Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Yeah. It doen't feel like stealing. That's the problem. Perhaps the whole notion of copyright will disappear over time. Perhaps the whole notion of freelance professional musicians will disappear and we'll be back to a system of patronage.
I used to download lots of pirated movies and music from the internet. Then one day I began to question this behaviour. By using plain reasoning, I could come up with several excuses to justify that behaviour or at least say to myself it's not that bad. Then one day I had a realization while meditating over this issue. I questioned myself as to what was really the reason that motivates me to download pirated movies and music from the internet instead of buying them. Then I saw clearly that it is was greed. Those acts were motivated by greed and what has been clouding my judgment over this issue all along was greed. I realized that I was being greedy and that greed was causing harm to others by depriving them of a benefit to which they are entitled to by law. At that moment, I just knew the right thing to do was to quit.
Not to argue for or against, but to bring up something most people are not aware of regarding the music industry: a musician may write and perform a song, but when signed onto a record label (including independent ones), the record company owns the composition, the lyrics, the music, the recording. It does not belong to the musician. The whole point of being signed onto a major label is exposure. In other words, a recording is advertising, to expose people who otherwise would've never heard of this musician before.
But the difference is that the advert is property not of the musician, but of the record company (Robert Fripp's label is one of the very few exceptions). There have been some musicians (like Fish of Marillion) who is not even permitted to perform certain of his own songs (I think it was EMI that was doing this).
I di think the record company ought to get a percentage of money from the CD sales, but not what they currently get out of the deal. And they should not be allowed to own the music, which was never theirs to begin with (you want to talk about THEFT???)
I'm not saying this makes it therefore OK, but the matter of ownership and the traditional music industry model is insideous and exploitative. Musicians are not the victims of illegal downloaders, they are victims of the record industry. Its criminal:
So, back to our original example of the average musician only earning $23.40 for every $1,000 sold. That money has to go back towards "recouping" the advance, even though the label is still straight up cashing 63% of every sale, which does not go towards making up the advance. The math here gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you start to think about it. These record label deals are basically out and out scams. In a traditional loan, you invest the money and pay back out of your proceeds. But a record label deal is nothing like that at all. They make you a "loan" and then take the first 63% of any dollar you make, get to automatically increase the size of the "loan" by simply adding in all sorts of crazy expenses (did the exec bring in pizza at the recording session? that gets added on), and then tries to get the loan repaid out of what meager pittance they've left for you.
Oh, and after all of that, the record label still owns the copyrights. That's one of the most lopsided business deals ever.
So think of that the next time the RIAA or some major record label exec (or politician) suggests that protecting the record labels is somehow in the musicians' best interests. And then, take a look at the models that some musicians have adopted by going around the major label system. They may not gross as much without the major record label marketing push behind them, but they're netting a whole lot more, and as any business person will tell you (except if that business person is a major label A&R guy trying to sign you to a deal), the net amount is all that matters.
This is the sort of thing that gets brushed under the rug when the RIAA, their lobbyists and the politicians go on and on about "illegal downloads."
Some artists seem to have at least some control over their own music. Look at Garth Brooks and the handful of others who still refuse to sell their music on itunes. That's not the record company controlling that, it's the artist.
Like I said, regardless of who owns the actual material, it isn't you (any general person) so you don't automatically have a right to it just because you don't approve of the RIAA and the other agencies and how they conduct business. If an artist chooses to sign with a big recording studio/label, that is still their choice and they understand that their music becomes someone else's. That doesn't mean it becomes ours.
@JoyfulGirl Actually, I don't, unless it was actually put on youtube by the recording company/studio. It took a bit to get in the habit of checking, but I do it pretty consistently now. I don't spend much time listening to music (or videos) via youtube though, it's mostly used to watch my teacher's videos. At this point, every single song, every single movie, and every single game we have, was purchased legally. I don't always agree with the laws. But then it's a matter of working to change the laws, not breaking them just because I don't agree with them. The precept doesn't say not to steal except from greedy, rich, corrupt organizations. It says not to steal, period.
What about the precepts of not killing? How many of you go fishing? Eat meat? Kill a spider or flie? I view the precepts as guidelines, i think buddhism isnt as black and white as it looks like some of you think.
The internet is undermining the tight rein that the music companies have had for so long. Who exactly owns sound waves? I would have a definite problem with the copying and distribution of sound files for a profit (give me $$$ and I'll email you a copy of this song), but file sharing is not as cut and dry, I don't think. Performers perform and that's how they earn money. People don't go to their shows unless they've heard of them, and usually that is discovered via a recording of some kind or other.
