"And you can try to justify it saying its a multi-million dollar enterprise paying millionaire actors, etc. But that doesn't change the facts."

It certainly changes some things. I absolutely appreciate the bands who make good music because music is very important to my life, but there's no way I believe that some bands should be making millions of dollars for what they do. As soon as it's realized that you're overcharging for music, people will pirate. I'm not talking about $0.99 per song, I'm talking $0.10 or less. I believe most people are willing to support people who make the music they like, it's just a matter of to what degree.

You can't stop pirating with legislation and litigation, but you can recapture losses by having a more flexible business model that's willing to accept less than the ridiculous cash cow popular music has been in the past few decades.

Musicians make money from touring, not album sales. That's why the Stones bother to tour at 96 years of age. It's not as if they haven't sold enough albums and cd's.

Songwriters and composers gain nothing from touring... Unless they also perform.

I'm just not sure how we get to decide what is an economically unreasonable business model. Should we be next advocating pumping gas and not paying for it, because oil companies make too much money? Shall we walk onto farmer's fields and pick fruit?

Those product of those industries can't be duplicated and distributed via the Internet; thus they are not outdated business models.The music and film industries should receive money for their product. But we need a new way of collecting those royalties.
Something similar to way artists receive money for radio play: instead artists would money for downloads. Perhaps the ISPs should have to pay liscense fees just like radio stations do?

ok, here's another tact on this argument:
by playing a certain game, with the EXACT same rules,
and with the EXACT same map are we all partaking in
copyright infringement.
What is really sad about the whole affair is it is blatantly an
effort at regulating the internet.
For SHAME those who are against site that offer
links to torrents!!!
If I like a band I BL****DY well by their music.
If I like the book I BL****DY well by the book
ect...

... *buy*
:)

I'm not sure if you are trying to argue a bad pricing model or an outdated business model. The cost of producing a CD is NOT the bulk of the charge for a $15 CD. I'd bet its less than $1 to actually produce the CD. So either you should have had a problem with the old business model too, or you should accept a $14 download.

Thats great Kaner, but I don't think that holds true for much of today's youth, who have now grown up with the idea that all music is free because it always has been. And they can't think of the economic ramifications... (I don't blame them for that, its a product of youth.)

I'd bet there is a large percentage of 15 year olds who don't buy ANY CDs (Note: I have a 15 year old). And while they may not have bought the 1000 that they downloaded illegally, the probably would have bought a handful.

"This wasn't a criminal trial, it was a political trial. It is just gross beyond description that you can jail four people for providing infrastructure", Rickard Falkvinge, leader of The Pirate Party.

I liked this quotation...

Unfortunately DbJ you are correct. I am quite sure that for the majority of youth this is true. many 15 YrOlds probably wont by many cd's but this doesn't stop iTunes from making a fortune anyway.
I personally find the most distressing part about this whole thing is that there is now a "moral" imperative to censor the internet.
To take a serious look at the world today, it owuld be very difficult to argue in favour un-biased media, uncensored information etc...
The Real question on here is not that some lads made links available on their web-site, but rather: Where will the regulation of the internet end?

'some lads'?

That characterisation is somewhat slanted. They were highly sophisticated in every stage of the operation and had their own business model to encourage into maturity. This was never a few friends doing what they thought was right. This was a group of very bright young men doing what they knew was wrong and gambling that they could make money without being caught or stopped.

I am in agreement that the way money moves in the entertainment industry is unbalanced, but TPB was never a pure attempt to correct the system.

TPB can argue for freedom this and freedom that, but that argument loses its strength when they were making money off of it.

But who are the pirates?

I live in the UK and pay my taxes which (in part) go towards supporting people who don't work (for whatever reason). Now suppose one of these people write a book, a very good book and call it Harry Potter. Is it right that she should copyright that work in her own name and prevent me from copying it from the internet to give to some children who can't afford to buy the book?

What about people who have no children but pay their taxes to send people to university and then they leave university and write a book or compose a song or whatever and then want to charge the people who funded them though their education to read/listen to it.

Who are the pirates?

Maniac, you are starting to sound like someone justifying terrorism. You are trying to come up with reasons to justify theft. So to answer your question, yes, someone on unemployment (or whatever you call it in England) should be able to copyright their material and live better than what they had been.

Suggesting that paying taxes justifies theft is ludicrous.

Ludicrous is correct, with a capital L too...

"Should we be next advocating pumping gas and not paying for it" - Ukraine vrs Russia?

"You can't stop pirating with legislation and litigation, but you can recapture losses by having a more flexible business model that's willing to accept less than the ridiculous cash cow popular music has been in the past few decades."

I think this is precisely the right point.

Just because you don't believe in a law in NO WAY exonerates you from not following it, but that said, I think that most people would agree that the system of Music distribution we have today causes problems.

Here are some things I think would happen if the internet was successfully regulated (which will never happen, by the way, unless we decide to stoop to totalitarianism or some overarching system of human regulation. but I digress)

1) A whole lot of people will listen to less music, and get alot less media exposure. Paying for things over the internet, or at stores, or wherever, may not be a bad thing, but consider this- I buy CDs only when I know I'm getting a bang for my buck. If I wasn't able to sample downloads, or go on youtube, or whatever, then my intake would go down.

I don't think its a stretch to say that there is a potential that overall sales would indeed go down.

2) Piracy would move elsewhere. Piracy, as everyone has agreed, is not going to stop, and trials like these merely galvanise the already pirating.

This controversy will only calm when music companies realize that if you can't defeat the beast your best chance is to join.

Repeat.

1. cassette tapes.
2. libraries.

Through all of the self righteous blah blah blah, only one person has bothered to address these two historically acceptable comparisons. Number one is especially damning to the anti-download faction.

