What is it that people don't get about intellectual property

[Lohman446]

I hear and see it constantly. The argument that use of protected intellectual property (or non-protected for that matter) is ok without the consent of the owner. There are numerous examples "sharing files is ok", "they were ok to use that image commercially", "but I liked looking at that book without having to purchase it", etc.

Does anyone actually have a good argument for not protecting intellectual property, or are they just being cheap?

[Eric Cartman]

Being an employee of Universal Music, I am obviously in favour of protecting intellectual property. The only argument I have ever come up against that held any weight with me, regarding illegitimate downloading of music, is when a person has already purchased a recording on vinyl and cassette and they now want a digital copy without paying for it yet again. I don't have a problem with those people or the people who go after incredibly obscure selections that are not available through any other means (it took me a hell of a long time to finally find and purchase Motorhead & Girlschool doing Tammy Wynette's "Stand by your man"), but I believe those people are a small minority. The rest simply don't want to pay for something that they can get for free, yet they get all offended when they are called thieves.
I think a lot of people whose work is related to strictly physical properties or services have a hard time relating to the people whose livliehodds depend on intellectual properties.

[Muzikman]

My problem is with who owns the IP. I know this thread started because of the tab thread. Having been involved with the music industry for a number of years I can say that the people that make all the money are not the ones you would think should. Now there are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

Now I am not all about downloading music (or tabs), but to be honest, I don't care if others do. The artist, the person who actually has the talent makes so little on CD sales that if they never sold another CD I doubt they would notice. Now the people that do notice are the record companies. These guys are making money hand over fist and then cry that their sales drop a few percent. They claim that this is the Internet causing it, but if you look every industry over the last 5 years have been down a few percent.

I own over 1000 CDs, I do not download much music, but if I want to listen to We are Family by Sister Sledge, I am not going to buy the entire CD. And this whole iTunes thing is a complete rip off. $1 per song?!?!? Who the hell are they kidding! That would make a CD worth $20+ in most cases and they don't even have to worry about the CD production costs, packaging, and the logistics of getting it to the stores.

In short, support your local music scene and your Indie Labels. buy direct from artists or at the very least from www.cdbaby.com.

[Eric Cartman]

And this whole iTunes thing is a complete rip off. $1 per song?!?!? Who the hell are they kidding!
In short, support your local music scene and your Indie Labels. buy direct from artists or at the very least from www.cdbaby.com.

I think $1.00 per song is a good deal and apparently the multitude of people who use iTunes, Puretracks and Napster etc. think so too. Vending machines charge $1.00 or more for a can of Coke here. I think a virus free copy of a song is worth more than a can of Coke, but that's just my opinion.
As far as the indie music scene goes, by all means, support it as much as possible. Buy the cd's at the shows and help out the bands. Keep in mind however, that most artists in the indy scene can't support themselves with their music alone. They have to get Mcjobs to make ends meet. Wouldn't it be great if someone could support these artists and promote them and distribute their music around the world and let the artists concentrate on making music full time? Oh wait, they already do exist, they're record companies, and most of the people who work in them genuinely care about music and artists. Unfortunately the mahjor corporation's shareholders, who control the purse strings, always have the almighty dollar and the bottom line first and foremost in their minds.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

$1 per song is not unreasonable, compared to paying $12-15 for a cd that probably only has 3-4 good songs on it.

[nippinout]

$1.00 is a RIPOFF!

For a lossy compressed song, $1.00 is way too much.

[Eric Cartman]

$1.00 is a RIPOFF!

For a lossy compressed song, $1.00 is way too much.

No one's forcing you to pay it. If you feel it's too much, then don't buy it. It still doesn't give you the right to steal it.
Hell I think Nike shoes are terrible quality and are way overpriced, so I don't buy them. I don't steal them either.

[Muzikman]

I think $1.00 per song is a good deal and apparently the multitude of people who use iTunes, Puretracks and Napster etc. think so too. Vending machines charge $1.00 or more for a can of Coke here. I think a virus free copy of a song is worth more than a can of Coke, but that's just my opinion.
As far as the indie music scene goes, by all means, support it as much as possible. Buy the cd's at the shows and help out the bands. Keep in mind however, that most artists in the indy scene can't support themselves with their music alone. They have to get Mcjobs to make ends meet. Wouldn't it be great if someone could support these artists and promote them and distribute their music around the world and let the artists concentrate on making music full time? Oh wait, they already do exist, they're record companies, and most of the people who work in them genuinely care about music and artists. Unfortunately the mahjor corporation's shareholders, who control the purse strings, always have the almighty dollar and the bottom line first and foremost in their minds.

The only people in the record industry that actually might care about the "music" are the engineers and producers. I have known way too many bands get the crap end of a deal with major record companies.

As for the $1 per song. Again, you might think it's a great idea, but again, I own over 1000 CD's, we'll say those 1000 CD's have on average 15 songs per CD (this is a low estimate), that would mean if I was to download via iTunes every song I have it would have cost me $15,000. I assure you I have not spent $15,000 on my CD collection. Also, in the end, I have a solid item in my hands which if properly stored and caried for I will own for many many years. How many people are running around with all their downloaded iTune songs in their iPod and then deleting them off their computer (I have see threads on different forums about people doing this all the time). When they lose, break, or just f-up their iPod they not only lost the value of the device but all their songs as well.