Several weeks ago, Kashi posted up a YouTube file here of some Tibetan mantras that was absolutely spellbinding. Never heard of the artist before (Deva Premal) and I never would have had that not been posted. I listened about half of it and I was already going to iTunes to buy it. Tell me, where in the world would I have been able to listen to this, to even have some exposure to it without the internet? I live near Memphis and it isn't like there are radio stations around here that play that sort of thing! Not to mention other even more obscure music. This is how I discover most music (I haven't listened to the radio in I don't know how long).
I think we've taken for granted just how much the internet has changed the exposure of music--which was previously much more narrow, confined to major labels and local radio stations--and who kept a fairly tight rein on people's listening habits. It could never dictate people's listening interests, but it could keep the pond as small and as narrow as possible to maximise their own profit. (there is also the common practice of record labels signing on an artist who sounds similar to another big artist in order to UN-promote them and relegate them to the dust bin. Of course the artist doesn't find out about their intentions until the ink is on the paper) All of this is falling apart now because of the internet. The old dinosaurs don't like this one bit because it means OTHER musicians are being heard now, one's that aren't contracted with them. They are losing the control they once had. The internet really changes things more than we have known and we still haven't digested all of the implications. But the RIAA is in major resistance mode.
Being a music enthusiast living on both sides of the event (life before and life after the internet) the difference is more radical than most people realise. The record companies and the radio stations know it, and they are right to be scared. Too bad.
I agree, they are all things we practice and improve on, and we all have things that we work on within the precepts and the path. But I also know the areas that challenge me, that I work on, are areas that I either have to accept responsibility for for whatever reason that I cannot (or will not) change my ways, or realize that at least for the time being, I am justifying my poor decisions and behaviors as I work on things and work my way out of them. Some things though are more open to interpretation than others. Finding ways around things though just is often selfish, and I include myself in that assessment.
Yes, you can easily turn it around from "do not take that which is not freely given" and say that the person who did buy the song shared it and that because it belonged to him that makes it ok. But that person didn't own it, that is what makes it stealing. It was not theirs to give, in the case of downloading pirated movies and music. It has to be, *I* think given by the rightful owner. If someone steals something, and then gives it to me and I know it has been stolen, I am still guilty of a crime. Heck sometimes if a person receives stolen property even without knowing it was stolen, it can still be a crime. Now, our laws don't always reflect the precepts, that is true. But in the case of music and movies, that information IS owned by someone, and it's not us. Therefore it is not within our moral rights to do what we please with it, regardless of how we feel about the morals of those who control the music and movies.
Anyhow, it's up to each of us to decide how best to live the precepts (if we have taken them) and the path in the ways that we interpret them. My view is a combined view of how I read the precept on stealing, and the laws regarding piracy (regardless of how I feel about those laws). Just because we convince ourselves that our intent is pure, doesn't always mean it is.
I guess the bottom line for me is that, if the person who actually does own the item/material/information is fine with people sharing and using it, the it's not stealing. If they are not ok with it, and consider it theft of something that belongs to them, then it is theft whether we want to see it as such and whether our intent is truly "I know this isn't mine and I'm going to take it anyhow, muahahaha!!"
If I rent a carpet cleaner to clean my place but let a friend also use it free of charge for his place before I return it, is that theft? If I go to a restaurant with a friend and rather than order two entrees he pays for it and he shares his one entree with me, is that theft? If I pay for an album and play it for a friend who is visiting, is that theft?
I have shared music (which I paid for) with others, with the intent of sharing something they previously had never heard before and ended up enjoying it, creating a new fan of a particular band or even a whole genre of music.
At any rate, I have an absurdly massive and diverse music collection-- maybe 2% of it is illegal downloads (because I could find it nowhere else after a great deal of searching). I'd say that at least 75% of my purchases were due to initially hearing it on YouTube uploaded by a fan. If it weren't for YouTube, iTunes and Amazon would be thousands of dollars poorer for it.
