"I Wouldn't Steal": European Greens advocate file-swapping

[Daniel ~]

Written by Daniel
Monday, 21 January 2008

"I Wouldn't Steal": European Greens advocate file-swapping

By Nate Anderson | Published: January 21, 2008 - 11:56AM CT
ARS Technica

A European political coalition has come out in opposition to the "multinationals" who want to put a stop to file-sharing, and they instead make the claim that file-swapping is "fair."..... Front Page

[Gizmo]

So it's ok for someone to take something from someone else, for no reason other than because they want it?

Sorry, I find that argument just as distasteful as the multinational's "We own everything" position.

[Daniel ~]

Does no one ask "What is right?"

[noob]

That position is a bit harsh. But hopefully between them they will find an acceptable middle path.

Low quality mp3's, high quality screeners to download, mid quality -> high quality old films / tv shows, etc All legit, no DRM via p2p?

Distribution via p2p would be the best way, and possibly with some advertising, it would shutdown most p2p sites. A few high bandwith servers would be much cheaper than funding the RIAA and affiliates.

With product placement nowdays, couldn't they run a private tracker with minimal registration fees to download full quality media?

And add to that no DRM/crud on stuff we buy, as it has been proven everytime it comes out not to work.

It has been shown that a certain number of full album downloads proportionally increases the number of albums sold. It also may be true with TV/movie sales.

I personally like having the cover art, booklet, etc, I like going to the movies. But I don't want to use my original media for day to day viewing, or taking with me to places. I will use a 'backup' copy for that.
If I can't make a backup I will procure 1 for myself.

As there are so many new artists/albums I refuse to pay out a small fortune to buy an album without knowing what they are like. Due to the large number of films I consider rubbish, and as many screeners seem to be in Apples quicktime format streamed (I refuse to have such crud installed), the only way to see whether I want to go and see the latest is to procure it another way.

If I can't find the software I want to use as open source/free, I will purchase the software. Usually using the trial to check and see if it actually does what it says it does. I fully support any business to charge what they want for anything they have created, but I refuse to get anything without knowing what I am actually getting or pay more than what I think it's worth, I will find alternatives which give me what I want.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

So it's ok for someone to take something from someone else, for no reason other than because they want it?

Sorry, I find that argument just as distasteful as the multinational's "We own everything" position.

I suspect that their tactic is to go to the same extreme as the record companies, except in the other direction. Perhaps, in the hope that some sensible middle ground can be found.

The record companies would like to have file-sharers flogged and hung at dawn, or something. They're trying really hard to make them look like hardened criminals. Where as most are younger people who have grown up with downloading music as the norm, whereas I grew up when buying music was the norm. Times have changed considerably.

[Favu]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

So it's ok for someone to take something from someone else, for no reason other than because they want it?

Sorry, I find that argument just as distasteful as the multinational's "We own everything" position.

Arguably, file sharing is different to stealing. If I was to steal a CD from you, you would probably be annoyed. If I was to copy your CD leaving you with the original... in theory, no theft has occurred. Yes I understand that there are things such as Intellectual Property Rights that need to be addressed, but, I think that shared media is the way forward. File-sharing has reached such biblical proportions now that it is going to be almost impossible to stamp it out.

Here in the UK we have to pay a TV licence for each TV we own. That money then goes to the BBC and funds them to produce media for us to watch on the TVs we own. The TV licence fees are not high and they do make sense. In return for a small fee, we get advertisement free, high quality television programs, as well as a plethora of radio stations, both analogue and digital, websites and so on and so forth.

It is now possible to download content that the BBC has aired in the last 7 days via the BBC iPlayer - albeit infected with DRM rubbish. I think that, allowing it to be downloaded only for a short stretch of time is, actually, foolish. The BBC should allow us to download any and all media it produces. They do not need to make people watch their channels in order to get advertisement fees, so what difference should it make to them if I watch it on a TV, HDTV, Portable player, Laptop, whatever? None whatsoever. Yes perhaps if everyone starts watching on their laptops, we will need to introduce a laptop licence fee, as less people are using televisions. But perhaps a simple secure system, that allows each person who wants to get access to the BBCs' content, as long as they pay their "BBC Licence" as it might be called would make a lot more sense? The BBC would get its funding, and possibly even more funding that it does now. And people would get access to the content that they want (let's face it, its not hard to access it now, but doing things legally is always better, and what with the majority of people playing for a TV Licence anyway, it shouldn't cost the public any more money anyway.)

