sonamdrukpa said:

I don't think this is just a rationalization.  It would be if all record companies did was record, mix, and master music.  But for most record companies (and especially for big acts), most of their expenses come from discovering artists, advertising them, and distributing the music - things which you are doing yourself when you pirate music.

The fact that the music companies have the "right" to be the only ones doing that and profiting from it is a legal construct, not a moral one.  Morally I don't see why I have to respect their monopoly - I shouldn't be forced pay the record companies when DIY is a valid option.  Especially since the record companies know that these days that people are doing this - they're not some poor schmuck who got bamboozled into paying for property that's less profitable than he thought.  Suing pirates is like Big Agro suing small-time farmers for creating market pressure that lowers the price of BA's potatoes.

---

Quote:

Enlil said:What are you talking about?  Record companies don't have a monopoly..that's why there's an S at the end of companies...

---

Quote:

And musicians are free to record and market their own shit...but if they want the benefits of a record label, they can sell it to the label...how does that make it any less immoral to steal it from the label instead of the artist?

---

sonamdrukpa said:

The whole idea is that you're doing most of the company's work - the part you're stealing is the work that went into making the music and mastering it.  There is the issue of the fact that work was done creating, playing, and mixing & mastering the music, and, truth be told, it is wrong to steal that work without paying for it.  But for truly big acts (for small time acts, I think unauthorized pirating is wrong pretty much period), the marginal cost of each additional audience member is miniscule - Timbaland doesn't have to work any harder to reach an audience of a million than ten million.  So I don't see pirating in these cases as anything other than a picayune sin, on the level of sneaking into a wedding and nicking unused food at the end of the night.  Sure, the right thing to do is to throw the father of the bride some bones, but really, why bother?




On a very broad and abstract level, the notion that record companies have a right to a profit free of piracy rests entirely upon the assumption that they had a right to make the profit they do in the first place.  I don't think that is the case - if these people had been born 100 years ago, they could have worked just as hard but would not make the profits they do.  It is an entirely contingent fact that companies have the technology to reach the audiences they do, not to mention the fact that the potential size of their audience is based upon the contingent fact that the Earth has the population it does.  Neither the record companies nor the artists birthed all these people nor created these technologies (I might budge a lot on companies like Sony that did a lot of work creating things like CD's).

I realize that's a really broad attack and that going along with it would destroy a lot of assumptions about the value of work in the modern world, but I think what makes it valid in this case is that the technology that allows piracy is the the same technology that allows Columbia Records to make a million CD copies of some tracks from Mariah Carey.  Piracy and the profits that record companies experienced in the 90's (the level of profit they seem to think they're entitled to) are inextricably linked.  Companies complaining about piracy are the same as a young child complaining that he gets less attention and toys after the birth of a younger sibling - their sole "right" to these things was just an illusion.

---

"my personal interests are eating, drinking, maybe building a little fort; and making sure my constituents make all the profit they can from their business!"

Enlil said:

sonamdrukpa said:

The whole idea is that you're doing most of the company's work - the part you're stealing is the work that went into making the music and mastering it.  There is the issue of the fact that work was done creating, playing, and mixing & mastering the music, and, truth be told, it is wrong to steal that work without paying for it.  But for truly big acts (for small time acts, I think unauthorized pirating is wrong pretty much period), the marginal cost of each additional audience member is miniscule - Timbaland doesn't have to work any harder to reach an audience of a million than ten million.  So I don't see pirating in these cases as anything other than a picayune sin, on the level of sneaking into a wedding and nicking unused food at the end of the night.  Sure, the right thing to do is to throw the father of the bride some bones, but really, why bother?




On a very broad and abstract level, the notion that record companies have a right to a profit free of piracy rests entirely upon the assumption that they had a right to make the profit they do in the first place.  I don't think that is the case - if these people had been born 100 years ago, they could have worked just as hard but would not make the profits they do.  It is an entirely contingent fact that companies have the technology to reach the audiences they do, not to mention the fact that the potential size of their audience is based upon the contingent fact that the Earth has the population it does.  Neither the record companies nor the artists birthed all these people nor created these technologies (I might budge a lot on companies like Sony that did a lot of work creating things like CD's).

I realize that's a really broad attack and that going along with it would destroy a lot of assumptions about the value of work in the modern world, but I think what makes it valid in this case is that the technology that allows piracy is the the same technology that allows Columbia Records to make a million CD copies of some tracks from Mariah Carey.  Piracy and the profits that record companies experienced in the 90's (the level of profit they seem to think they're entitled to) are inextricably linked.  Companies complaining about piracy are the same as a young child complaining that he gets less attention and toys after the birth of a younger sibling - their sole "right" to these things was just an illusion.

---

This completely ignores the risk that the record companies take...for every mariah carey, there are dozens of "the knack."  They invest in artists...most don't pan out...some do...

And there's also something to be said here about having the right to control how many copies of your work are out there...if 40 million copies of a record are made, that is very different than if it is a special edition version of which only 100 are made...

If a record company (or an artist) wants to limit the number of copies, they should be able to...

---

Enlil said:

Dosile Kouki said:

frivolous because they're not going to get any actual money out of 'jimmy the illegal napster downloader'. if they were after money they would take on big companies, or atleast they would do their research to take on infringers with deep pockets atleast. you gotta keep in mind also that in the legal system, you incur a hell of a lot of costs in pushing through to a judgement. so even if you win a judgement, the judge doesn't always award full costs to the winning party (meaning the losing party pays all costs, i.e. his costs, your costs, and the settlement).

its frivolous in the sense that it's not really going to achieve anything for them to pursue the protection of their IP rights in this fashion. they have not really been lead into loss by Jimmy downloading 3-4 albums ~total retail price ~$60, which they don't even get %100 of. and damage suffered is the basis of any civil claim. they are more just riding off the coat tails of the copyright legislation that has punitive penalties of "x" ammount of dollars for each instance of breach.

---

They don't get paid...but people get hurt by them...that's the whole point...If you have a garnishment on your wages for 10 years to pay off a $200k judgment...you learn something.

---