not my problem.
And artists will do what? One thing is to destroy the label system, killing careers in the process is something else. Even the most business-savvy artists are struggling to stay afloat these days. They lie left and right about how much money they do, but actually they pay for most of the production costs, and try to recoup with tours, merchandising, licensing deals and everything else (other than recorded music), so think again. You seem to have a very twisted idea of what being an artist is all about. Imagine if anybody could do what you do, a blog. Wait, anybody could? So the difference is content. Good content makes good business. No, not in this industry, so I figure you’re a little off point. I’ve been reading your articles for a long time. Are you a frustrated artist?
A better question would be, “are some laws wrong?”
Interesting. I think profit is only one side of it, however. You’re right about it being only a matter of location a and to whom you go to get your content that makes anti-piracy efforts seem ridiculous (it’s a bit like if a new book came out and only one store was authorized to sell it).
But if you look at music like property, just as much as a house or a car, I think another factor comes into play. The owner gets to decide HOW their car or house is used, not just IF people can access it. Owners should be able to decide if they want something to distributed through certain channels, just like people get to decide who gets to use their car or their house.
So now your argument is that since something is legal in China it should be legal everywhere, and that makes it not wrong. Seriously?
Yea, no sh@#. Might as well start treating women like they do in the Middle East too. I mean if we’re going to turn ass backwards like countries who are decades behind us as a society, let’s go.
Eat dog. Beat women. Steal everything.
What makes those countries backwards there is nothing wrong its there way let them do it, do like it dont go there dont bother with them that so hard. We’ve done shameful things also over history and eating dog so what; no difference than eating any other animal.
Interesting new concept also– the unsolicited ‘favor’. If I decide what I am doing should be good for you, I am counting that in some imaginary debit column in our ledger of accounts between each other, one which I will choose to withdraw from, again, as I choose.
I prefer open and voluntary versus unilateral and private– but maybe I’ll paint my neighbor’s porch tonight before I siphon his gas into my tank. He should be paying me for it whether he knows or wants me doing it or not.
It’s always bothered me how the content industry has been able to conflate piracy and stealing.
Stealing is when you break into Tower Records and take a CD. You have something you shouldn’t, while Tower loses the right to sell it and the guy behind you loses the right to buy. (Ironically, the same distribution mechanisms we are now discussing put Tower out of business and made the concept of stealing obsolete).
Piracy is when you make an exact duplicate of source content. No one is necessarily harmed, although the supply chain may lose a potential sale. (Whether piracy yields net sales gains or losses is interesting to consider, but very hard to know in most situations).
—
I recently graduated from USC, where I studied both Entrepreneurship and the Entertainment Business. USC is frequently considered the best school in the world for film et. al. because of its incredible ties to Hollywood.
It always boggled my mind when I’d hear Hollywood insiders discuss piracy. For the most part, the people in charge don’t understand the Internet. They form anti-piracy silos within their studios because they’ve heard piracy is a Bad Thing. On numerous occasions, I met old people who downloaded content onto their iPods for a long plane ride and didn’t think anything of it. They seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that the studios they ran contributed incredible resources to campaigns designed to criminalize that very act.
Generation-X-aged industry insiders were even more frustrating. They’d doublefacedly embrace piracy when it suited their interests and lynch it when it did not. Like their older counterparts, not one of them thought twice before downloading content for their personal use.
One of my professors represented someone who had been seriously burned by piracy. The client’s film had been so widely bootlegged that the studio hadn’t been able to distribute it to theaters. He was essentially bankrupted, having put everything he had into the film without being able to commercialize it.
The same professor who dedicated classes to this horror story frequently bragged about his own personal piracy.
In the time it took to type and edit that comment, 28 other replies were posted. Wow, I’m unproductive today.
God, yep, that pretty much sums it up from the inside. Complete cognitive dissonance.
Well, what does that say about that professor?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MICHAEL !
I have always thought about how the money we pay providers to stay connected should be distributed to the content producers, but us LISTENERS being paid that is some vision. Brilliant!