I don't think we are talking about simply sharing a cd with a friend, or even a couple friends. Many of those examples fall under fair use. True piracy does not. If you rented the carpet cleaner and let thousands of other people use it? Yes, I would still consider that wrong, though it would depend in part on the contract you signed when you rented it. We are talking about thousands, and sometimes MILLIONS of copies of songs and movies being shared. Not a few, or even a dozen. Even if there is an upside to it, doesn't necessarily make it ok. If I steal money from my really rich neighbor, but give it to a poorer person, is it not still theft even if the intention was good? Just because it is not mine to take, no matter what my intention was with it. And like I said, many artists, especially smaller and independent ones, expect and even depend on sharing on youtube and so on. But again, it's different if the people who own it are ok with it being shared, and when the owner (whether we really dislike them or not) is saying it's not ok and you do it anyhow, then that is where (for me) it becomes a problem. That's where the freely given portion of the precept comes in.
For what it's worth, I'm not judging anyone who does any of these things. We all have to figure out what it means to us, and arrive at conclusions that we truly and honestly believe are the right thing to do, ideally with the guidance of a teacher who can help us determine if our motives are really pure or if they are just more clinging and greed. I used to have pirated music, and movies. Never a large collection by any means, and in my case I truly and utterly could not afford to buy them, having a son and making $7 an hour. That was my reasoning at the time. Most of that music, I now legally own, along with the movies. I have a friend who literally has terrabytes of movies that are all illegal, and he justifies it that the companies won't miss the money and he wouldn't buy anything he couldn't get for free. For a time my dad got satellite tv for free because he ordered a Russian card for his receiver on the internet. We all make decisions and reason with them. Just make sure that you regularly investigate how you feel about your decisions and actions. As I routinely do so, I find my view evolving and changing rather regularly, and that's a good thing, I think. I usually find that the more I insist on something, the stronger I hold onto it, the more it's a problem for me that I rather would not see.
I think issues may be getting somewhat mixed up. There is the question of whether illegal downloads can be beneficial to musicians which should be kept separate from the question of whether it is right or wrong for one to personally engage in illegal downloading.
Now, I do see it being possible that illegal downloads can in fact benefit musicians. If we were considering the moral integrity of someone who is hosting an illegal filesharing site, then this would be a relevant consideration to factor in. ie. if a person was hosting an illegal filesharing site for an entirely altruistic reason to benefit musicians then that is certainly better than someone who does so for selfish reasons such as to earn revenue from site visitors.
However, for the question of whether it is right or wrong to personally engage in illegal downloading, I don't really see how the fact that illegal downloads can benefit musicians is relevant. When someone is downloading pirated music, is that person ever really doing it altruistically in order to the benefit the musician? It seems that if someone is downloading pirated music themselves, then it would be for their own selfish reasons, ie. to gratify their own desire for pleasant sounds without having to pay the cost of obtaining a legal copy. However, if that is not the case, I would say that the wrongful character of the act of illegal downloading would be mitigated if the intention behind such act was a purely altruistic one.
As for what constitutes stealing, i think karasti's approach that such question be decided by the law of the land is consistent with the Buddha's teachings. In the Vinaya, stealing is regarded as one of the most serious offences for monks which would result in expulsion from the Sangha. The rule against stealing is formulated as such:
Should any bhikkhu, in the manner of stealing, take what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness -- just as when, in the taking of what is not given, kings arresting the criminal would flog, imprison, or banish him, saying, "You are a robber, you are a fool, you are benighted, you are a thief" -- a bhikkhu in the same way taking what is not given is defeated and no longer in communion.
The formulation of the rule which refers to kings arresting criminals indicates that it is the laws of the land that determines whether an act constitutes stealing. This means riverflow's questions can be answered as follows:
"If I rent a carpet cleaner to clean my place but let a friend also use it free of charge for his place before I return it, is that theft?"
When you rent a carpet cleaner you have entered into a contract with the business owner which would state the conditions for the hire. What you should do in this situation is upon returning the carpet cleaner you should ask the business owner whether you were allowed under the contract to let a friend use it. If the contract doesn't allow it then the law probably entitles the business owner to demand compensation from you. If you refuse to pay this compensation, then yes it could be regarded that you have engaged in theft.
On the other hand, if you knew the contract did not allow for use of the cleaner by third parties, and you gave it to your friend for use with the intention to conceal this fact from the business owner so that you won't have to pay extra charges, then yes, this could be considered as theft.
If I go to a restaurant with a friend and rather than order two entrees he pays for it and he shares his one entree with me, is that theft?
I don't think there's any law which requires that one entree per person be ordered in restaurants. However, if there is some sort of sign in the restaurant stipulating that each customer must order one entree each, then that would create a contractual obligation which you have accepted by choosing to eat at the restaurant. If you then try to deceive the restaurant owner that two entrees have been ordered but in fact only one was ordered and paid for by your friend, then yes, that could be regarded as theft.
