Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

[cutter]

This is why I supported McCain

8 years of Bush was already bad enough. I don't think the country could have tolerated another 4 years of a de facto Bush.

 

[Luigitoilet]

8 years of Bush was already bad enough. I don't think the country could have tolerated another 4 years of a de facto Bush.

Sadly, the Obama Administration is continuing many, many Bush policies. Still, the lesser of two evils, I think. I don't want to see a world where Sarah Palin has that much power.

 

[BBQTV]

yeah it's like neither are too good so pick your poison *****!

 

[Steven9wii]

This is already happening. Musicians make the vast majority of their money through touring and merchandising and almost none on record sales. The record store is dead, and musicians who are intelligent at all realize this and capitalize on it. Radiohead and NIN are the big examples I can think of, but plenty of musicians tour their butts off to make that hustle. That's how it should be. Musicians should be playing their music as much as possible. Nowadays, the album is put out to advertise the tour. It used to be the other way around. Honestly, I see very little wrong with it.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Editing the huge font size you got there, but you do make a good point.

And yeah. Brb, pirating a cat.

 

[Lore]

Editing the huge font size you got there, but you do make a good point.

What point? He just copied and pasted what Luigitoilet said earlier.

The people who are proposing a word filter on Google or a ban on torrenting technology make me sad.

 

[zelda rocks]

They only mentioned Torrenting Tech which would be used for infringement purposes; not a blanket-ban on all torrenting tech.

 

[Luigitoilet]

This is already happening. Musicians make the vast majority of their money through touring and merchandising and almost none on record sales. The record store is dead, and musicians who are intelligent at all realize this and capitalize on it. Radiohead and NIN are the big examples I can think of, but plenty of musicians tour their butts off to make that hustle. That's how it should be. Musicians should be playing their music as much as possible. Nowadays, the album is put out to advertise the tour. It used to be the other way around. Honestly, I see very little wrong with it.

what's the deal Obama? this guy is pirating my post, arrest him!

 

[o-Serin-o]

My response to this:

Ironically, Obama is the one saying it <_<

 

[SuperBowser]

this is why i vote for green party.

...

:'(

 

[Luigitoilet]

this is why i vote for green party.

...

:'(

unfortunately in the US voting for the green party or any third party is basically like not voting at all. our two-party system is f*cked.

 

[Fuelbi]

unfortunately in the US voting for the green party or any third party is basically like not voting at all. our two-party system is f*cked.

I blame this on our founding fathers with their Federalist and Anti-Federalist shenanigans

 

[The Drifter]

I think it would be a HUGE financial undertaking for the government to bust EVERYONE who has ever illegally downloaded anything ever. So while BitTorrent might get capped at the knees by Uncle Sam, you and I are safe.

 

[Kole]

If you buy a song off of iTunes for $.99, the artist gets about $.02 - $.09, depending on the record label.

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Pluvia]

They're still getting paid and agreed to that price. It's better than the alternative AKA getting nothing.

 

[UberMario]

If you buy a song off of iTunes for $.99, the artist gets about $.02 - $.09, depending on the record label.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Make 1000 downloads per song per week (and that's pretty low), and have 10+ songs, that $.02 per download becomes $200 a week, a reasonable profit.

For big name brands that get AT LEAST ten million downloads during their lifetime per song they've made and have at least 10 songs, that's $2 million, more than most make in a lifetime.

Does that $0.02 per download look dumb now? Not to most people when they look at it that way.

 

[Lore]

Make 1000 downloads per song per week (and that's pretty low), and have 10+ songs, that $.02 per download becomes $200 a week, a reasonable profit.

For big name brands that get AT LEAST ten million downloads during their lifetime per song they've made and have at least 10 songs, that's $2 million, more than most make in a lifetime.

Does that $0.02 per download look dumb now? Not to most people when they look at it that way.

Make 2 downloads per week (and that's pretty low), and have 20+ songs, that $.02 per download becomes $.80, a terrible profit.

Does that $0.02 per download look dumb now? It does to most lesser known artists.

It especially hurts indie bands (although most do get a higher percentage than better known artists), and they usually just make most of their money from touring.

I'm not going to bother arguing about whether or not one download equals one lost sale, by the way; that bush has been beat to death on other boards.

