Music Sharing?

[mrchops10]

I've never seen a discussion of this, but I've only been on the forum a couple of months, so forgive me. I just keep bumping into this, in the chat room a few weeks ago, and now with the copyright thread in the rep section, and I think it deserves some conversation/debate. Why is it that musicians most of all seem to have no problem sharing music? Shouldn't we be most attuned to the huge difficulties of recording, producing, marketing, promoting, and distributing an album? Often, people write it off as sticking it to the MAN, i.e. the record companies. But we are not just sticking to them, but also the countless artists they sign and support.

What is it about the internet that makes people so overly bold? Stevie's recent link to Howard Na's website shows that often talented musicians say things on the internet that would obviously be extremely unwise to say in real life, or publish. Where is the fundamental difference? To continue the comparison, would any of you steal a record from your local Sam Goody to stick it to the MAN?

Sorry to bother everyone about this, but I just started at conservatory and the extreme lack of shame most young musicians feel about this at my school and on this website is very discouraging to me.

[perfect_pitch]

I feel the same damn way... Usually the only MP3's I have are the ones that are freely able to download off peoples Official Web-sites... Like a couple of Mei-Ting Sun (Was that his name)

[leahcim]

25 years ago, I used to tape stuff off the radio and friends would tape me their albums and I'd tape stuff for them. A bit later when we got a VHS video recorder, the same would happen with TV. We'd lend each other books etc. Most of the stuff could be borrowed from the library - one copy bought, lots of people sharing it. Sound familiar?

Then places like blockbusters et al appeared to lend people videos and these days, games and DVDs.

Bootleg tapes existed, and when I went on a holiday to Spain I noticed that most of the pre-recorded tapes weren't originals. Similary, fake rolex watches and fake jeans abound - no one buying them is
doing it instead of buying a rolex though.

It's not new, no more than the internet invented anything else that it's blamed for.

There are perfectly legal ways to read your book and listen to your music or watch your film without paying directly [libraries are funded obviously and here we buy TV licenses or subscriptions etc]

The difference the internet and digital recording allows are (a) High quality [or at least same quality] copies - and (b) An easy way to advertise and distribute to far more than just a group of friends.

But these are 2 advantages for anyone who wants to distribute music though - including people who want to make money from it. [There are other things as well that the internet has changed - there are plenty of instrument shops passing the onion about the internet these days, and making up FUD about it - yet many of the successful internet retailers of musical instruments and other products, are shops]

As Rudyard Disney wrote, get with the beat baggy.

It's not theft either. No more than it's rape, child abuse or jaywalking. That's not to say it's right nor that there isn't legislation against the different aspects, but the comparison with stealing is propoganda.

Ultimately the p2p stuff doesn't create content - they don't make films or albums - the biggest long-term problem for the record companies [and signed artists], publishers and distributors, is the people that can create content, if they see the internet as a good way to distribute high quality recordings themselves why would they bother with the record company / distrubutor? For example, valve and half life 2 et al.

[mrchops10]

Thanks for the response! I appreciate your (very well-written) point of view but I must say much of it doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, just to clarify, I didn't credit the internet with starting media-sharing, but merely point out that this is the place it is most prevalent, and that the relative anonymity of the Internet makes people bolder and more careless than usual. I think both these points are difficult to dispute.

I also agree that the Internet offers incredible potential for unrepresented artists, and it also allows for unprecedented ease in the exchange of ideas. This forum is a product of both of these factors, and I'm not saying this is somehow EVIL. However, the exchange of copyrighted material is no less valid because the Internet has it's good points. So far as I can see, your entire refutation is:

It's not theft either. No more than it's rape, child abuse or jaywalking. That's not to say it's right nor that there isn't legislation against the different aspects, but the comparison with stealing is propoganda.

So it's both partly illegal and wrong, but it isn't stealing? What is it then? It is inappropriate use of copyrighted materials. It is obtaining a recording not through purchase, through a publicly funded library, or through a rental store, but rather for free. All the benefits of the Internet aside, I still fail to see the difference between this and shoplifting.