If I pay for an album and play it for a friend who is visiting, is that theft?
When you buy an album, I think normally you would obtain a license to use it for private, non-commercial home use. So no, that would not be theft.
Of interesting note, most restaurants we go to (even chain restaurants) have a qualifier i the small print of the menu that if you are to share an entree, a $4 charge will be added to the second person. Sharing, most of the time, is not illegal when it happens between 2 people as long as one of them is not breaking a previously agreed upon contract. With with piracy that sharing is not really sharing anymore. A music company isn't going to have a problem with you sharing something with a friend, because like I said before that falls under fair use for most things and is within your rights for the purchased item. Just like I can buy a movie and invite a few friends and their kids over to watch it with us. They will have a problem with you "sharing" 100 cds worth of songs with millions of other people. I'm not sure how a comparison can be made between the 2.
My problem is if the RIAA had its way, the music uploaded on YouTube would be reduced to least-common-denominator music. Sure, I might be able to go to a corporate sponsored channel and get the latest 15-minute-of-fame-pop music, but I can turn on any radio station for that (sorry, I can't even name one current popular performer--I'm happily obvlious to that). But the opportunity to discover new music that isn't as popular would simply be reduced to nil.
I know that the majority of music listeners don't fall into that category, but there are enough of them out there to help sustain more than the latest boy band or whatever people listen to right now. Those lesser known musicians would be known even less were it not for the opportunity that YouTube can provide. If I don't hear it, I'm not aware of its existence. If I'm not aware of its existence, I certainly can't find it so I can pay for a download. If it wasn't for YouTube, I wouldn't have discovered Ellen Fullman's strangely beautiful music. Its not like a TV or radio station is ever going to play her music-- ever. How else would I find out about it? And I could cite numerous other examples of this sort of thing.
Is it theft to listen to an upload by a fan only to turn around and purchase the mp3 afterwards? Because if it wasn't for that upload, I would've never found out about the song and would never have paid for the download later.
I don't want my listening to be limited to the crap music that major labels want to feed me on Clear Channel, MTV, or whatever. Why should they get to dictate to music enthusiasts what we can and can't have exposure to? I can't vouch for file sharing sites since I haven't used them in years (and most of those mp3s were replaced with high quality legal downloads). But I can certainly vouch for YouTube. I think it is a great way to share new music (not "new" new, but in terms "new exposure"). Many people's listening habits are far more diverse now than they were in the 80s or the 90s and the internet has helped to make that possible.
Anyway, whatever the solution is, it isn't corporations legislating against this sort of thing, nor is it the other extreme of letting people download whatever willy-nilly. It isn't a black-and-white issue and it never has been (the music industry did the exact same handwriging with the advent of the tape cassette too, and recording off of the radio, copying records onto cassette).
I wouldn't mind more ads being on YouTube with that money per ad going to the record label even, not too unlike a radio station. YouTube already has ads, though I don't know where that revenue goes. Some people on YouTube complain about the ads, but I wouldn't mind them at all if they provided a way to let fans upload music.
Anyway, I used to keep up with all the goings-on with the RIAA-- it is all about control. It isn't really about the illegal downloads or uploads at all, but clamping down on fans and musicians who don't fall within the manufactured realm of popular music. They want to keep their power over a more narrow range of music which is often mediocre, and therefore easier to throw onto a conveyor belt. And they call that "music."
I do know what you mean, @Riverflow and I do agree overall with what you are saying. I was addressing the more general topic that the OP put out there which is more a problem with mainstream, Billboard top100 musicians. Even more so with albums and movies that are leaked online before their official release. I totally believe that you discover things online and then purchase the music. I have done that a few times, though not often because music isn't a part of my life in the same way it is for you. I don't think that part of it, is a part of the problem so much. I agree that it's not completely black and white, and that it can certainly help the lesser known artists get attention and fans.
As far as music in general, I always found the differences interesting. My ex was a musician. It was an extremely serious thing for him and he was actually offended if he found an artist to be brilliant and someone disagreed. He took great offense to most popular music and just found it horrific to listen to.