Rant over

[Gizmo]

Originally Posted by Favu

Arguably, file sharing is different to stealing.

Arguably, no it isn't. It's still theft. If I would normally be paid for that work, then you have, in effect, reached into my pocket and taken money from me.

Now, you may say "Well, I wouldn't have bought it, so you didn't lose anything". But how do we KNOW that? While the statistics would seem to suggest there is SOME validity to that statement, the fact is that we are working with circumstantial evidence. At best that is suspect, and needs a substantial amount of observation and/or supporting evidence.

One thing YOU need to understand is that, even with the BBC and your television license, content creators are typically paid some paltry fee for the original creation, and then paid royalties every time their material is broadcast. How is the BBC going to know when they owe the content creator royalties if they don't know when the content is being watched, played, or whatever?

Obviously, culturally, we need to come to a compromise on what is acceptable and what isn't. The position of the media conglomerates that "We own everything and you'll take what we feel like giving you, on our terms" is unacceptable, but so is the countervailing notion that "I can take whatever I want, whenever I want, so deal with it!" of a small but vocal portion of the file sharing community.

[danrok]

When so many people view music executives as greedy thieves, which they are, it's not surprising that no-one loses sleep over stealing from them.

How many very successful artists have they ripped of over the years? How many artists have they crapped upon from a great height?

Favu's BBC example does prove that there is another way of ensuring people get fair pay. It's not something which is ever going to be popular with record companies. They want more than their fair pay, for doing very little.

I'm sure there are many other ways in which bands can get paid. Corporate sponsorship is one.

[ccperf721p]

Stealing from thieves is a pretty weak argument, but I see alot of people using the Robin Hood excuse. If you don't want to pay for your music, then don't, just don't try to justify it by saying you are somehow doing something good.

[Favu]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

Arguably, no it isn't. It's still theft. If I would normally be paid for that work, then you have, in effect, reached into my pocket and taken money from me.

A fair point there, Gizmo. That's what I meant when I spoke about the Intellectual Property Rights. Not paying for media isn't viable (to ignore the moral issues), as the production of media costs money. But paying for it fairly doesn't seem very popular either. I don't think that paying 99cents for a DRM infested, poor quality song download is the way forward.

If I am going to pay nearly as much as the retail boxed version, then I want something nearly as good as the retail boxed version.

I have nothing against paying for my media, provided it is a fair cost. As an example, think of satellite television... it is expensive, and yet the channels are still riddled with advertisements. To me, that doesn't really make sense, since the BBC (sorry to harp on about them) is cheaper per year than a satellite subscription, and yet has no advertisements and produces a fair selection of television channels, radio stations, news website and so on. How can one be such good value for money, and another be so expensive?

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by danrok

I suspect that their tactic is to go to the same extreme as the record companies, except in the other direction. Perhaps, in the hope that some sensible middle ground can be found.

The record companies would like to have file-sharers flogged and hung at dawn, or something. They're trying really hard to make them look like hardened criminals. Where as most are younger people who have grown up with downloading music as the norm, whereas I grew up when buying music was the norm. Times have changed considerably.

As importantly...they are THEIR customers!

Do they think our good will means nothing? You sue my friend, my mother or just someone at my Uni....I'm going to forget that? I'm going to think "you ruined two years of someone's life, but I really want this new record so I'll just let that go?"

25 years from now there will be people who remember and hold a grudge...they are doing a lot of damage imposing their will on us, they are shaping those who will oppose them for life!

"Bound to fail." "you cannot make them do it." Two sayings they should have listened to.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by ccperf721p

Stealing from thieves is a pretty weak argument, but I see alot of people using the Robin Hood excuse. If you don't want to pay for your music, then don't, just don't try to justify it by saying you are somehow doing something good.

BTW, I buy all my music, always have done. I'm not defending theft in any way. This isn't theft anyhow, according to the current legal definitions.

I think it's not as simplistic as stealing from a thief, or just claiming to be Robin Hood.

They are expecting the same very old business model, to continue reaping them an easy profit. It no longer does, it no longer fits the world we live in today.

Yet, they carry on regardless, despite seeing a massive drop in their revenues.

To anyone with sense in their head, it is time to do things differently. Some already are.

Clearly they have no sense in their heads. They lash out at their customers, instead of accepting we no longer live in the 1970s, and adjust their business accordingly.

This is a mess they have created, but still they want to blame others.

It's really simple, the new generations don't want to pay $20 for a $1 bit of plastic with music on it. That age has gone. No-one can force people to buy stuff they don't want.