Cheers,
Leo
and where would this money come from?
Uh duh? Like aren’t you as brilliant as Michael? It will come from the big pot of money that the content industry keeps stashed under it’s bed. Oh wait. No. It will come from the suckers that still buy CDs. Or maybe from a government bailout. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Online music from Google and MySpace isn’t free. Google and MySpace are footing the bill for us while we watch and listen to ads while we listen.
Go ahead and give content providers the choice. If they want to distribute free, they can. If they don’t, then who are we to tell them to piss off and take it from them.
Sure the market will play itself out, but until then, you are stealing from an individual who worked to make that music. Don’t sink to that level because you think the artist and the RIAA are worse than you. They aren’t.
All of the music will never be free to download. I’m guessing some will be free to lore in fans to buy more music. Sold directly from the artist’s website.
Farmers don’t grow food and give it to you free. If you think recording artists are going to give you everything for free think again.
Well, you can buy the music legally, but then, as XKCD points out, if your OS or music technology changes, you could lose the music you bought…and, if you try to keep that music, you’re committing a crime anyway. So…
michael, that’s a ridiculous argument. it’s funny how bloggers, journalists, pundits are willing to trash china or any other country that it deems wrong but is just as willing to look the other way IF the behavior suits them. China has a long history of human rights abuses – should you use China in that case? Or how about torture? Hell, Spain or Russia does it… therefore we should be able to do it too.
That’s the problem with this “relativism” all the media liberals ascribe to. It suits you until it doesn’t suit you. Everyone else is either a fascist, a racist, or a bigot – Let’s just make everything communal property. Artists don’t need to be paid! In fact, how about I just have a website that just copies your website and collect clicks/ads/whatever…
China does it.
Did you just call Michael Arrington a ‘media liberal?’
Can I laugh yet?
Using an ad-hominem attack in an argument makes you look dumb. Confusing a political ideology with an insult makes you look retarded. Your second paragraph complete destroys any credibility you’d like for the first.
where did i trash china? if you actually read the post there’s lots to disagree with, but you didn’t
MMMmmm free digital music … aarraraarrraraaarrraa
TV is free. Am I stealing that?
LOL I hope that was ironic
I hope so too! lol
Stealing music is obtaining a digital copy with a marginal cost of zero. Taking that into consideration, I believe stealing music is fine as long as good music continues to be created.
I think the industry is misunderstanding what to fight.
As an old hacker/cracker that many times used to push the legal limits as a harmless prank or to see if I could the discussion to me is irrelevant.
The music industry may forever have destroyed their business by classing all downloaders as thieves.
I myself have downloaded music for ‘preview purposes’ and almost always buy a CD or DVD if I apriciate the content (like it) while I delete others that I WOULDN’T HAVE BOUGHT ANYWAY if they weren’t readily available for ‘preview’.
I also consume more and new music thanks to the option of downloading and seeing what an artist is about.
Take a look at the gaming/software industry that don’t whine as much. Positive image of business – large community – record sales – better games – higher yield!
When is the music industry gonna learn?
With this kind of backwards thinking, see how many of your “favorite bands” actually stick around to make another record. Would you continue to make a product just to give it away for free or have it stolen? Only an idiot would do that. “Here, I just spent the past four months crafting this beautiful painting with 24kt gold trim, why don’t you just TAKE it? No, really, go ahead! I’ll be painting LIVE at the park next week, tell your friends!” Yeah, right.
I’m not saying that music shouldn’t be AFFORDABLE, or that labels weren’t charging too much, but if you think about the amount of marketing money they put into an album (also too much in my opinion), there was definitely a cost to be passed to the consumer. Labels aside, look at it from a creative standpoint. Do you realize how many hours upon hours of blood, sweat, and tears go into writing and recording a good song? To demand the right to own it for free, or feeling entitled to own it without compensating the artist is absolutely absurd. I mean, really, think about it. Why don’t we ask GM for free cars? I mean, we’re actually PAYING so that they can keep creating. Maybe the government should do an “Artist Bailout”?
