With Computers, Everything is Free!

I'd like this to be a general thread about how technology makes it easier for us to aquire things illegally, and how you feel about this. As we all know, it's very easy today to download complete albums, movies, and a wide variety of software from sources like napster, etc. It's very easy to burn a single cd and make a perfect copy for yourself, and a million of your closest friends. Soon (if not already) you will be able to burn copies of commercial DVD's. You can purchase or aquire professional software applications and copy them to multiple computers. Many companies buy a single software package and just use serial numbers illegally to allow them to all use the program at the same time and stay on a network.

All these things are supposed to cost money. And most of these things are prohibitively expensive. In fact, working in the design world, i'm sure there are alot of people who have done it all "by the book" and are operating 100% above board. I just haven't met any, and wonder how competitive they have managed to be.


I am starting from the assumption that stealing in any form is wrong. I believe in capitalism, and i don't think we have a right to take whatever we want just because we can. But I am definitely not perfect.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues, and what you think should/could/will be done about them. Also feel free to go off on how greedy you think these companies are, and if they have it coming anyway. Party hard.

(Obviously, there's no need to mention any specific companies or methods that could be used to aquire free stuff. Let's not start trading tips )

 

I think the file-sharing/copying technology is going to prompt some serious changes in intellectual property laws. I don't know what they'll be, but the current laws are just unenforceable. The major companies are lobbying for mandatory copy protection in digital equipment, but the technology it would take doesn't exist now, and might not ever exist. In addition, a lot of those companies are down right oppressive towards people who find weaknesses. They should be glad the people who found them were ethical enough to publicize that fact, rather than release the details anonymously on various hacker websites.

 

I will admit, I have used services for file trading before. I have swapped songs on the internet. However, I do not view the method I use as stealing, but previewing.

In the last year, I have probably downloaded about 100 songs. Of those, about 30 were to replace some CDs of mine that my younger sister had lost. (I still have the cases, but not the CDs.) Of the remaining about 70, I have deleted about 50 of them after listening to them (they were not songs I cared to keep). Of the remaining about 20, I have purchased the CDs for 15 of them (and am actively looking for the CDs for the other ones).

This has been a way that I have found out which artists did which songs and figured out which CDs I want to buy. In some cases, I have found that there were two artists with the same song, and I couldn't figure out which one to buy. By listening to the files beforehand, I realized which one I wanted and bought that CD.

I see this as a responsible way to handle file sharing. However, when you begin swapping software, I have problems, because I have written pieces of software that have been released (as shareware, with my father) and were pirated (ie. heavily used but not registered). I try to show other programmers the same respect that I would like to receive because of my software.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I believe stealing these things is wrong, and I don't agree with those who say the record companies, et al, "have had this coming". Why? Because they charge too much? They charge the optimum price based on what consumers will pay.

I don't think it's justified for people to complain "why should I pay for a full CD, when I only want one song? The rest of the CD is usually crap". Maybe so, but you know and they know you only want that one song, and the CD is priced to pay the entertainer who made it, not because you're getting so many songs.

 

The entertainer usually gets a miniscule fraction of each cd sold.

 

Well, that's true. But the point is that the record company is selling the artist; they're not increasing the cost of the CD because there are so many songs on it.

 

To a certain extent, they do; singles are a lot cheaper than full-length CDs.

Yes, the record companies charge what people will pay, but how much of that is due to what's essentially a standard price for CDs? When subscription-based file sharing services become more prominent, they'll certainly present a challenge to the record companies. They can charge per song, and since they would have fewer employees and less equipment, they can charge less. Even though several such services have come out, and I think the majority of people are honest enough to pay for what amounts to a ripped song, the companies are still pushing legislation to shut them down.

 

My hope is that eventually artists will not need record companies, but can realease things on the web where you purchase directly from them. That way the money goes to the right place. This is happening already, and i hope it becomes more common.

 

Khab - That's true, too (singles being cheaper than albums). I'm having a hard time phrasing what I'm trying to say.

cydonia - I would like to see that. The need for distributors is diminishing, and eventually the market will eliminate them.