But then I realize that we saw music from a completely different point of view and what we got out of it. He was looking at the tone, the exact sound, the quality of the musical notes and how they came together. Bad music to him was like fingernail on a chalkboard, it actually hurt him in some way (he was also HF autistic so he had that going on). For me, I listen to what you and my ex probably qualify as pretty horrible music. But I don't listen to much. I have an ipod with I think 335 songs on it and that is the extent of my entire music collection at this point. Most of it 80s and 90s hair bands and a few random other things, lol. I don't listen to the radio or like most of the current music.
I listen to music (or did mostly in the past) as a way to connect with my own feelings on various matters. I liked it not for how it sounded most of the time, but for how it put words to feelings I couldn't put words to and how it allowed me to wallow in whatever feelings I had at the time. I came at music very different than my ex, and than you, and that is ok, too. But New Kids on the Block played a HUGE role in my early years, lol, as did bands like Motley Crue, Pink Floyd, Metallica, later on some country music, and so on. Like I said, I was about the words, and not the music. Pink Floyd was on band my ex and I could listen to together because I could appreciate the words, and he the music. But that was rare, lol.
ANYHOW, it's just a circle. First of all, I think many people look at music the same way I do, that is why the radio waves are filled with that kind of music. it's not music, it's just words that rhyme, but words that speak to younger people who don't yet have the words to use themselves for how they feel and think. Second, the RIAA puts out what people clamor for. Like so many other things in our society it's fed by what people ask for, and what people ask for is what they are fed. People are told what to like and they buy it pretty easily because of that lack of emotional maturity and meaningful communication in their own lives. I think
Maybe it's a nuance, but I would call downloading a form of free-riding, not stealing. I think stealing causes more suffering than free-riding, so for me they are different categories.
Like Ani DiFranco sais: Downloading music while sometimes necessary is never as good as the real thing
Artists such as Ani DiFranco would not be famous if it was not for bootlegs and people copying cds and tapes. Ani got famous and grew a large fan-base because people would trade tapes. When music is available like it is now it is easier for artists to promote their music, in the end downloading is not really new. Like I said people would copy cds and tapes before too.
Obviously it is not good, but at the same time it is not entirely bad.
I think it is interesting to see how soft people were on people actually fishing and killing fish, when someone writes about downloading some music people are like: "IT IS BAAAAD". While fishing etc... it is just uuuhmmm, depends on your intent. Come on people, it is not all white and black with downloading.
Just for the sake of intellectual discussion, is it wrong to rent books, music, or movies from the library when you could instead pay the creators for those things? Millions of people do this. Is it wrong to buy a used CD rather than pay for a new one? Is it wrong to buy a CD and use it to DJ with? Is it wrong to buy a CD and take samples off of it to make ones own music with? Who should get to decide how much rights someone has over a product they buy?
A library is another case altogether. Book publishers sell their books to libraries. That's their choice.
To your other questions, yes, it is wrong...unless the item is totally out of print.
In terms of DJ'ing...what is the condition of sale?
What do you mean make one's own music with? To you mean you buy a CD and then select a few songs to put on your own home-made CD? If so, that's okay because the record manufacturers get a cut from the sale of blank CDs.
Your last question -- I guess it has to be based on what the law is.
When it comes to intellectual property, let's take this scenario.
You are on a panel of a company. Your pane's job is to brainstorm ideas. John has rifled through your notes that he found on your desk. He comes the meeting and presents your idea as his own. He gets a raise, you get fired because you never come up with any good ideas.
For DJing you bought the CD so you can play it to your 'friends' at the party.
Is that correct? What about what you see at the beginning of each DVD about piracy?
I think the laws regarding DVDs and CDs are the same, event though they are a different media.
At least that's how our school system treated it...and we were a very legally-oriented system because we such a large system and a national leader (even international leader) that they always worried that if our people violated such a law, we could be made an example.
Although I don't think they do it anymore, for a while CD manufactureers -- particularly Capital -- printed very strongly worded warnings on their CDs. It's also illegal for a store, for example, to buy a CD and have it as background music in their store or elevator...unless the CD was created for that reason.
@JoyfulGirl As for the fishing thing, the only thing I said on it as it applies to this situation, is that I accepted any karma I accrued in choosing to fish, and that it was something that was a constantly evolving situation for me. I never insisted it was ok, or that I was off the hook for doing it. Just that in doing it, I knew I was violating a precept and it was something I was working on within myself and taking responsibility for. Not trying to find an excuse for why I should not, or for how or why killing fish didn't fall under the precept.
