File sharing makes no difference to record sales

The Inquirer ^ | Tuesday 30 March 2004, 07:11 | INQUIRER staff

[Revolting cat!]

Most people can be swayed only by a 'consensus'.

Most people seem to like to be swayed by authority figures. That's the only way I can explain how this idea of downloading=stealing became accepted and now is repeated here like the Word of the Almighty. Authority figures, the D.C. RIAA alligator shoe lobbyists and PR hacks, invented it and put it in circulation by mouthing it repeatedly and the deep thinkers and Church Ladies are thoughtlessly parroting it from their high horses.

"Stealing intellectual property"? Ha!

[FastCoyote]

"It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for"

Actually, there is a case that can be made that the prices are artificially high. You have to imagine, what if the recordable CD had been invented first by Edison? There is no way that record companies could have charged exorbitant fees for recordings for the last hundred years if that were the case. So, their losses are only in comparison to an inflated price schedule.

It's no worse than people like me who have had their programming jobs out-sourced to India. Suck it up RIAA.

[expat_panama]

It's bad enough when RIAA lawyers corrupt our legal system for extortion of the inocent. But acting with a phony aura of moral superiority is downright vile.

[Hodar]

So, you expect someone from the record label to drop ship at your house , free of charge, copies of your entire collection in whatever new format is developed, for the rest of your life?

No, you misunderstand. The RIAA defended the $17/CD price fixing, despite the HUGE decline in materials cost, as a fixed cost for the license to listen to the music for life. This is NOT my statement, this is the entire premise of the RIAA defense.

As the RIAA brought the 'lifetime license' into play, it is only fair that I get to use the claim as well as the RIAA. Thus, if the reason for price fixing (illegal in and of itself) was to allow for the 'lifetime license', I have been double charged.

If the 'lifetime license' is a bogus arguement, the RIAA should not have used it as it's primary defense.

[mtbopfuyn]

Heck, back in the days of dinosaurs, we'd tape off the radio and yet the record business is still alive and well.

[Revolting cat!]

Again, it's that tendency among conservatives, to toe the line, I think, to follow the beacon of authority, establishment figures, and to defend the institutional status quo, whatever and however corrupt it might be. This has got to end!

[wattsmag2]

It doesn't matter -- it's still morally wrong to download music you haven't paid for, unless the copyright holder says you can. Regardless of whether or not it is causing financial damage to the record labels, it is still stealing.

Then, by your reasoning, allowing a friend to listen to your tape, cd, etc is "stealing" because the copyrighter did not consent to your "broadcast" of the song.

I buy plenty of cds, but I buy NONE unless I have heard the songs first, ALL OF THEM. Because the music industry now controls largely what stations play, this is impossible without downloading. I do the same thing with software. I try it, if I like it, I buy it, if not I hit delete.

BUT, because of all the shoddy code and 1 good song albums out there, I refuse to buy to find out. Been burned too many times when I was younger by all the false hype.

If that makes me immoral in your eyes "O judge of morality", I can live with that.

[Houmatt]

Surprise, surprise

[Julliardsux]

right - but in terms of legal infringement arguments, the positive effect on airplay and on cd sales is irrelevant. Statutory damages are provided, so no damages arguments need be made, so infringers cannot say that damages are non-existent or lessened b/c of positive effects.

[MetalHeadConservative35]

AMEN!

[Paleo Conservative]

Maybe sales are down because THE MUSIC SUCKS!

Maybe Sales are down because THE MUSIC SUCKS!

[Jack Wilson]

Hodar, if you would, please show me some documentation about this 'lifetime license' concept. I have not seen this before.

[rwfromkansas]

There have been historical instances of records actually selling a lot more once they appeared on file-sharing clients.

Take Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." It shot up 50 points higher on the music charts than any other album from the group when it debuted. The thing that was different? Buzz created due to leaking the entire album on Kazaa prior to its release.

[rwfromkansas]

It is not morally wrong. I have considered the Ten Commandments. I have considered my Christian responsibility to respect property and do the right thing, to show the light of Christ instead of using Satan's logic and perpetuating his evil darkness. But, I do not believe file sharing (when you are downloading only a FEW songs like 3 or 4, not the entire album) to be immoral.

It is morally wrong if you download an entire album or something like that, but it is not morally wrong to download a copied, watered-down, imperfect version of a song when you can't buy a single in stores and you want to preview the song prior to purchasing the album. If you copy a purchased CD onto another CD that is morally wrong. Using a couple lesser quality mp3's is not.