I realize that there is the argument that bands can make money through touring and merchandise, but let’s be honest, there are only a handful of bands that can actually successfully do that.
So, go on stealing your “favorite artist’s” music, just don’t be surprised when there are no longer any new songs to steal.
But the market will adjust for that, it will find a way. But so far, the cost of music has dropped tremendously and, in my opinion, the selection and quality have shot up.
Attention has been monetized. Free music means maximum attention which can be valuable enough to motivate talented artists to create music.
“Here, I just spent the past four months crafting this beautiful painting with 24kt gold trim, why don’t you just TAKE it? No, really, go ahead!”
no logic flow. what’s happening is that I’m creating an exact duplicate, for free, leaving the original untouched. is that still wrong? If so, why is it not wrong in China?
Yes, still wrong. Wrong here, wrong in China. Wrong on the moon, or wherever else you’d like to ask about.
Oh, and “creating an exact duplicate”?? That’s a nice way of saying “stealing”. Last time I checked, “creating” involved “creativity”.
Sorry Tommy, but you’ve got this wrong.
It’s only “wrong” if the means under which you (or Mike) got the content was contrary to the terms under which the owner of the intellectual property has licensed that content.
AFAIK (by reading the BBC link Mike pointed to), Google licensed “More than 350,000 songs, from Sony, Warner, EMI and Universal…”, so the owners of the intellectual property (the labels, and the artists they represent), decided they wanted to allow this… because Google PAID for it: “Google will share advertising revenue with the major music labels.”
It’s not “wrong” in China, because the owners of the intellectual property (the labels) have decided to license their content to a specific group of people under specific terms.
Those people are: people who access the content through google china, while in china.
The terms are: free to those specific people, because google agreed to pay $x and y% of revenue generated from advertising on the site under z,a,b, and q conditions.
The point is that the content has been licensed under those terms. The content you’re downloading was not licensed under those terms.
If someone is PAYING for it, is isn’t FREE then, is it?
If so, why is it not wrong in China?
Well, killing and kidnapping demonstrator is not wrong in China.
Manipulate currency value is not wrong in China.
Comunist is not wrong in China
Generally, violating intelectual property right (especially those who come from US) is not wrong in China.
No logic at all
Did you read the link Mike included about China?
It’s pretty clear what the China deal is… it’s got nothing to do with China, demonstrators, currency manipulation, or communism… it’s a very simple case of the Labels licensed the content to Google in China.
Really really simple if you had just read the link.
Despite this company being a short-lived blog darling, let me tell you the last time I got a payment from allofmp3.com for my music being sold on its site: Never. Not once.
Where was Russian law if I wanted to get my allegedly promised money? Who’s defending them now?
More importantly, where was morality when people justified downloading my album for a dollar or so through a company whose business model was based upon a total disconnect from the people who made the music? In all honesty, I hope your credit cards are safe. There’s a reason these sites operate in China and Russia.
Lots of rage being hurled at AIG for irresponsibility these days; how about focusing on personal responsibility as a start?
Hey Michael, did you actually READ the article about Google offering free music downloads in China? It sure doesn’t seem like you did.
Did you also read that Google is sharing ad revenue with the labels from doing that? Did you also read that Google only has a 16% market share in search in China and they are trying to catch up with Baidu?
The music is NOT free. Google is merely subsidizing it and paying the labels in the from ad revenue to offer music LEGALLY for free in China. They are using it as a loss leader to get people to use their search and services.
What they are doing is good for the music industry in China as all the other Chinese sites do offer music illegally.
If you are so in love with China, why don’t you go hang there for a few years and blog from there? How would you enjoy the censorship? You like censorship? They dig that in China, right?
Good point. Copying is obviously different from stealing unique objects, which is a zero-sum game. The effects of stealing real items are felt immediately and are always negative to the owner, whereas copying things is more complex. However, if someone puts time and effort into something, it makes sense that they should get something out of it, and so it is innappropriate to copy their work without compensation. That doesn’t necessarily have to be monetary compensation, of course.