 

[UberMario]

Honestly if they can only get 2 downloads per song per week and they've made that many pieces, they really would have to be terrible or extremely obscure (and I mean REALLY terrible, if not even a 100 people would want to listen to the full songs unlimited for a $1 when over a billion people listen to music online). That's where videosite "advertising" helps, to lift some of that obscurity.

 

[Lore]

Honestly if they can only get 2 downloads per song per week and they've made that many pieces, they really would have to be terrible or extremely obscure (and I mean REALLY terrible, if not even a 100 people would want to listen to the full songs unlimited for a $1 when over a billion people listen to music online). That's where videosite "advertising" helps, to lift some of that obscurity.

...Do you have any idea how many bands there are out there?

Besides that, even IF 100 people download the song, that's only a one time payment. Since they can keep it, they have no reason to keep buying it.

 

[UberMario]

Too many that try to directly emulate others rather than carving their own paths honestly. >_>;

 

[Pluvia]

How is not paying for their music any better?

 

[Lore]

How is not paying for their music any better?

It isn't. I just wanted to show how that logic doesn't apply to every band.

I'll post my personal stance on piracy tomorrow. Unfortunately, my parents are telling me to get off the computer.

 

[freeman123]

my argument is i don't give a **** and I pirate, never fails.

your music analogy fails, too, because you can listen to music without owning it. i.e. radio, youtube, TV, etc. not sure if anyone puts their journal on TV... except maybe Doug.

There's a difference between listening to music that someone else is playing and taking music for yourself to keep without the permission of whoever owns the rights to that music. It's disingenuous of you to act like you aren't aware of the difference.

If I create art, why shouldn't I have the right to decide who gets to have my art and under what circumstances?

This idea that "pirating is just making a copy, so no one is losing anything" is BS. I know plenty of people who used to buy music all the time, but now they never buy music because they illegally download all the music they want. Are you telling me those people would just go without having music if they couldn't download it for free? They used to buy music before, so there's no reason to think that they still wouldn't be buying it if they weren't able to steal it.

So artists are losing something. They're losing a potential sale for every single time their song/album is downloaded by someone for free.

 

[BBQTV]

their not stealing.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Too many that try to directly emulate others rather than carving their own paths honestly. >_>;

This is totally dumb and irrelevant. For one thing, it is precisely the bands who create a unique sound that are having the most trouble of all as they have to draw in listeners who are not familiar or keen with the music they make. In fact, many very popular bands directly emulate other very popular groups.

I'll say it again. For an unknown/underground musician to make a career for themselves, they are no longer able to just write some songs, record them, and find a label that will publish them. They have to go out, and actively tour as much as possible, sell as much merch/swag to get their names out, and even release their music for free or for very cheap just to get it heard.

And that's not impossible either. My favorite example is HORSE the Band, probably the definition of most misunderstood and overlooked groups around. They have been basically scraping the bottom of the barrel monetarily for ten years. Yet, in 2008, they got their crap together and did a massive 40-country tour. To save money, they didn't hire a tour manager or a band manager to organize the shows. They did it all themselves, out of their own pockets. Sure, they came back to the U.S. about 1,000 bucks in debt, but now people in Malaysia and Belarus and Africa, etc. know who they are, know how amazing their live shows are and will spread the word. The band has legions of fans, and in 2009 finally got on a record label that entitled them to 50% of record sales. That is almost unheard of, but hopefully it's a sign of what's to come in the music industry.

and yes, they encourage pirating their music.

 

[GoldShadow]

This idea that "pirating is just making a copy, so no one is losing anything" is BS. I know plenty of people who used to buy music all the time, but now they never buy music because they illegally download all the music they want. Are you telling me those people would just go without having music if they couldn't download it for free? They used to buy music before, so there's no reason to think that they still wouldn't be buying it if they weren't able to steal it.

Unfortunately, this is just an anecdote.

I can counter it with my own anecdotes. Me, personally? I never bought or listened to music. The first music CD I ever owned was an album that a friend burned to a CD-R and gave to me. After I listened to that, I began downloading lots of music ("pirating", if you will). This was back in high school, and it's what got me into music in the first place.

