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

[Muzikman]

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.

I'm inpressed, you are probably the only person in the US that can say that.

[Muzikman]

My point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_en_mu/beatles_suit&printer=1;_ylt=AlNBpOgFMBWSMCU14XzOo2cnHL8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[Lohman446]

But what about the meat puppets that wouldn't have gotten anywhere, arguably, without the help of the recording industry. Britney Spears, Jessicca Simpson come to mind.

[quik]

Josie and The Pussycats is a really funny movie, btw

[Kai]

I would like to state that I agree completely with Muzikman.

And also, that anyone who TRULY cares about innovative and high-quality music, as opposed to the current cookie-cutter trends found in popular music today, is not going to be losing any sleep over file-sharing.

[Steelrat]

I'm inpressed, you are probably the only person in the US that can say that.

Nope, me too. I've got family that works in the software industry, and family that are in the music industry.

The more dishonest people rip stuff off, the more honest people have to pay for the product.

Target , though I don't agree with owning stolen/unlicensed software, I have to admit that your jab at Rage made me laugh. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Eric Cartman]

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.

So the product managers, the street teams, the sales reps, the A&R people, the marketing reps etc. who are at the shows representing after putting in 10 - 12 hour workdays don't care about the music? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I've worked for Universal for 16 years and have never seen a group of people more dedicated and passionate about music anywhere.

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.

No we don't. We do however market and promote our artists. We try to get them as much exposure as possible. If an indy band has no one to promote them, then it's not surprising that they don't get as much exposure or airplay as a band signed to a major label. That's not because they are being held back by the man, it's because no one knows who the hell they are.

My software is all legitimately purchased and updated.

[Lohman446]

So let me get this straight, if a band signs with a major record company they get 5% of X (or whatever). If they use an indy company they get 80% of Y.

But X is so much bigger than Y that .05X is greater than .8Y.

The company that makes all the money also allows the band to reach a larger audience, sell out more concerts (where a major source of the bands income is from correct), and ultimately make more money through better marketing, promotion, and distribution. Isn't that a win/win for all involved. Perhaps the record companies could do better for the artists, but I hate to say that I don't see a lot of bands with marketability that are starving with the major record companies. Obviously some don't make it, and perhaps they should, but I'm sure the major record labels don't intentionally not attempt to make a band profitable for all involved.

[Eric Cartman]

So let me get this straight, if a band signs with a major record company they get 5% of X (or whatever). If they use an indy company they get 80% of Y.

But X is so much bigger than Y that .05X is greater than .8Y.

The company that makes all the money also allows the band to reach a larger audience, sell out more concerts (where a major source of the bands income is from correct), and ultimately make more money through better marketing, promotion, and distribution. Isn't that a win/win for all involved. Perhaps the record companies could do better for the artists, but I hate to say that I don't see a lot of bands with marketability that are starving with the major record companies. Obviously some don't make it, and perhaps they should, but I'm sure the major record labels don't intentionally not attempt to make a band profitable for all involved.

I'd say the 5% and 80% figures are a bit of an exaggeration, but you make the point well. Just look at how many indy labels have their products manufactured, distributed, marketed and promoted by the majors. We must have 40 to 50 in Canada alone. They do this because it works. The more artists we can break, the better. The artists win because they get the exposure and success and can support themselves with their music. As their success grows, they negotiate better deals and make more money. The record companies win because they profit from the artist's success which they facilitate. It's a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one. The public wins because they have access to more music that appeals to all sorts of different tastes. No one's going to like all of it, but the more music that's put out there, the more choices peope will have.

At the end of the day, the success of this all hinges on people being able to succesfully protect their intellectual property, which was the original point of this thread. Sorry for getting off on a bit of a tangent Lohman.

[Alpha]

My gripe is that theres no real corelation beween net loss and millions of people - even billions- downloading music for free.

I have somethign like 2700 songs (actually a good 1500 are off CDs), and I tell you, if I had to pay for every one of those, I wouldnt have it. IT snot like the music industry is losign me as a customer. I wouldnt pay either way.

Its not a matter of money really, its a matter of principle, but how can you fight a black market. Especially with stuff like bittorrents which is less network based so you cant really shut down a bt.

