Sharing Music On The Internet Is Not Theft Or Piracy!

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
June 7, 2005

Sharing Music
Property Gone Wild
By MICHAEL NEUMANN


Most debates on intellectual property focus on its limits, which have been stretched as far as lobbyists can stretch them. Few people now remember that the original notion of music or literary 'piracy' was copying for resale: a 'pirated edition' was not just any copy of a protected work, but copies printed for commercial use. Today, every hall-monitor type has bought into the notion that non-commercial copying is 'theft', no matter how often commentators remark that, when theft occurs, the victim doesn't normally retain what is stolen. And a whole generation of suckers is learning that, when they buy a CD, they aren't buying those tracks to do as they please with - heavens no! - but a license to use those tracks, one which does not extend to such enormities as giving music away.

Sharing music is not theft or piracy. Is it harmful? Certainly it is, to some people. So are many impeccably legal practices, like automating production lines, or sharing clothes or cars or apartments, or amateur entertainment, or do-it-yourself home repair. Any of these activities can destroy someone's livelihood, though none so much as free competition itself: this great god of business ideologues of course very frequently eliminates the jobs at less competitive firms. Those laid off are quite often left homeless and destitute. If harming livelihood is going to be a justification for restricting the use of what you possess, the restrictions will soon become intolerable.

Protecting every last penny Britney might possibly make does not do a whole hell of a lot for the many acknowledged masters of popular music now living in poverty. They were ripped off by the very industry now so desperate to protect artistic achievement. Protecting genuine artists, one would think, is most efficiently achieved by direct rewards for artistic merit, judged by their peers or by whatever other procedure seems to make sense. And if someone comes along to proclaim that none of us can judge artistic merit, what's all the fuss about? How do we know that any music is more than a merely commercial product, whose value has no more claim to be protected by technology than horses and buggies?

There are more basic questions as well. Odd, with all the endless talk of technology bringing 'new paradigms', that 'paradigm' which most obviously needs renewal is never discussed - that of property itself. The current unrepentant popularity of filesharing indicates that the alleged property-rights of rock stars and music companies no longer command much respect. On the other hand, there is some concern that legitimate holders of these rights, artists who have not become corporate cash cows, are poorly served. Technology is the catalyst rather than the cause of these reactions. The cause is the conflict between property rights as currently conceived and the ideas underlying those rights.



http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06072005.html

[Greyhound]

1. this issue was settled twice b4...

in the 70's when the cassette recorder became ubiquitous, and again in the 80's with the VCR.
That they were able to buy the judiciary, as well as congress, is just another example of the rampant corporatism that has supplanted our government.

[Vyan]

3. It was settled..

by offereing record companies a small percentage on the sales of all blank casettes.

Would you support the same for blank CD-R's?

Vyan

[Balbus]

4. I did not know this...

But I think I would support it.

[Vyan]

8. Ok then...

How about paying a surcharge for downloads and/or advertiser sponsorships of streaming/download sites that function in the same way that radio does - people get to hear the music and decide what they like, and advertisers foot the bill?

The problem with this idea (which is what sites like MP3.com used to do) is that illegal filesharing undercuts the market for this option, and there's no incentive for advertisers to put their money into something that won't pay off, so we end up back where we are now unless piracy is completely shut down.

Vyan

[Balbus]

19. I'm on your side with this...

I thought you were suggesting a solution to the piracy problem with the percentages on the blank CD's going to the record studios. Did I misunderstand?

[newyawker99]

22. Hi greyhound1966!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Vyan]

2. This argument is faulty

...Like many peoople arguing this subject - the key assumption tends to be about CD Sales - whether sharing hurts ro helps sales.

It could be fairly argued that people still find value in owning a CD, including the full liner notes and jacket, but are deterred from risking their cash due to the high cost of the disks compared that ready availability of CD-R's. Why not have a chance to sample the tracks from a CD before you buy it? Sometimes people buy the CD after listening to shared files and sometimes they don't -- on the whole, more people are hearing more music and the deserving artists are still getting sales, so what's wrong with that?