[danrok]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

As importantly...they are THEIR customers!

Do they think our good will means nothing? You sue my friend, my mother or just someone at my Uni....I'm going to forget that? I'm going to think "you ruined two years of someone's life, but I really want this new record so I'll just let that go?"

25 years from now there will be people who remember and hold a grudge...they are doing a lot of damage imposing their will on us, they are shaping those who will oppose them for life!

"Bound to fail." "you cannot make them do it." Two sayings they should have listened to.

I still resent buying CDs.

It's their fault not mine. I vividly recall some pie chart, created by the big labels, showing why a CD cost ~$30 at the time. They tried to make out their profit was tiny. Perhaps, they get executive jets for free then?

We all know that it costs peanuts to manufacture and distribute music CDs.

Their blatent lie was printed in glorious colour in national brown-nosing newspapers.

It's bad enough, that I still buy their over-priced CDs. I'm not about to defend the bastards as well!

[ccperf721p]

Sorry Danrok, that wasn't directed at you personally nor was I calling you a thief, it was directed at the basis of the argument..

[danrok]

No worries. I was only clarifying that I'm not simply defending my own free lunch, or something like that.

[noob]

Looking at instore prices in NZ;

Metallica, Black Album , released 1991 - $35
Queen's Greatest Hits III released 1999 - $70
U2 The Joshua Tree - $35 | Remastered 2CD - $78
Some random new pop released ~2007 - $30-40
'Top Ten' things like 'Clubbers yearbook' etc - $30-40

So I'm not going to outlay $30 for something I have never heard of, and as I personally think ~99% of the new music barely reaches up to the level of crud, I am now even less likely.

I currently own well over 200CD's, and several records. I also own ~50 DVD's. I like the cover art, the booklet, and having something to hold in my hands.

But there are alternative ways of getting the music. It may not be legal, but it sure is easy. It is often easier to get it via p2p than find it in a retail store. I would be willing to pay ~$100 per year to get high quality downloads with no DRM (say FLAC or WAV format). That would be $100 more per year than they have got out of me in the past 3 years.

[Daniel ~]

The old (that would me me) always wants youth (that would be most of you) to recognize it's rank and privileges.

How ever well earned this might be by past deeds, youth is seldom inclined to yield without an argument those things they themselves create (that would be art untamed by finance or the agendas of the aging...)

The aged seek to secure for themselves that which they labored after in their youth. Those things there is reason to doubt they might be able to win again, with diminished powers now struggling under the weight of personal time... personal losses...

These are natural tensions that arise and must be resolved by each generation....

But DRM this stands apart and is apart of a different thing...

This is the oppressors of your fathers extending it's oppression unto the next generation. This is wealth trying to maintain it's grip upon everything that moves or stops. In nature, we call this a parasite load. The number of parasites an organism can support and can still remain healthy.

The only thing a parasite really has going for it is that it's hard to spot and even harder to get rid of....

I don't like or feel good about the WAY they are being dealt with ( anything that harms our artist is BAD!) But I see the the youth as simply reclaiming their own and reducing their parasite load... a messy business to be sure... but who wants Sony and MGM and what all to OWN OUR music, to own it in every form, to own it for ever...

I don't have a real good plan for this. Art must be supported and good art rewarded and spread about! But this will happen of itself in the age of protons. So what we NEED to be concerned with is the artist.

And not getting busted before the way is found and the parasites die having exhausted the form that gave them life, the legal slavery in more cases than we can count of the songbirds, and the holding for ransom of our music...

Personally, I'm prepared to do without, a far more effective plan for purging parasites. Alas most are not. Most will steal the record companies blind... I'm against this to the extent that it harms our artists.

I'm against this as it most certainly harms the person who should be the artist patron, but now, steals from those who give us joy!

They steal from them and give this as an excuse...: The artist has been legally kidnapped and their music is being held for ransom... that's basic argument I hear, or at lest the one that holds the most water with me... but think it through with me...

The artist has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom...So it's OK if I loot his home?

This is how lawyers work in the cooperate environment they attach themselves to the innocent, so that you can not harm them, without harming the innocent...

BTW, I'm not blind to the fact that the current system has made many artist very rich... it also has cleaned most of them out as they go out the door...

This is a war between lawyers who think they can create any set of laws and force our complacence...and art... and art, bless her humble soul... has never lost such a war, however ugly the battle looked during the engagement....When the war was over...Art Memorializes the victory...

just ruminating...":O}