But if you really want a sensible ethical argument, you really need to state your underlying aims. I.e., are you trying to increase overall GDP, happiness, be “fair” to everyone, approximate a judeo-christian ethic, or something else?
That depends on what the definition of “stealing” is.
Also depends on what country you’re in
We need a new word.
‘Stealing’ used to mean only “taking something which another was then deprived of, without their permission”.
Now it means that and also “making a copy of something witout the permission of the person who owns some sort of rights to the abstract idea imbedded in the thing you copy”.
Those two concepts are so, so different the deserve different words.
I think a better question might be “what’s reality?” In reality, music is free when 95% of music distributed online isn’t paid for. That reality isn’t going away any time soon, no matter what the law says, and no matter what’s right or wrong.
The next question is “what do you do with that reality?” The dominant answer, so obviously wrong, appears to be “ignore it.”
It’s time to start using analytics or whatever else you can to make money with the reality that music is already free.
-Adam
if you think it is stealing then according to your moral code it must be wrong but bear in mind that some musicians wuold still be in obscurity if it wasn’t for data sharng.Try saying it ; sharing…now that wasnt too difficult was it but don’t tell anyone my great idea they might steal it
There is no gray area here. If I offer you something for a price, and you take it without paying the price, itis wrong. End of argument. You can dress it up as a matter perception all you want. You know I expected you to pay for it, and you didn’t. That means you stole it. I don’t see what when you were born or what you are used to has to do with it. When everyone is used to stealing will everything be free?
Here here. Thank you for your post. It’s amazing how horrid the logic of these people, Michael Arrington included, can be on philosophical issues, especially when an incentive exists to do the wrong thing.
Agreed.
The logic is absolutely repellant, and more to the point, the underlying disdain shown for those who make music, especially when the article bizarrely seems to suggest, that it is actually he himself that should be receiving financial reward.
As i mention below, it is funny how the artist is always the person who seems to lose out in these situations. It was once the labels exploiting them, but now it appears to be the music services. Always a business at any rate. I am sure if labels dissappear it will just be someone else not paying the artist for their work. Probably someone michael arrington supports on this site. A real shame for music once again that history will repeat itself – just with websites rather than labels.
There’s a key difference between stealing music and being aggressive as a publisher with artists. There is consent in the latter relationship. Furthermore, the fact that many artists are eager to get signed with a label indicates that they may not be poor, poor souls after all.
Wow. Just Wow.
You lack a moral compass and need someone (in this case, a government) to tell you what is right and wrong. Discounting the “rightness” or “wrongness” of this particular issue.
You can’t even make up your own mind and take a stance.
No wonder we are floundering as a society. Rome is burning.
Brian,
I am not a huge fan of labels, having experienced two majors, but I will say this. Most are artists ARE hungry to get a “deal” with a label because it is pretty much the only way to separate themselves from the hordes of talentless, mediocre bands/acts that are taking up space in our world today (just because they can).
Stealing music will NOT help improve the quality of music, it will CLUTTER the internet with mediocre talent.
There is no point in discussing if it is wrong or not to download music illegally, because it will happen regardless of what people say.
The music industry has to start looking at new ways to monetize music. Better and stronger product placements in musical lyrics (mainly applies to rap but sometimes other genres), put better plans in place for ring tones and mobile music, there are so many things to be done to make up for the lost money from sales of the albums and songs themselves.
We need some young blood in these record companies, people who understand Social Media, how young adults think, and where the future of technology and the internet are going.
The old saying is think outside the box. I think in this case we have to make a new box and first think inside of it.
Get some young guns on board and do not be afraid to let people use your music on Youtube. It is free publicity.
If you want to brainstorm with me on this subject, please feel free to email me at:
adrian@adrianeden.com
I will give my opinion for free, I know a lot about Music and Social Media, as well as monetizing unique situations.