When I taped Zeppelin IV from my buddy's record back in the 70's, Jimmy got bupkes.

I <3 theft and plagarism of the arts

@mapleleaf - in the UK casette tape manufactures reached an agreement to pay a recording artist body a percentage from all their sales. Also in the UK we have a system whereby authors are paid everytime a book is loaned from a library.

@dingleberry - so trying to point out that a woman who creates something whilst being paid from my tax pounds shouldn't hold the copyright solely in her name without sharing it with the country who paid for her to write it is like justifying terrorism? I don't get it. If you diagree with me fine, but don't say that i'm trying to justify terrorism - that, my friend, is ludicrous.

When ny country returns the Elgin Marbles they can sit in judgement of any other thefts without being hypocrites.

DJ, you've had some good points, but I think you're slipping down that slope way too much.

"I'm not sure if you are trying to argue a bad pricing model or an outdated business model. The cost of producing a CD is NOT the bulk of the charge for a $15 CD. I'd bet its less than $1 to actually produce the CD. So either you should have had a problem with the old business model too, or you should accept a $14 download."

I perfectly understand what you're trying to say. That's not the argument I was trying to make. To bring it into the realms of that argument... the costs of producing a CD, shipping it and distributing it to stores around North America has been constantly decreasing, while prices for CD's have not kept up in this decreasing. CD's that are not sold from stores represent a loss, and this price is definitely factored into the price. I do not own a CD, but I do buy music. It's called downloading. This puts their costs for distributing at almost zero, and they have no losses for accumulated inventory because it comes in the form of information. This has seen a shift rightward of the supply curve that hasn't manifested in their pricing of CD's. Of course they won't be able to sell as many songs and CD's as they like because at their price level, supply exceeds demand.

Combined with a leftward shift in demand due to consumers feeling that recording companies and certain popular bands make far too much money than they should plus the phenomenon of mass pirating which is so prevalent it can not be combated with legislation, we should expect the price level to drop even further.

The RIAA's legal actions have not exactly been helpful in curbing pirating, and certainly they haven't scared people into purchasing music. If anything, they serve only to further the alienation of their consumer base. They're clinging to price levels that are unsustainable in these times of new technology and it will be the bands and recording companies that recognize this and adjust their prices that will reap the profits.

Maniac, you are trying to justify theft because a welfare woman writes a novel. The two have nothing to do with each other. Its you saying 'well its unfair that a happens, so b should happen'. The record companies have nothing to do with the fact that England provides a social welfare program. If you think she should share her profits because she was on welfare, I think you need to find a country a little more socialist than England is, because that is what you are advocating.

@Chrispminis,
I agree completely that record companies need a new price model. I also agree that the RIAA's suits have no affect in combating piracy. The suit against TPB will have absolutely no effect. They needed to change their model 10 years ago when they sued Napster. It is even easier now to get pirated music and much much easier to get pirated movies.

What I don't agree with is people advocating theft BECAUSE a CD is too expensive. A Porsche is too expensive too, but I'm not going to steal one. If you don't like the price of something, you don't buy it, its that simple. Any justification of theft because 1) the internet shouldn't be regulated, 2) its too expensive, 3) bands are too rich, or whatever excuse you want is just trying to justify theft.

We aren't talking about food or water or electricity here. Its not a staple nor a necessity.

@dingleberry - i accept your points entirely, I just get a little hacked off when people view intellectual property differently to any other property.

If I gave a man some wood, and some carpentry tools and some nails; i wouldn't expect him to charge me full price if he made me a coffin (i would probably pay him his labour costs plus a profit).

But we (the tax payers) give musicians the tools of their trade; a free education system up to 18 and then heavily subsidised education after that. Some go to music school funded by the taxes of the dustman and the nurse.

When they use the resources we give them to make a hit record they want to become super-rich on the back of a little talent.

As I said, I think you are right, none of this is an excuse for theft.

Also, on your last post are you suggesting stealing electricity IS acceptable?

@Maniac,
No, I am not suggesting that. But I could understand a spirited debate about a 'necessity' like electricity more than I could music.

Why do you expect musicians to charge you less than they can get but not any other businessmen? Every other professional was provided the same free education. Again, its sounding like you want a completely socialistic society.

Whats a dustman?

garbage man.

maniac, i agree with you. i feel the same way about (some) athletes in australia, we coddle them, send them to a tax payer funded institute to train, and send then off to the Olympics, they win a medal, sign commercial endorsement deals and rake in millions.

@DJ, I wasn't advocating theft because it's too expensive, or any of those reasons. I was using those reasons to show why the business model is outdated. I think we agree on this.

I've already stated that I know pirating is illegal and what TPB was doing was illegal, and I agree that it's theft. I would say though that I don't view my pirating as "wrong" because I'm not depriving artists of my money, nor is the supply of a song limited in the conventional way like say, bread, Porsches, or electricity. I'm not taking their work and passing it off as my own, nor am I burning CD's to sell or distribute in any way. I would say my word of mouth advertising and my purchase of tickets to concerts has had the effect that my pirating has probably increased the revenue of these artists compared to if I didn't pirate. I've outlined this in more detail in an earlier post.

I know my pirating is motivated by self interest, but I don't really think that what I'm doing is ethically wrong. I know that if I could give someone pleasure or satisfaction at little or no cost to myself, I'd be highly motivated to do so, and so I seed torrents, and if I made music but didn't need the money I wouldn't have a particular problem with my music being pirated as long as it was not being mis-attributed or stolen.

I can't say that what I'm doing is not against the law, but there are many things I do that are illegal but which I do not think are wrong, and I think the associated legislation is just silly. Eg. Marijuana.

is this then a legislation problem or is there an inherent dislike for pirating in general?