[bentothejam1n]

I get most of my music from purevolume. The artist chooses what songs he/she wants to put up and it more for promoting your band

[Kevmaster]

I'd like to say that I download music legally or that I purchase music from stores, but to be honest, I download from Limewire 95% of the time 100% illegally. Its not some moral thing, its not some "stick it to the record labels", its just that music isnt worth $1 per song. its not worth $0.50 per song when I cna hear it on the radio in my car for free. I'm sure the quality isn't as good, but I'd be happy with a radio tuned to a good country station whereever I go.

So, I download from places to get hte same music for free. Illegal? probably. thats just how it is. I'm not going to claim its right, but frankly, its just what is easiest/most worth it for me.

Yeah, Im stealing IP, I guess I'm ok with that and i'll have to answer to someone sometime about it...ethier in this life or the next

[nippinout]

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.

So will the record label offer me a lossless alternative? No, they won't.

The more dishonest people rip stuff off, the more honest people have to pay for the product.

No, the record companies do not charge more simply to make up for the lost revenue. Piraters were never a revenue stream to begin with. There is no loss.

However, distribution of music is a great way to have potential customers sample music. I remember getting some mp3's that had the artist talking in the intro to the song, like DJ's on the radio. The RIAA is going about this the wrong way. Instead of taking advantage of the Internet to increase revenue, they use it as a weapon. And then there's Sony installing software without disclosure.

Paying customers should not be treated as criminals. DRM that disables the ability to play on computers is unacceptable, when you have paid for the album. DRM does not affect pirates. It only negatively affects paying customers. Treating customers as criminals certainly doesn't help the RIAA. It probably even emboldens people to download music.

[Lohman446]

However, distribution of music is a great way to have potential customers sample music. I remember getting some mp3's that had the artist talking in the intro to the song, like DJ's on the radio. The RIAA is going about this the wrong way. Instead of taking advantage of the Internet to increase revenue, they use it as a weapon. And then there's Sony installing software without disclosure.

I actually agree here. Doesn't i-tunes allow you to listen to most music without purchasing it. I use I-tunes but cannot take advantage of streaming because of a lousy internet connection. There is some truth that the recording industry could make better use of the internet then they do, but I still don't think this is a justification of piracy. Don't get me wrong, this is not meant to be judgemental about doing it... as long as there is not some lame attempt to justify doing it. I think Kev and TP have it about right in there statements. That being said, I think you are right on the poor use of the new technology by record companies. Is kind of interesting to look at the historic clashes between radio and producers and then compare them to what we have now with the internet.

Paying customers should not be treated as criminals. DRM that disables the ability to play on computers is unacceptable, when you have paid for the album. DRM does not affect pirates. It only negatively affects paying customers. Treating customers as criminals certainly doesn't help the RIAA. It probably even emboldens people to download music.

This had to be one of the most annoying things I have run into in a long time. You're right, I recently purchased a CD and then couldn't add it to my I-tunes library because of some protection.

As to $1 and downloading songs. I used to purchase two or three CDs a year, sometimes more, but that was about it in the past few years. In the past year I have downloaded 200+ songs. It has worked as a medium, at least for some consumers.

[Eric Cartman]

...And then there's Sony installing software without disclosure.

Paying customers should not be treated as criminals. DRM that disables the ability to play on computers is unacceptable, when you have paid for the album...

I agree fully with this. That was an unbelievably stupid move on the part of Sony and I'd imagine that the public will make them pay for that for some time to come. It's important to keep in mind that not all DRM works the way the Sony software did. Once you've purchased a legitimate copy of a song, it's yours. You need to be able to play it on your computer and in your car and on your mp3 player etc. I've downloaded music from Puretracks and burned it on CD's that I can play in my car etc. It's no problem. The idea of DRM is to prevent illegal file sharing, not to prevent you from playing your music on a computer or burning it for personal use.

Regarding revenue loss, anyone who honestly believes that a technology that allows people to easily obtain your product without paying for it, won't result in revenue loss is simply in denial. It's a ridiculous statement. The degree of that loss is open to debate, but to claim no loss at all? Come on, don't be ridiculous. If people could download new cars, how long do you think the auto industry would last? I know that's a ridiculously extreme example, but when people can get something without paying for it then they will. Saying that everyone who downloads music illegaly makes no difference because none of them would have purchased it in the first place is simply wrong.