Respect.
adderall much?
No, actually not. Thanks for taking time to reply however. Have a good week.
So how do you actually make money with that ? That’s the problem with every Social company right now they cant make a damn dime doing what they planned on doing at the start. Somewhere along the line the vision changes and it would happen in this case also.
I see no problem with paying $1 per song… my problem is that MySpace is allowed to stream music, but other services can’t?
The whole licensing process should be A LOT easier.
I think it’s a really good call to call attention to the act of “downloading” and the confusion around what’s legal and what’s not these days, and how the labels are willfully demonizing unstoppable behavior.
However, I think you’re arguments about free and not are sort of willfully disingenuous. It’s pretty easy for a smart person to figure it out. And you’re a smart person. But if you’re still missing it, here it is: so long as the artist is being compensated, it’s probably all right.
Or, more to the point, so long as SOMEONE is paying for it. All of the legal free download means you talk about have someone footing the bill for you. So whether it’s an advertiser, a website or you, the consumer, so long as the artist is being compensated, you’re probably good. “free” is irrelevant.
I think that’s a great way to put it. My feeling is that if someone is making music, obviously they are being compensated enough or they would do something else. But your point is a bit more persuasive to these confused pseudo-moralist commenters.
What about the people who arent making music though?
What about all the great music that isn’t being made as the bob dylans / neil youngs / radioheads / shellacs / whoever you like personally / all now have 9-5 day jobs. Sure they may put a song on myspace once every now and again, but what about the records they COULD have made.
Or do we not care about them?
And the myth or live / merch money i’m afraid is just a myth, barely anyone makes money out of this, most bands LOSE money on the road, hence why labels factor into any contract the amount they give the band to tour…..
Whats wrong with being a moralist ? What is wrong with wanting to support art and feeling it is a valuable addition to society?
I absolutely think it is valuable to society, I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it isn’t bad for art that we steal songs instead of pay for them. I think it’s made it better.
Shellac do have day jobs and the others you mention aren’t very good and don’t.
So what’s your point?
It’s actually not obvious at all. There are many, many, many starving artists. I’m sure you’ve heard of that term. Your logic doesn’t make any sense. Can you explain it further?
No, the artist is ASSUMING that they will be compensated when people “acquire” their property. This obviously is becoming less and less the case these days.
You can only steal so many support beams before the building collapses.
The music industry ripped us off for the last 50 years, now we will rip them off for the next x years (until they die).
Eventually we will reach a new equilibrium, where artists earn more, people can listen to more (and better music) and all the inefficient, unnecessary middlemen are gone.
What about the artists you are ripping off?
Why are you tarnishing them, most of whom were not alive 25 years ago, let alone 50, with the same brush? Bitterness? Anger? That isn’t fair.
it’s collateral damage. it’s not fair, it’s ugly but it’s very necessary.
this is how change happens, first things will get worse before they get better.
but as I said “Eventually we will reach a new equilibrium, where artists earn more, people can listen to more (and better music) and all the inefficient, unnecessary middlemen are gone.”
There will be no such profession as a “music executive”, only musicians and listeners.
If course there will be music executives.
Don’t you realise? They just won’t be at labels any more. They’ll be at spotify, or myspace music, or wheverever the hip site is at the moment.
These services will simply be the labels of the future. Their business models and names will change, but it’ll be the same old thing. Business ripping off artists.
They’ll even probably end up doing the same jobs… a&r, marketing (on their own services at any rate), advertising etc. it makes sense. If someone like spotify wants to continue to be successful, it is only a matter of time before they offer artists money to ’sign’ with spotify, whereby they enter into an exclusive agreement with them to distribute their music.
What does this all mean? The cycle will just keep repeating itself. Big business using artists to make money. And the last person to get paid, as always, will be the artist.
NOT going to happen if people continue with the “it’s okay to steal” mentality.