Since then, I've expanded my horizons and have bought dozens of CDs, albums, and vinyl. In other words, "pirating" actually got me to listen to lots of music and buy from artists I really enjoyed. So to recap: without "pirating", I would never have gotten into a lot of music and would never have bought anything. Thanks to "pirating", I not only have a massive music collection, but I've gone out and bought a lot of music too.

On the whole, anecdotes aside, the numbers tend to support the idea that artists have not been hurt.

 

[Fuelbi]

Man, IF the fez pulls this off, I'm afraid how this will affect my gaming life.

As for music, I usually buy albums anyways. I like having the "official" thing instead of something that a million people have downloaded free

 

[CRASHiC]

Ya know, the study that found that industries have not lost business and have been helped by this was a study on the MOVIE industry. The music industry (not necessarily the artist) have been dealt a heavy blow.

To point to what Goldshadow is saying though, while the profits of, say, EMI who might file for Bankruptcy, and who would have already if not for Gorillaz, have been damaged, many smaller record labels are doing wonderfully. Flying Lotus's new record label is already running in the black despite having just started and being made up of independent artist.

 

[freeman123]

GoldShadow
I can counter it with my own anecdotes. Me, personally? I never bought or listened to music. The first music CD I ever owned was an album that a friend burned to a CD-R and gave to me. After I listened to that, I began downloading lots of music ("pirating", if you will). This was back in high school, and it's what got me into music in the first place.

Since then, I've expanded my horizons and have bought dozens of CDs, albums, and vinyl. In other words, "pirating" actually got me to listen to lots of music and buy from artists I really enjoyed. So to recap: without "pirating", I would never have gotten into a lot of music and would never have bought anything. Thanks to "pirating", I not only have a massive music collection, but I've gone out and bought a lot of music too.

I don't know why you keep saying pirating in parentheses. Are you saying that it isn't pirating? If it's not, then what do you consider pirating?

Have you gone back and bought EVERY song that you've ever downloaded illegally? If not, then are you sure that the amount of money that you've spent "because of pirating" is greater than the value of all the songs that you haven't paid for?

I can understand how people being able to download music for free helps some artists gain fans who may have never listened to them otherwise. So what? Even without pirating, there isn't anything stopping artists from releasing their songs for free on their own if they feel it will benefit them. Why shouldn't that be their decision instead of yours? Why do you get to decide what's better for someone else's business?

That would be like if you owned a store, and I painted a big pink elephant on your sign because I thought it'd make more people notice it. Even if more people did notice it, that still wouldn't justify me vandalizing your sign without your permission.

GoldShadow
On the whole, anecdotes aside, the numbers tend to support the idea that artists have not been hurt.

Not that this matters, because like I said, it should be the artists' decision as to whether or not they want to release their songs for free. But just out of curiosity, what numbers are you talking about? You can't just make a statement like that without providing anything to back it up.

If no one was being hurt by pirating, then why would anyone complain about it? If it were true that artists actually benefited more from pirating, like you implied with your story about "pirating getting you into music", then why do you think there are people trying to put an end to pirating? What benefit is there to fighting pirating if it's not hurting anyone, and only helping them?

 

[5backsmack]

All Obama is doing is trying to push for more government control. He wants to make us a socialist state with control over anything he can get his hands on healthcare internet housing GM anything, but once the government can start to regulate the internet then he is dangerously close to regulating media, and information in general.

 

[freeman123]

All Obama is doing is trying to push for more government control. He wants to make us a socialist state with control over anything he can get his hands on healthcare internet housing GM anything, but once the government can start to regulate the internet then he is dangerously close to regulating media, and information in general.

Cracking down on pirating has nothing to do with socialism. If anything, the people who are pro pirating are closer to socialists, because they feel entitled to the product of someone else's labor, which is pretty much what socialism is.

The government already regulates the media, and that's a problem that should be changed, but that also has nothing to do with cracking down on pirating. Stopping people from stealing is one of the few things the government does that they're actually supposed to do.

I don't know if you consider yourself a capitalist, but you can't really call yourself one if you support pirating. Pirating is 100% against capitalism.

Maybe the government cracking down on pirating is a waste of time and money since it may be an unwinnable battle, but that doesn't change the fact that pirating is stealing and goes completely against free market capitalism.