 

The funny thing is that without distribution, the nsync and brittany spears of the world would probably see an enormous cut in sales and profit, and the real artists (to me at least) would do better than they are now.

 

well I feel that with the abundance of crap being released by companies, the only way to know if you are going to get a decent product by paying the money is to preview the whole thing first.

i am talking specifically about computer games here.

lately so many of them have been absolute crap. the company releases an unfinished product and they figure they can always release patches to fix it later.

a game review magazine or net reviews don't always help and the demo is not always representative of the entire game. (example: i want to buy Wolfenstein for the single player; a mulitplayer only demo doesn't do me much good).

so I have downloaded entire games in the past. if I like them, then I buy them. if not, then I get rid of them.

i should not be forced into buying a product that I don't want, and I think it is completely unfair to not be able to preview the whole product before you buy it.

 

I think people should be able to download what they want and whenever they want. Stuff this preview business.

The greatest thing about the technology boom is that things are getting faster and immensely cheaper.

The worst thing about the boom is that the companies who participate in it, no matter how fantastic their technology, will NEVER be able to make money from it. There will always be a way to copy the technology at zero cost, or someone will come out with a superior product in a much shorter period of time, thus making it impossible for companies to recoup their initial investment.

So, all you mugs out there who have your money in NASDAQ listed stocks, get out of your investment. Your company will never make money, and if it does, its either pseudo money or money that will only last for a couple of years. This paradigm is also equally applicable to biotechnology.

In this day and age, the only people who benefit from technology are consumers of that technology (and that includes other companies as well).

 

I believe that as long as music is sold on CDs, in stores, for anyone's profit, downloading it is stealing and should not happen.

If the artists and music company people ever decide to give all that up and decide to condone the downloads, that's just fine. In the meantime, I'll just buy the things.

 

I have no qualms about stealing from incredibly rich, fatcat execs when those who make music, or games get paid so little as to be laughable.

Laws must be changed, and if Napster had as big a lobby as the music industry, it would still be operating for free.

The senate, and the house can kiss my proud, fat, hairy, ***.

 

Since the real arists make almost ALL their money from live shows...you're not really hurting the artist.

Anyway I do not have any illigal file sharing systems installed on my comp. if I want to check out new music it always costs me atleast 10 euro.

that's a bit much.

Although I'm not listening to GREAT music from mp3.com...so hey...unsigned artists that make great music and put it up for free download.

I think I'll buy his CD when I find some money too...this guy deserves it.

 

I guess we can replace "the internet generation" with "the freeloading, rationalizing generation"

 

In this day and age, the only people who benefit from technology are consumers of that technology (and that includes other companies as well).

First of all, that's a big misconception. Just look at pharmaceutical companies which profit tenfold from technological advancement by way of the billions of dollars they throw into R&D.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that technology creates the possibility for decentralization of power... but it is not always the case. It depends on, among other things, how it is deployed, who deploys it, and whether or not the technology carries with it the ability to decentralize the manufacture and distribution of unique products or services for which there is a demand.

The pandora's box of internet music distribution has been opened... it is not likely to get closed. That being said, I think I agree with cydonia that the day is coming when recording artists will no longer be solely dependent on record companies to distribute, promote and sell their music.

Even major artists like Madonna are featuring entire albums on the internet in MP3 form... and the technology is already here for people to download an entire album and burn it to disc quickly and cost-effectively.

I believe in the global village theory... the idea that the world can be a marketplace of free interchange and supply on demand between bartering individuals. Nothing's truly "free", everything has its price or consequence... it just doesn't necessarily hold that the future will be driven by paper money. The world of tomorrow will be a global village where anyone with a computer can be either a producer or a consumer of goods/services.