Only musicians and listeners? What about the amazing songwriters that AREN’T artists? What about Diane Warren? David Foster? Do you really think that THEY are going to continue write songs without compensation? I guess if you want to live in a world where the only new music comes from people who make music on the side as a hobby, and TREAT it like a hobby, it’s okay. I, for one, want to hear GOOD music, created by people who TREAT IT LIKE A JOB.
I’m extremely disappointed in a society that knowingly destroys something it “loves”.
How exactly did they rip you off? Because you were the douche who bought a Backstreet Boys CD and realized 6 months later you were the douche that bought a Backstreet Boys CD?
Idiot.
By lobbying the United States Congress to change copyright law in their favor. By colluding with other market players to set artificially high prices. By paying radio stations for airtime. By fighting technology that COULD be used for piracy but will also be used to benefit the human race by leaps and bounds.
If I download a new pop song, yes, maybe it’s wrong. If I download a Beatles song, it is in no way wrong. Copyright is only supposed to grant distribution rights FOR A LIMITED TIME. After the parties involved have taken their cut, their intellectual property becomes part of our cultural commons. Why do you think patents expire?
The record industry is slimy and has been screwing the artists and the consumers for too long. It would disappoint me if the consumers were to kill the artists with their newfound power but it wouldn’t really surprise me — the consumer has been screwed by record companies for years. Wake up.
The contempt with which michael arrington shows artists is disgusting.
Social media sites should get paid for helping direct people to artists… but artists shouldn’t get paid for giving sites content to help make money…
Just the other day, arrington suggested how unfortunate it was that streaming sites were not making money… yet he cares little that artists are not making money. It is funny to take such an anti label stance, based on a sort of misplaced anti-big business idea, when all along all he really cares about is…. big business. Except instead of exploitative labels not paying artists… it’ll be exploitative big business websites not paying artists.
Notice who is always losing here? The artist.
Arrington, you’re a moron.
I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.
I love what Mark said, aside from the name-calling.
Well said, Mark. And I don’t mind the namecalling. . .
Now I understand why someone spat in Mike Arrington’s face.
Mike your blatant disregard for other people’s efforts and rights is shameful.
“Stealing” music and movies off the internet is the moral equivalent of the Boston Tea Party. It’s against the law, but it’s a law meant to prop up an outdated business model because the entrenched interests are so vocal and desperate.
The simple truth is that we don’t HAVE to have the next business model figured out in order to let this dinosaur go extinct. There’s a well-known demand for music and movies that’s growing, not shrinking, and where there is a market this strong and growing, there will be a business model. Will there be some pain in the transition? Yes, of course. Will the ecosystem come out stronger and more dynamic as a result of it? I believe it will. It always does.
Taxation without representation != online music piracy
100% ACK
Wow. I’ve never heard the “china does it, so it must be ok” argument before.
And you still haven’t. What he wrote was that if the music labels are OK with the practice in China why not here? And even then, the implication is that how can they get off calling it ethical in one market, but not in another? They are falsely appealing to a “higher” ethics when really it’s just a business decision.
exactly. well put.
You should pay something.
What about the 1000s of LPs and Tapes that I purchased legally? The artists (and labels) have already received their $$$$ from me. Shouldn’t I be able to download (for free) albums that I’ve already purchased?
Let’s see if I get this straight. Stealing is OK except for the small problem that it violates the law in the US.
It seems to be legal in China because Google’s business model licensed songs from those willing to play in an enterprise where revenues are driven by eyeballs/advertising. Presume they hope to share in revenues when appropriate.
Apparently, confused Americans got it wrong as kids– they had no concept that Napster exposed them to unlicensed, illegal downloads, and therefore, grew up with the wrong bearings.
Because they got used to a practice–even though illegal–they now should feel proud to have established a new benchmark on how to convert private property into a public asset.
Had the parents of these confused kids a decade ago known what Napster was all about –would they have permitted them to download bootlegged music?
If Napster had originally been labeled “Steal this Song”–instead of a name which meant nothing to anyone–would society have been so permissive as to say “its the right way to go”?