Well, what's wrong is the simple fact that most artist do NOT make any money from CD Sales, nor is it their primary income. Most regularly touring artist make their money from merchandize sales, t-shirts, posters and programs -- but the major artist make most of their money from royalties accrued from having their songs played on radio or ty - where a potential audience can listen to them for free. Whether the listeners buy a CD as a result of what they hear or not, when eaach and every song is played on the Radio, publishing royalties are still paid via performance rights companies such as ASCAP and BMI.

With file sharing, that royalty is not paid. That is where the artists is losing out and at that point is exactly where copyright laws are being violated. The artist still retain a legal right to fruits of their labors - and issue of merit may indeed continue to apply when balanced against the tendency for the herd syndrome which does continue to propelled "artists" such as Britney Spears into the recording stratophere.

But most musicians are a long way from Britney Spears, they have to work very hard just to have anyone pay even the slightess bit of attention. If people seriously think that music they create should be free to all, I'd gladly join that arguement as soons as instruments, lessons, rehearsal space, recording equipment, CD duplication and the cost of advertising and promotion for music are all FREE as well.

Unless an artist has voluanteered to give it to the public, taking the work from them without compensation is precisely theft and piracy.

Vyan

[Beaverhausen]

5. Its not only the artists losing money - its everyone employed at...

the record company, manufacturer, publisher, record store, etc.

The general public only thinks of the "rich artists" in these cases. Many people work in the industry and all this "theft" hurts the industry as a whole.

Disclaimer: I work at a large film studio. Its the same with bootleg DVDs and Videos. Stealing is stealing.

[Vyan]

6. Yes, exactly...

The entire structure is falling apart, and the problem so far is that the idea of direct sales by the artists to the public - via the web or elsewhere - has so far proven far from effective at recouping the basic costs that most artist have to put into their music. Usually it can hardly pay for the gas to get from gig to gig.

Vyan

[UdoKier]

11. Apple has had healthy sales with iTunes

nt

[Me.]

10. A Recent Argument To The Supreme Court

by the Author's Guild asked why it is that artists are the only group being asked to subsidize society. They won the case.

[spindoctor]

13. 99% of all musicians make their money teaching and performing

As a former struggling (recording) musician, ask me if I care about the revenue of big stars and their record companies.

Hell, they might have to work for a living.

Nobody goes into music for the money. We do it for the CHICKS! ;)

[NashVegas]

18. Who Wins, Who Loses

A performing artist is the person who wins with file sharing.

Win: Artists win because their best bet for selling records and concert tickets is getting their music heard in the first place. If an artist's record label decides not to allocate massive dollars to getting that music heard via radio, videos, etc., that artist has only word-of-mouth to draw attention to their music. As it often happens, lesser-known artists whose approach is qualitative more than quantitative ("their A & R man said 'I don't hear a single'" - Tom Petty) tend to draw less of a promotions budget.

File sharing is word-of-mouth that benefits this type of artist more than anyone.

Win: *some* record labels (the more forward-thinking ones), promoters, and concert bookers. Again, if you're talking about an artist that has a hard time finding a radio home, but who does have quality work, they make their money from their live shows and merchandising.

Win: music lovers who want to hear music they haven't already been exposed to and are not likely to be exposed to on radio.

Who loses:

Loser: Record Producers. If you've got a producer who worked for "points," they may not make as much via file sharing. However, this is offset by file sharers who turn around and purchase albums if they are impressed enough by what they've heard.

Loser: Songwriters who are not performing musicians, or not inclined to fully realize the musical arrangements of their songs. If someone listens to a song they wrote via file sharing, as opposed to radio, they don't get any royalties out of it; because they aren't playing out live (most non-performing song writers are people who chose the "safe" route, and/or rejected the road lifestyle) they aren't making money that way, and because they often pay little, if any, attention to their arrangements in the first place, their solo music is not usually anything that's going to get very many people excited enough to "spread the word" outside of the industry in the first place.

Loser: idiotic label VPs of Promotions who sign idiotic contracts to people like Mariah Carey, allocate millions of dollars to promoting a shitty album that bombs, and then have to turn around and pay them even more millions to cancel the contract.


but the major artist make most of their money from royalties accrued from having their songs played on radio or ty - where a potential audience can listen to them for free.