 

[BBQTV]

again it's not stealing

 

[GoldShadow]

Have you gone back and bought EVERY song that you've ever downloaded illegally? If not, then are you sure that the amount of money that you've spent "because of pirating" is greater than the value of all the songs that you haven't paid for?

This was not my original point. My point was-
without pirating: I would not have bought any music
with pirating: I bought lots of music

It doesn't matter that I don't own every song that I downloaded for free, it was just an anecdote to illustrate a counterpoint to yours; ie, an instance where pirating encouraged somebody to buy music. Of course I own more songs than I've paid for, what's your point?

That would be like if you owned a store, and I painted a big pink elephant on your sign because I thought it'd make more people notice it. Even if more people did notice it, that still wouldn't justify me vandalizing your sign without your permission.

...

Not that this matters, because like I said, it should be the artists' decision as to whether or not they want to release their songs for free. But just out of curiosity, what numbers are you talking about? You can't just make a statement like that without providing anything to back it up.

If no one was being hurt by pirating, then why would anyone complain about it? If it were true that artists actually benefited more from pirating, like you implied with your story about "pirating getting you into music", then why do you think there are people trying to put an end to pirating? What benefit is there to fighting pirating if it's not hurting anyone, and only helping them?

The pink elephant on the sign is a strawman.

As for numbers, here you go:

"In one empirical study designed to establish causality between p2p downloads and sales, Felix Oberholzer of Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of UNC-Chapel Hill examined a large dataset of file sharing during the last part of 2002. To their surprise, they found that downloads had an effect on record sales that was 'indistinguishable from zero' (Oberholzer and Strumpf, 2004: 3). Even using their most pessimistic estimates, they conclude that it would take 5000 downloads to displace one sale. As Lessig (2004: 70-71) describes, there are other possible causes for the drop in US sales besides piracy. In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882 million units to 803 million units, and revenues fell by 6.7%. But there was also a 20 percent drop in the number of new CDs released since 1999. Also, from 1999-2001, there was a 7.2% rise in CD prices. In the same period that the RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, 2.1 billion CDs were downloaded for free (Ibid: 71). Lessig points out that if each download were equivalent to one lost sale, as the RIAA assumes in assessing damages, we would be witnessing a 100% drop in sales, not a 7% drop."
http://web.mit.edu/condry/www/pubs/Condry-CultMusPiracy5-04.pdf

And a link to the paper cited in that paragraph:
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf



Some more articles on the industry's bogus statistics and the real numbers:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070823/210721.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070515/110016.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070209/082603.shtml
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/01/18/music-piracy-not-that-bad-industry-says/
http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2009.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads
http://tinfoilmusic.net/news-mainmenu/77-arrrr-pirates/1693-new-music-piracy-statistics



The reason people keep complaining about piracy is because a) the people complaining are the ones who think it hurts them, that is, the record industry, and b) a lot of people don't understand the economics behind pirating. It's mostly the record industry that's making a big deal about it, because they know they're obsolete and don't want to adapt to a changing technological age.

 

[GoldShadow]

I also thought this instructive video would be relevant to this thread:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IeTybKL1pM4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IeTybKL1pM4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[UberMario]

It's still destructive, if people were able to literally copy physical objects (which of course we never will be able to) the economy would cease to exist because no profit is earned, making it [more] difficult for companies to exist.

 

[freeman123]

GoldShadow
This was not my original point. My point was-
without pirating: I would not have bought any music
with pirating: I bought lots of music

Yeah, but if the music you've stolen is of greater value than the music you've bought, then it would have been better if you had never pirated or bought any music at all.

GoldShadow
The pink elephant on the sign is a strawman.

That's not a strawman, it's an analogy. A strawman would be if I was trying to say that you were actually arguing for painting pink elephants on peoples' signs, or if I was making an analogy that didn't fit your actual argument. If you think it's the latter, then explain why you don't think the analogy fits instead of just dismissing it without an explanation.

