Your thoughts on file sharing?

[IronLionZion]

I support it because its a great way for lesser-known artists to get exposure and it introduces people to new artists. As a musician, I freely share my own music but not many would pay to hear me play. Of course, with mainstream music you can sample songs for free with Napster. There are a lot of independent films that I would not have even considered watching if I hadn't been able to watch it for free. And if I like it I make sure the artist gets paid somehow.

As a programmer, though I understand what goes into making software and only download if it is legal or if I already paid for the license anyway. I get the same programs and versions that RIT uses because my tuition pays for the licenses. Getting open-source software from a file sharing hub on campus is a hell of a lot faster than getting it from server/mirror somewhere and the creators support it.

[AndyP]

1. I agree

I would have never found half the music I now LOVE if it weren't for file sharing. But I can see where they are comming from- I mean If I were doing something I wouldn't want people stealing it. I'm for legal file sharing but a dollar a song is still a little high.

[Intelsucks]

2. Some films cost millions and millions of dollars to make

*I voted 'mixed feelings' in the poll.

If I got some music for free, I wouldn't feel too bad about it, especially if I never would have gone out and paid for it anyway. With a movie, I would feel as if I had really stolen something.

[bif]

3. I've discovered some great groups this way

And I've gone out and bought their cds. But I'd be really pissed if I heard about a group, then plunked down 18 smackers to buy their disc, only to discover they totally suck. Either allow file sharing or charge $5 a disc.

[Intelsucks]

5. I agree... You'll never get me to feel sorry for the record companies

They rip us off by selling us a piece of plasic that costs them 50 cents to make, and they also rip off the artists by taking the majority of the profits.

your explanation is the flip-side of the coin... If you hadn't heard it for free, then you never even would have known it existed. Therefore, you never would have bought it.

[bif]

6. I'm downloading some music right now

As a matter of fact. From a group I've never heard of until I saw a post here about underrated bands--Cornershop.

[IronLionZion]

7. I just got some Cornershop

sounds good

[NewHampster]

4. I've done it but I'm not proud

I've downloaded a lot but never shared. Mostly oldies.

As a software guy I really am having a tough ethics thing because it is stealing of someone's property.

What else have I stolen in my life?

A kiss or two
A bagel from a seminar group's table in a hotel
A lousy web design in the early days of poaching

[DIKB]

8. no one's against it yet

Somehow I don't find that surprising. It seems we've overpaid for CDs long enough, that people are willing to (in their minds) take what they deserve.

[bif]

9. I got ripped off by the music industry and all I got was a lousy $12 check

What a joke that was.

[IronLionZion]

10. I'm surprised so many artists support it

I guess the ones who are against it would support it only if it is legal.

[Az]

11. Intellectual property right laws have been twisted

The point of Copyright law was to protect the creators invention for a short period of time. The point was that eventually the idea should enter into the public domain and be a benefit for all. Corporations have twisted this until no idea ever enters into the public domain any longer.

The point of all the laws is not to enrich the few. Rather it is to create a system that benefits the society while maintaining a means for people to work towards bettering theire own life as well. Technology is changing the balance of how this works. When the distribution and production of goods reachs a cost so low that we can do it our selves the corporate interests are forced to act against what the public wants.

Because the entirety of the economic system will not be hit by this transformation in the same way at the same time, the first to be hit will have more to struggle with. Because we do not have a means of supporting the artists outside the current system they are dependent on the old methods. Thus the conflict we have in this arena.

Change is coming. Technology will continue to improve. There are amazing things we can do with information. The blockage is coming from the economic model being used. Entire classes of tools are being blocked because the industries fear the abilities it hands the consumer. A consumer able to produce for themself is detached from their flow of revenue.

[MercutioATC]

12. I think it's obvious that file-sharing is stealing.

I'll admit that I have done it, but I also continue to buy CDs and DVDs. Granted, it's a great way for artists to gain exposure, but they're not the concern here. The issue is illegal file-sharing. My big beef was that I didn't want to pay $17 for a CD with two decent songs on it, so I'd download the songs I wanted. More recently, however, there are sites that allow you to download (and pay for) songs individually.