You also get into the audio quality side of things, no matter what you say an MP3 does not have as god of quiality sound as a CD. Now with 90% of the music being produced today sounding like crap (and I am not talking about the style of music, I am talking about the engineering of it), you probably can't tell a difference anyway, but there is a differenece none the less.

Now...to get back to the actual point of the thread. IP needs to be protected, but in the case of the music industry, be it the recording inductry or the sheet music industry, they really need to take a closer look at themselves. Not that stealing either is right though.

[Lohman446]

So, if I work at Pizza hut and make minimum wage, well the big wigs make millions its ok for me to advocate giving away free Pizza because I make it?

I mean, if the artists don't like it there more than welcome to buy there own recording studio, distribute, and market there own product. Right?

[Muzikman]

So, if I work at Pizza hut and make minimum wage, well the big wigs make millions its ok for me to advocate giving away free Pizza because I make it?

I mean, if the artists don't like it there more than welcome to buy there own recording studio, distribute, and market there own product. Right?

They are, and a lot do.

Pizza hut is a bad example as you might make the pizza, but you did not design the pizza and then have pizza hut steal it from you. The problem is in the traditional sense of a record company, you write a song, the recording company gives you $10, they take all rights to your song and then make $1,000,000. The record companies also control the radio and tv stations, so unless you are signed with one of the big labels, you will never get the exposure.

This is starting to change with the popularity of the Internet. With more people listening to pod casts, more web sites owned by the artist a band can not make serious money and do all their marketing and distribution themselves, or with help from indie companies that take 10% instead of 98%. That is why I support distributors such as cdbaby.com.

If anyone has seen Josie and Pussycats, amongst that silly comedy, there is a message that is way too true.

[Lohman446]

They are, and a lot do.

Pizza hut is a bad example as you might make the pizza, but you did not design the pizza and then have pizza hut steal it from you. The problem is in the traditional sense of a record company, you write a song, the recording company gives you $10, they take all rights to your song and then make $1,000,000. The record companies also control the radio and tv stations, so unless you are signed with one of the big labels, you will never get the exposure.

This is starting to change with the popularity of the Internet. With more people listening to pod casts, more web sites owned by the artist a band can not make serious money and do all their marketing and distribution themselves, or with help from indie companies that take 10% instead of 98%. That is why I support distributors such as cdbaby.com.

If anyone has seen Josie and Pussycats, amongst that silly comedy, there is a message that is way too true.

And the examples you used all use legal methods to change a system they feel unjust. I think we are closer to agreeing than not on this. There are proper ways to get around the record companies, if the artist chooses to (though they will likely make less money doing this themselves). Hence the trade off made to the artist. While they may keep a large percentage of the profits they also allow the artist(s) to make more money. A win/win situation.

I guess I'm just annoyed by the casual viewpoint most take in regards to intellecutal property. Some stands are reasonably logical, even if I disagree wtih them. Some are just sound bytes spewed fro someone to try to justify there theft.

[Army]

No one's forcing you to pay it. If you feel it's too much, then don't buy it. It still doesn't give you the right to steal it.
Hell I think Nike shoes are terrible quality and are way overpriced, so I don't buy them. I don't steal them either.

QFT bro, Q F T.

[Muzikman]

I do agree with you 100%. The record industry just hits a nerve with me. I agree IP should be protected, but at the same time I would love to see some of these companies brought to their knees, even if it means beaking the law. As for a win / win situation, it's not always. You only hear of the sucess stories, the Green Days of the world. For every one band that signs a contract with a large label and makes it big, there are 100+ that just get totally ripped off and lose everything they worked years for.

BTW, I have to ask, how many applications running on your computer have you actually paid for? Be honest now.

[Lohman446]

I do agree with you 100%. The record industry just hits a nerve with me. I agree IP should be protected, but at the same time I would love to see some of these companies brought to their knees, even if it means beaking the law. As for a win / win situation, it's not always. You only hear of the sucess stories, the Green Days of the world. For every one band that signs a contract with a large label and makes it big, there are 100+ that just get totally ripped off and lose everything they worked years for.

BTW, I have to ask, how many applications running on your computer have you actually paid for? Be honest now.

This one in front of me 100% are properly licensed, with those licenses updated correctly - and it was a major hit when I purchased it for the shop. Honestly at my house 90% of the applications are legally obtained and licensed, probably closer to 95% or more. I'm sure there are one or two that are not. Frankly though I don't use any high dollar applications (accept for operating systems and office) that the manufacturers of PCs get incredible deals on licensing and I have a 56K modem. So telling you that my various $20 games are legal, well it may be as much a conveience factor as a morally right factor.

[Target Practice]

BTW, I have to ask, how many applications running on your computer have you actually paid for? Be honest now.

None. And I grew out of buying my music and movies a while ago. Why would I pay 20 bucks for a CD that won't play on my computer due to copy prevention? Bonus points when the band is RISE AGAINST. Stick it to the Man, but don't stick it to our record label!