GoldShadow
"In one empirical study designed to establish causality between p2p downloads and sales, Felix Oberholzer of Harvard Business School and Koleman Strumpf of UNC-Chapel Hill examined a large dataset of file sharing during the last part of 2002. To their surprise, they found that downloads had an effect on record sales that was 'indistinguishable from zero' (Oberholzer and Strumpf, 2004: 3). Even using their most pessimistic estimates, they conclude that it would take 5000 downloads to displace one sale. As Lessig (2004: 70-71) describes, there are other possible causes for the drop in US sales besides piracy. In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882 million units to 803 million units, and revenues fell by 6.7%. But there was also a 20 percent drop in the number of new CDs released since 1999. Also, from 1999-2001, there was a 7.2% rise in CD prices. In the same period that the RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, 2.1 billion CDs were downloaded for free (Ibid: 71). Lessig points out that if each download were equivalent to one lost sale, as the RIAA assumes in assessing damages, we would be witnessing a 100% drop in sales, not a 7% drop."

You said that the numbers show that the industry hasn't been hurt by pirating. If there's been a 7% drop in music sales, then I'd say that the industry has been hurt.

The difference in the number of CDs released from one year to another is irrelevant when talking about percentage of sales. If they release 100 CDs one year and sell 50, then the following year they release 20 CDs and sell 4, you can't blame sales going down on the number of CDs released. 10 CDs should be sold the second year in order for the percentage of sales to be equal to the 50 CDs sold the first year.

The price of CDs going up doesn't justify pirating. If CDs cost more than you think they're worth, you have a right to choose not buy them, but you don't have the right to take them anyway. You don't get to choose the circumstances of how you obtain someone else's product. That's not how the free market works.

And notice how the percentage of increase in cost is about the same as the percentage of decrease in sales. That's because the increase in cost was probably BECAUSE OF the decrease in sales. It's no different than the way stores increase the costs of their products to make up for revenue that they've lost due to shoplifting.

So basically what's happening is the people who are paying for their music are having to pay more to make up for the cost of revenue the music industry has lost due to pirating. In other words, when someone like me buys music, on top of paying for what I'm actually getting, I'm also paying for people like you to have music for free. That's the very definition of socialism. If you think that you're entitled to things and other people should have to pay for them, then go live in a socialist country. There's no reason why I should have to pay for your music just because you're selfish and think you deserve to have it for free.

Also, that article is from 2004. I'm willing to bet that the loss in CD sales is much greater in 2010.

GoldShadow
The reason people keep complaining about piracy is because a) the people complaining are the ones who think it hurts them, that is, the record industry, and b) a lot of people don't understand the economics behind pirating. It's mostly the record industry that's making a big deal about it, because they know they're obsolete and don't want to adapt to a changing technological age.

Why should the record industry have to adapt to people stealing from them? That would be like BP saying that the seafood industry should have to adapt to oil being spilled in the ocean. They shouldn't have to adapt to oil spilled in the ocean because there shouldn't be oil spilled in the ocean, just like the record industry shouldn't have to adapt to pirating because there shouldn't be pirating.

 

[BBQTV]

no one is stealing

 

[GoldShadow]

Freeman, at the moment I don't have time to point out some of the obvious flaws in your previous post (perhaps somebody else would like to?), but you should check out the Intellectual Property thread in the Debate Hall (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=214870) and, perhaps, apply for DH membership so you can throw in your two cents!

 

[Luigitoilet]

BBQTV, SHUT UP. Please, STOP POSTING.

Why should the record industry have to adapt to people stealing from them? That would be like BP saying that the seafood industry should have to adapt to oil being spilled in the ocean. They shouldn't have to adapt to oil spilled in the ocean because there shouldn't be oil spilled in the ocean, just like the record industry shouldn't have to adapt to pirating because there shouldn't be pirating.

What a ridiculous comparison.

Besides, it doesn't matter. There IS oil spilled in the ocean, there IS piracy. Piracy isn't going to end. The same way drug trafficking and gun trafficking hasn't ended even though we have been at "war" with them for almost 40 years.

More importantly, the record executives don't make the music. In the vast majority of cases, they are already stealing the majority of the money that is made from record purchases from the ARTIST- e.g. the one who is creating the product. I never thought I'd see someone white knighting ****ing record labels.

Yes, labels are going obsolete. **** happens, industries go obsolete, people lose jobs. That's life.

 

[The Drifter]

Yes, labels are going obsolete. **** happens, industries go obsolete, people lose jobs. That's life.

This. The people that are against pirating at the people who feel like we're infringing upon a way of life, and God forbid the landscape of the way we do something changes.