I don't see how it's anything other than stealing. Yes, I've done it on occasion, but that doesn't make it right.

[Az]

14. The history of art

You will find that the history of art shows us that the notion of an artist owning their work is a recent attribute. The vast bulk of history is comprised of people taking others work and reworking it in their own form. Thus over time ideas and concepts are expressed and perfected.

Our current legal encasement of art means that once an artist has created an idea it is sealed in glass and cannot be modified. The notion of profit being derived from this has exagerated the issue even further. No idea can be explored that is too close to anothers work for fear of triggering a law suit.

Art is not about profit. It is about expressing ideas and concepts. It is about exploration of our shared experience. It has been strapped down and turned into a profit generating machine by the corporate entities of America.

Unfortunately the artists must work along with this system because our entire economy is based on these notions. It does not reward them for simply striving to come up with ideas. They are forced to sell their ideas for coin. They are forced to comply with what market research demands. They are forced to give up their art.

[MercutioATC]

22. Interesting take, but artists are still producing a commodity and deserve

to be paid for it. Art is never "sealed in glass" and is nearly always evolutionary, legally protected or not. Thee are avenues that can be taken if one wishes to build on another artist's work (in music, it's monetary recompense for sampling).

When people download music or movies illegally through file-sharing programs it's less about access to art than it is about saving money. In most cases, that money is coming out of the pockets of those involved in creating and distributing the art in the first place. Stealing from them really hurts us all.

[neverborn]

13. I am poor.

I'm 16. I don't have that much money. If CDs were $5-$10, movies the same, and software/video games $20-$30... I'd buy them. However, I don't. I download a ton, and if I really like the band, I'll support them. I don't consider buying a CD supporting them, I consider that supporting the labels. I support the band by going to shows, buying shirts or something there.

[DiverDave]

15. FAIR USAGE!!

I buy the tunes, I dont care how long ago, they got their cut.
If I want to download "Cricklewood Green" I have the right.
Period.

[mvd]

16. I have mixed feelings

I don't really support illegally downloading and keeping music, but I don't see the harm in downloading for quick listens to artists or albums you're curious about, since the songs are offered. I also think the RIAA is a really bad organization (and has been reluctant to adapt or see the full potential of P2P,) so I don't have any sympathy for them. They don't have the moral high ground. Best Buy sells defective Eurythmics Greatest Hits CDs ("Sweet Dreams" skips,) and they wouldn't just give me my money back after 2 copies were already defective. Of course, the 3rd is too, and I'm e-mailing Arista for either a good copy or my money back. Sharing is necessary for file-sharing to exist, so I don't think you are less moral if you do that opposed to downloading without sharing and then burning CDs.

[JackDragna]

17. There's a deeper issue behind file sharing..

..than just pirated songs or movies. Many people use file sharing to trade legitimate data. The pirating is a bad thing, but that's no reason to allow the government to crack down on file sharing as a whole. File sharing software should be seen in the same light as VCR's or cassette players. Both of the aforementioned technologies went through extended legal battles to get into the public domain because the makers of movies and music swore said technologies would ruin them. The same now holds true with file sharing. The central issue behind all of this is whether society will allow those who produce a particular kind of media to control the manner in which that media is played and distributed. The reason why we still have cassette players and VCR's is because society has seen piracy as a lesser evil than media providers having a monopoly over both information and how people access information.

[Az]

18. Things are only going to get worse

There are a lot of advances that are not going to come because they dismantle the corporations ability to monopolize industries. The ability to store and transfer data is exploding. Yet many advantages that we the people could enjoy are being strangled because it will interfere with the flow of revenue to the other industries.

[MrSlayer]

19. I run the largest exclusive Heavy Metal .mp3 channel in the world.

I think .mp3 file sharing is great. It gives exposure to a lot of bands people wouldn't otherwise hear. My policy has always been to buy the CD if I like it and I stick to it. It's try before you buy and that's a good thing. I must have wasted hundreds of dollars on crap CDs as a kid because it was hit and miss. You buy it and if it sucks you're stuck with it. This way, people who deserve your money get it. Besides that, I've talked to people from Romania and Columbia and the like who can't get even mainstream albums let alone the heavy underground stuff I serve. These people deserve to hear it and what band wouldn't want to have as much worldwide exposure as possible? Since the albums aren't available in these countries no one is losing money. Most people I know do buy the CDs of their favorite bands because in Metal it is vital to keeping the scene alive. The RIAA can kiss my ass.