I'll say this again: 99% of what you hear played on the radio is played on the radio because the labels are greasing the wheels with promotional support. The hippest, coolest stations in the USA will only go out on a limb without support if they believe the song has the potential to be a fucking smash, if they believe that in so doing, they can probably attract label attention to a band and in the process, increase their business prospects.

A potential audience can listen for free, but they cannot freely listen. They only get to hear what someone, somewhere, has devoted a promotions budget for them to hear.


Hollywood is also in a bad position. If I were a film producer or studio head, I would be very, VERY discerning in what films I chose to greenlight - specifically, I would look for stories that could also function as (good) plays, and then I'd buy the rights to the play. There was a time when drama was performed for people, not for stockholders. Moving to a model that works for film backed by theatre could have potential.

[More Than A Feeling]

21. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[Protagoras]

7. I could support the CD tax idea above...but IPODs

and what's coming after change the whole dynamic of music transmission and play. 5 years ago I was firmly on the side of the file sharers...Today, I'm a lot more mixed.

Mostly because the entire technology has changed. it's no longer about Units of physical items. I have a 1gig jump drive that fits on my key chain. I can put just about every CD I own on it and throw them all away.

My DVD player plays MP3s. I can put an amazing number of CDs on one DVD.

Now I still like to buy the original CD...and support my favorite artists...but I can see a time in 10 years where I won't use large, spinning, scratchable objects at all anymore.

And at the point where it's all electronic...then it's hard to see the old Napster position as just an innocent thing that's done by a few people on the side.

Movies the same way...all these physical objects we've previously used to transmit the data...are going the way of the dinosaur. At the point you just DL it from netflix...the distinction starts to disolve.

I become uncomfortable with all the current models I've seen. I strongly support free data and a free internet. But when where we're going makes this a hard thing to juggle.

[spindoctor]

9. If I may play devil's advocate here

The difference between copying tapes among friends and the mp3 rage, is that in the 70s we didn't have a wide distribution network (internet) delivering an endless number of copies to total strangers.

Copying intellectual property for personal use is one thing. Handing it out to whoever wants it is the other end of the spectrum.

[NashVegas]

20. Depends, Depends

What I think would be more offensive for an artist than having something freely handed out (they DO benefit), would be a case where someone takes their music and - without permission - edits or otherwise manipulates it into something altogether different and - again, without permission - distributes it.

The Supreme Court disagrees with this, however, as they've recently greenlighted that company that removes nudity, etc., from movies.

[drdon326]

12. When I was a kid, I used record songs off the radio.....

Was that illegal ?...nope.

So whats the difference if i record off the internet ?

I guess those recording studios might have to actually decrease those $ 17.00 cds.

[theboss]

15. Because you could not distribute that tape to a million people instantly

I don't think the real issue is the copying of copy-righted material for private use. The Courts are pretty clear that such behavior is legal. The issue to me is, once you put it online and let anyone on earth take it, is it still private use?

[drdon326]

17. Fine...go after the distributors...

and leave the rest of us alone.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. It's illegal and immoral

Look on the back of the CD when you buy it: it says that you are specifically allowed to use it for personal enjoyment and that's it. You can sell it as a used CD, but you can't make copies and sell them, nor can you rent it out, nor anything of the sort.

Bartering is still getting something in exchange, even though it's not hard currency, and file-sharing is precisely that: getting things by providing "your" goods in return. The hell with any ethical arguments; it's simply against the letter and spirit of the law.

Now for some ethical arguments: it's not just "big evil record companies" who are benefitting by these sales, it's also the creators of the organized noise. The childish arguments about sticking it to the man or liberating art are nothing short of self-serving rubbish. If you've ever been plagarized or had your work illegally copied, you can probably still feel the sting as you read this.

The business will have to adjust to new means of delivery, and it will. It already is. The point of copyright protection is to protect those who create. We are obliged to honor the terms by which individuals or corporations allow others to share their work; to not do so is a moral violation of the creators' efforts.

[theboss]

16. This is more of an anti-capilast rant than anything

I'm not impressed by it.