What would parents have said –a decade ago when Napster ruled– if their 12 year old kid also repeatedly threw rocks through the glass fronts of vending machines, just to take candy bars– because they liked the taste–and it was easy to do? Suspect most parents would have said–that’s a big “no-no”.
But they were oblivious when their kids took possession of the intellectual property of recording artists–because they didn’t really understand the process and what was going on.
If the internet really wants content to be free–especially when used in multiple forms–then I guess the folks at TechCrunch would have no problem if someone started using their content in another regional/local versions of the service– all designed to create an impression of credibility/competence-with the ultimate goal of holding their own startup conferences and incorporating the name “Techcrunch” in their own business.
Sounds like you’d have no problem.
After all–you are working hard to disseminate your brand and make it well known.
But, given your position that music (intellectual property) should be free–then why not encourage others to take your content/concepts and move out?
Isn’t that what you believe the internet is about? Empowering people with free information to make a difference?
Who cares about a bottom line–with the small exception of landlords, banks, employees, and others who support your efforts to be successful under they guise that they might get something out of it?
Yes, let’s start a new “TechCrunch Blog”, we can make it our own! I’ll just use, hmmm, let’s sayyyy.. http://futurest...s.blogspot.com/ as my launching board. Come on everyone, let’s continue the conversation there!! lol
If everyone lived by the “Golden Rule”, none of this would even be an issue… So sad that instead of using technology to bring us together, it actually pushes us further and further apart…
Gotta’ go, my Mom just texted me and needs me to Tweet my brother about fixing her webcam for the family dinner tonight..
Yes, that was sarcasm…
Falling back on the “it’s legal in China” disregards a significant fact, music piracy has been so rampant in China that there has never really ever been a legitimate recorded music model to destroy. Kudos to the labels for trying something new in China.
I’m not in favor of the current antiquated and unworkable copyright system. Badly broken. But to anyone who creates audio-visual art it is indeed a slap in the face to be told that because technology has changed you now have to offer your craft for free. And the vitriol I read in some of these posts of this being retribution for years of evil dealings by the music companies patently disregards who ultimately gets hurt here, the artists you are stealing from.
What do you mean “antiquated and unworkable copyright system?” Is it only antiquated and unworkable because it protects the creative works of artists?
“who ultimately gets hurt here, the artists you are stealing from”
When the current system dies artists will still having something of value to offer, and will be more free to do something with it than they are currently. It is unfortunate for some of the eggs, granted, but we’re making a middle-man-free omelet here.
Of course we’re not making a middle man free omlet ! There are still middle men ! THey just have different names !
Instead of EMI, we have myspace music, instead of Sony BMG, we have spotify ! It’s the same ! And they will just act in the same way all the labels did.
History is repeating itself. These are businesses not charities ! They want to make money. Noone is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts… if you think otherwise you are living in a fantasy.
You think that chucking some advertising on MySpace page where you can listen to music is comparable to the limitations of a record company contract? And you think I’m living in a fantasy? FFS!
It will never be a ‘middleman free omelet’
Musicians are good at music. The skill set necessary to deliver music to teh world and capitalize on this investment is quite large.
Middle men are fine… just make sure the creators still get a proportionate return…
Big download success should = big financial returns for artist.
not:
Big download success = artist still looking for next meal.
Hallelujah!!!
“just make sure the creators still get a proportionate return”
How do you ‘just’ do that?
The copyright system IS broken – and it always has been. The only reason that it has (sort of) worked up until now is that there has been a cost associated with putting creative works onto a medium. It’s not going to continue to work now that this cost is gone.
The real problem is that copyright, patents and other instruments of so-called “intellectual property” give a monopoly to their owners. Monopolies get abused – that’s why in just about any other sphere of commerce they get squashed faster than you can say “anti-trust”.
Most “piracy” – particularly when it comes to music and software – is people railing against this abuse. They’re not sure why perhaps, but they know it’s not wrong.
Well-done Michael for encouraging some debate on this issue.