I don't support organizations like Napster. These are hypocritical middlemen who pretend to be interested in supporting the common good... when in reality they are only driven by the wet dream of get-rich-quick IPOs. They want us to believe they are trying to support the artists, but why have a middleman do for you what you can pretty much do yourself? The Napsters of the world are just trying to get in on the action... without really creating something useful and unique worth paying for... The irony is that here they are trying to profit from a product that itself isn't unique enough to profit from, and out of that lack of imagination what do they do? Ride on the back of other creative people's work to give the product, Napster, a value that it lacks alone. Fanning then decided suddenly he needed seven executive officers so he could play corporation and maybe make a lot of IPO dough.

Screw him, and screw the rest of the middlemen. I'm for total independence... I am also for the digital format. I believe music should be distributed digitally... and it is legal to share it directly with individuals for private use. I think this whole file sharing business will force the industry to rethink its terms and purpose... and where it fits into the scheme of things (or whether or not it does at all). However, I won't support organizations such as Napster which only give legal fuel to the recording industry to try to squash the efforts of independent artists to get internet music distribution to proliferate freely, with as little legal roadblocks for the little guy as possible.

Mp3.com doesn't give a flying rat's ass about supporting independent artists, either... and let's not forget how easily Napster was ready and willing to sell out all its users to cover their own asses. They put some indie artists up there, but the vast majority of their site is dedicated to promoting artists who need little more promotion than they're already getting from their record label.

Organizations such as the Internet Underground Music Archive (IUMA) are dedicated to supporting independent artists in distributing samples of their work freely, with their permission, for the sake of promoting independent music. They make no pretense about their purpose... unlike the Napsters of the world.

I have no problem with that kind of a re

 

Wow, killer post SnowDog. Thanks for posting that link, too.

 

Internet file distribution can't be stopped. You can't do it. For every Napster you kill, for every new CD protection scheme, there is a new file sharing program or crack available.

And why should CD protection cracks be illegal? It is my software, I bought it. Why then am I not allowed to 'play around' with it? I should be able to do whatever I want with it.

If I want to copy my CD for my own use (say I want to keep a copy in the car and one in my cd changer at home) why should I be stopped? Do you expect me to buy another one?

Of course not.

I'm not going to buy it. And if you start putting convoluted protection schemes on the CDs you distribute, then I'm not going to be buying them anymore.

Snow_Dog, I agree with you on your idea for the distribution of music.

 

I don't know how well it works, but i just saw that the Star Trek TNG DVD box set has copy protection on it. Hope it doesn't mess with the movie too much, do you remember when new VHS tapes with copy guard on them got all warped and wiggly towards the top or bottom of the screen? They messed with the original and the quality suffered just so you couldn't copy it. Annoying.

 

I think it's wrong to use file swapping to avoid paying for it. Previewing is different if you intend on paying for the product you wish to use. It doesn't matter who gets what %, they still fronted the money and did the work and it's no better than stiffing the person for the bill. People try that **** all the time in the real world. We call them trailer trash.

"Yeah I ordered a pizza two weeks ago and it was cold. I want a new one"

If the artist wants to distribute it, it's a great way to get themselves known, but it should be their decision. They did the work, they have the talent and your expressing your gratitude for that by buying the product. It's akind to tipping, unless you stiff your waitress.......

 

The money it takes to produce the CDs is miniscule (i.e. fronted) compared to what is being charged. The profit margin is enormous.

 

and the point is what?

The fact that they found an industry with low cost of goods sold? Don't forget you're also paying for salaries of workers shippers middlemen and music store clerks as well. It's not like sony pays .25 for a CD and gets all the profit when you buy a $12 CD.

 

No, but most of it, and the artist receives little, as has been mentioned above.

I don't mean to make a point at all. I was just making an observation.

 

"First of all, that's a big misconception. Just look at pharmaceutical companies which profit tenfold from technological advancement by way of the billions of dollars they throw into R&D".

Pharmecutical Co.s are producers AND consumers of technology.

Admittedly, the industry is somewhat unique. It has very high barriers to entry. It is very difficult to establish a Pharm Company and develop NEW products. It is however, thanks to new technology and old methods, very easy to replicate existing products (drugs), hence the struggle initiated by drug Co.s to extend drug patents. If it wasn't for these patents, many generic drug Co.s would be replicated the more common drugs easily.