Perhaps if the folks at Wal-Mart etc. would give us more than an opening 25 seconds of a song to preview in the stores on their machines, people would not feel the need to download an entire song so they actually get a feel about whether it is worth it or not. The previews in stores often start at the beginning so you don't get to hear the real part of the song for 10 seconds as it is, already cutting the singing part of the store preview to maybe 15 seconds at best.

If it is wrong to copy a CD for non-commercial, private use, it is wrong to photocopy 20 pages out of a 200-page book. Granted, you can't purchase those 20 pages individually like you can purchase many mp3's online now individually....a good thing and a service I am starting to use a lot (even though the RIAA will get the money instead of the artist since they are money-grubbing bastards, it still feels good to pay for it).... However, the principle is the same....if copying one thing is wrong, copying another is as well. And photocopying....within limits of course....is not a violation of copyright. Therefore, it must be concluded that despite some differences, neither is downloading an mp3 when the downloaded number is equivalent to a fair use photocopying of a publication.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, the RIAA people will say that radio pays a fee to air a song, whereas you do not to listen to download a song.

However, their argument is illogical.

Why?

Because you and I when downloading music, just like those listening to the radio in their car, do not pay a fee to listen for over-the-air radio. The anti-downloading folks on FR or the RIAA people scream that the radio pays to play the song, while never recognizing that somebody did pay for the CD in order to upload it to a file-sharing network.

In both cases, YES, SOMEBODY DOES GET PAID!! It is NOTHING SHORT OF A LIE to try to say radio is a different situation becuase they pay a fee. Guess what, somebody bought that CD.

Now, of course, confronted with this little fact that destroys their attempt at getting the radio argument out of the picture, file-sharing opponents will say what....let me guess...they will say that the radio controls the content and does not share their song copies with others. Once you hear it on the radio, you are done. You can't call up their song at any time you desire but have to beg them to play it. It isn't like file-sharing in which YOU can control an actual COPY of the material instead of having to beg the person you downloaded it from to play it for you like in radio.

However, again, this argument of anti-file-sharing folks fails. They do bring up a valid point that you get a copy when downloading instead of just hearing a centrally-produced product. But, you can record the stuff that is on the radio, just like you can copy a song from your CD. I did this as a little kid a lot. Just like an mp3, the sound quality is poor when you record from the radio.

Finally, the RIAA makes a big hub-ub about the fact that stations pays for what goes on the stations. However, as explained earlier, somebody also pays for that mp3 when they buy the CD. AND FURTHERMORE, WHEN I GO PHOCOTOPY SOMETHING AT HOME, I DON'T PAY A DIME TO THE PUBLISHER OR ANYBODY. So, isn't this immmoral if the RIAA is correct? I don't have to put a quarter in to photocopy at home or anything and guess what, the publisher of the book I am copying a couple pages from doesn't see one cent.

Why then is file-sharing somehow different in which our copying requires somebody gets paid?

Nobody gets paid for our photocopying if we buy a machine for personal use. Thererore, an argument that we are stealing by copying a CD is incorrect, unless of course you want to say that you steal when a book publisher doesn't see a cent from your photocopying of a book.

It is true that a photocopy is not available to millions of people like an mp3, but still, if the act of copying an mp3 is immoral and illegal, so is the act of doing the same to a book. And I could put up online in a file-sharing client a chapter of a book for people to look at and evaluate for personal purposes of whether they wanted to buy the book. I highly doubt anybody's panties would get in a bunch for this, but somehow it does for file sharing.

Ah, the contradictions and logical fallacies in anti-p2p arguments! Aren't they wonderful to expose?

[rwfromkansas]

This conservative Christian agrees with you completely.

[rwfromkansas]

ping to 56

[Geritol]

"So, I rip the songs I like, and burn them. I loan my CD's to friends..."

So not only is file sharing not cutting into the sales profits of the record companies, but, since there is a recording fee on all recordable tapes and CDs, file sharing is causing these to be used and purchased in huge amounts, actually increasing the record companies profits.

[supercat]

Finally, the RIAA makes a big hub-ub about the fact that stations pays for what goes on the stations.

Radio stations have to pay music composers. They do not pay music performers. To the contrary, the RIAA pays lots of money to radio stations (using "promotional agencies" as fronts) so that stations will play their music and shut out the music of independent artists.