Ultimately the p2p stuff doesn't create content - they don't make films or albums - the biggest long-term problem for the record companies [and signed artists], publishers and distributors, is the people that can create content, if they see the internet as a good way to distribute high quality recordings themselves why would they bother with the record company / distrubutor? For example, valve and half life 2 et al.

Excellent point, but to say this justifies music sharing is a little like taking candy from a baby because you want to prevent obesity. Your intentions may be flawless, but the candy still belonged to the baby.

[bearzinthehood]

I buy hundreds of dollars of CDs per quarter.  I have also downloaded music from the internet.  If I like it I buy it.  If I don't I throw it away.  If the record companies don't like me downloading stuff then they are morons because I buy way more music as a result of finding music on the internet that I would have otherwise.

Also, obviously this discussion has been mirrored hundreds of times on nearly every forum imaginable, but artists do not make the bulk of their profit from record sales because the percentage they make on each sale is laughably low.  They earn their living from concerts.   Albums are nothing more than advertisement for musicians.  If anything, downloading music from the internet helps the artists at the expense of the record companies.

[leahcim]

So it's both partly illegal and wrong, but it isn't stealing?

Correct. Well I would say, "Some aspects are illegal and it isn't stealing. Morally, opinions vary, especially w.r.t that legislation"

For example, questions like "if I buy Finks vhs video and transfer it onto DVD so I can watch it" or "If I download a program made and broadcast using the $2bn the British public, who own the bbc, pay to the BBC each year, because I missed it?" or "If I download the latest music CD, listen to it, and then go and buy it or think "Nah, it's pants" or "if I buy a CD and then transfer it onto my ipod to listen on the train"

...and the same questions, but instead of downloading it's uploading.

For each one, hypothetically consider "is that morally wrong?" "Is it illegal?" "Is it stealing?"

Clearly, one question has a "No" answer in all cases - none of them are stealing. Morally speaking, irrespective of what the law says in a particular country, it's questionable imo and people's opinions will differ. Legislation varies too, fair use in the USA allowed more than in the UK for example.

Because AIUI, there is no legal basis to make a copy of a CD onto an ipod or computer in the uk.

What is it then?

If we're talking about copyrights, patents and trademarks, it's very complicated OTOH, you seem to have concentrated on copyright.

In the UK it used to be split, basically into commercial / business concerns, which did have a criminal aspect [this is the kind of "piracy" that upsets microsoft and levis etc and the ones you see trading standards raiding premises for - where some are retailing boxes professionally printed containing pirated copies of windows XP for example. It's big business, big crime. In some countries, with lax (c) law it was a way of life.

The other stuff which is civil and only the (c) holder can action it, wasn't criminal as such. So even saying "illegal" used to be stretching it for most of the activity you're talking about.

The legislation is changing relatively frequently these days though - some things may be criminal now that weren't before - but afaict, there is still no legal basis from which to call it shoplifting or stealing.

Bear in mind some other potential legal things too
(a) If you say someone is stealing or shoplifting or a thief in certain countries that could be libel unless you can show that they are.

I'd suggest that some famous groups who have drawn that analogy have a motive, one where they hope attaching a label like "theft" or "stealing" to it would attach a similar moral viewpoint to the activity - that's what I meant by propoganda.

(b) If you charge me with something in a procrustean attempt to make some alleged wrong-doing fit some existing legislation chances are it won't work [see early attempts to prosecute for computer "crimes" in the uk using various hand-waving analogies about it being fraud and other things before the misuse act appeared. Most, if not all of them failed]

(c) If you are a (c) holder or intend to be, or deal with (c) material, you'd do as well to learn what it is from a legal pov.

Excellent point, but to say this justifies music sharing is a little like taking candy from a baby because you want to prevent obesity. Your intentions may be flawless, but the candy still belonged to the baby.

I didn't say it did justify music sharing. I'm pointing out why I think the internet's potential and paying for music / films etc was probably never an attractive concept to those people. Although I think they've no choice now.

I guess my point is - irrespective of who is or isn't in the right, they've clearly gone about things in a hamfisted and ultimately unsuccessful and futile manner and I'd suggest that's because the more obvious course of action [i.e make $%#$loads of cash] appeared far more harmful to them long-term [as in, someone else makes #$#$loads of cash bypassing them]