[NightTrain]

23. The RIAA can kiss my ass, too!

We may not have too, too much in common musically, Mr. S, but we're in full agreement on this issue! :yourock:

[CanuckAmok]

24. Something else to consider...

I used to download, but now I don't, basically because I can't find a service which is bug/spyware free and yet has enough listeners to support my obscure tastes.

However, one thin I like about downloading is, as Mr. Slayer pointed out, it's a great way to hear an artist, and decide if you want to buy their CD.

I have purchased CDs exclusively based on something I came across online, which I otherwise wouldn't have tried.

Here's something to consider: unlike most products, recorded music (and movies) are unreturnable after opening. If there's only one "good" song on a CD, and the rest is crap, that's your T.S.. You opened it, you own it. There is really no need for the RIAA or labels to ensure consistent quality in new artists or releases, because they have such an inflexible approach to cusomer satisfaction, and because it is arguable that one man's crappy track is another man's masterpiece.

I remember that most of the indie record and CD stores I supported had listening stations, in which you could hear anything they offered for sale, before buying it.

Most of those stores are destroyed by the big box retailers like Virgin and HMV, who either don't allow listening, or who have corporately-chosen discs in preprogrammed listening stations.

Basically, if the labels start treating customers like customers instead of sheeple who will buy anything sight unseen, I'll make a bigger effort to support them.

[Mrs. Venation]

20. I Think If Audio CDs Were More Reasonably Priced

this wouldn't be a problem. In my opinion, no single CD is worth more than $10, and even at that price everyone could make a profit.

[Az]

21. The Corporations were found guilty of colluding

to fix the cost of CDs artificially high. The sentence was a slap on the wrist and then they never lowered the prices as they were supposed to. It costs about a penny a disk for them to burn.

[Ricdude]

25. Fundamental economics of scarcity do not apply...

...to the digital realm. Not that there's much interesting out there anyway...

I don't think hard-working artists should go hungry so I can download free mp3s, but the current business model is predicated on marginal costs of reproduction greater than so small as to be unmeasurable.

Look at the history of Radio. Radio stations were declared "public performances", and composers received compensation through the groups ASCAP and BMI. It's entirely possible that a similar system could be set up for digital filesharing.

Look at the music industry. Retail prices of CDs are approaching $20. For less than an hour of music (typically). Not to mention the difficulty in finding music you're interested in at a music store... Even a dollar a song at iTunes seems pricey at $10-11 an album. Compare to the movie industry. $20 for a DVD. With extra cool special features, deleted scenes, commentaries, trailers, games, etc.

In the future? I just don't think you'll see albums that cost $30 million to make. The White Stripes made a perfectly good album with a studio budget of $10,000. Modern technology can move much of the costly studio time to home studios, or computerized studios (Reason, Fruity Loops). At $20,000-50,000, a band can conceivably make that back on a concert tour, or merchandising without selling millions of CDs.

There's also the option of operating under the Street Performer Protocol. Basically, an artist says, "Here's a sample track off my new album. If all of you out there contribute a total of $X to this escrow account, I'll release the whole album." Or a movie producer could release a trailer for a movie, ask for contributions, and upon receipt of a sufficient amount, release the movie. After the release, copies are not controlled, as the performer has made what they consider to be a fair sum from it. If the work gets really popular, they can ask for more money for the next album. The artist can also offer physical copies (or signed) or other promotional items for contributions, or a tiered incentive program.

There are new business models out there waiting to be exploited. No sense holding onto the obsolete ones from the past.

[Mr. Socko]

26. I support it because...

why should we have to pay outrageous prices for music? I think since we all listen to the music for free on the radio or tv, then we should be able to download the music free off the internet. The musicians get paid enough as is, so why should they get a little more?

I will never change my mind on the matter.