If you go on bittorrent and download the new IronMan3 and try to tell me it's not stealing, well, I'm sorry but you're wrong. If you are going to download the new Lady Gaga album because you don't want, or can't afford the $16 for the cd, then again, I'm sorry, that's stealing. Are there other issues in which it is not as clear? Yes, for sure. Are there laws I don't agree with? Yes, for sure. I still follow them. Are their precepts and Buddhist ideas I haven't fully come to terms with in-so-far as changing my entire life, and the lives of my entire family around after 36 years of living one way? Yes. But I take responsibility for that and I work on it, every day. I listen to what others say and I investigate how I feel about the issue, and try to make the changes I can and take responsibility morally for that which I am not quite able or ready to change. But I do work on trying not to justify my poor behavior or actions just to convince myself that what I am doing is ok. Sometimes it is ok. Sometimes, it is not. Even when it's not, sometimes we decide to do it anyhow. That's up to us to decide to do, no matter the issue.
First of all @karasti I never meant to attack you and your relationship with fishing personally, it was just an example. I just remember the post, and I don't remember who were posting in it or or not. So, I want to apologize if you felt that you were attacked personally, I don't think that is what this forum should be about.
Second of all, I rarely download anything anymore. So I guess like I have tried to explain in my post I think downloading to some degree is stealing. But I also think that it has its plus sides, and one of them being more people can accsess music, and understand cultural codes. I don't think stealing is always bad actually, I rarely steal (except an occasional downloading). I understand that most of you wont agree because you think downloading is stealing period. Personally I think that is a very black and white way of viewing this issue.
I don't think I have more to add, I think this has been a very interesting discussion.
@JoyfulGirl No no, I don't feel attacked at all. I just know I participated and wanted to clarify my position. It's something I struggle with, to try to ensure that what I'm saying is understood as I intended, lol.
I agree, there are pros and cons to everything, and few things are black and white. There are a lot of things that come into play, of course, and they all have to be considered and measured when we make choices about such things. We do the best we can.
Hang on @riverflow. I think it is a mistake to see the record companies as big bad men stealing the income of their artists. while the artist would benefit more from doing it themselves. Record companies pay advances. This is risk money. and more often than not it is never seen again. The 'hit' rate for artists is thought to be about 10:1. I.e., you need to take enough money off the successful artist to pay for nine failures. The industry wisdom is that it takes about £600,000 to break a new act in the UK. In Nashville it is quite normal for an artist to see no revenue until the third of fourth album, since it is so expensive to establish the artist in the first place. For the label this is all risk money and a lot ot it.
Nor do they own the music. They own the recording and that is all. The intellectual copyright belongs to the artist forever. The publishing belongs to the publisher and artist. The bulk of the money is usually in the publishing, which the label never sees.
Then the label also has to pay for design, manufacturing and distribution. Meanwhile itunes takes 35% of sales. Yes, I did say 35%. Online banking takes a few % also. Etc etc.
Anyone who starts a label these days is a complete idiot, not a greedy exploiter of musicians. I had two labels in the 80s and we gave a lot of help to our artists who were uniformly grateful. This would be impossible now, suicidal in fact.
Youtube is not the problem. The problem is that the last video I put up on Youtube was on the front page of a filesharing site within 24 hours, their featured FREE track and FREE video. If people download from these sites this is not freeing the artist from their label, it is robbing the artist of their income and thus their career. It is also distributing their music in low res MP3 form that sounds cr.. , er, very poor, which is never what an artist wants. Recently someone stripped out the music from a video of ours and used it on their own video, so poor youtube quality was turned into a low res mp3 and re-encoded back to video and re-posted to the public, no credits given to the artist and their work badly represented. This is the sort of thing that causes such a problem.
The artist can benefit, by authorising Youtube to put adverts on the front of all video containing their music, whoever posted them, and sending them the revenue, but it's bolting the stable door too late.
There's no way to turn back the clock but I bet most good artists would if they could. Few see the current situation as being to their benefit. Most would love to be signed to a money-grubbing record label trying to exploit them in every way possible. Then they could pay the rent and concentrate on their art.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but, what's the difference between listening to the song off of YouTube and downloading the audio file off of the video? Kind of like back in the day where we would record the song off of the radio on our big ol' boom boxes.
I'm seeing more and more artists/companies collecting revenue from YouTube advertisement and other similar venues. So if you watch the video over and over again and watch the commercials in the beginning, is that not "paying" for the song? So if you download the song, haven't you paid your $0.99 already?
Not saying that not buying something is now obsolete, but times are changing and artists are finding new ways to get monies for their art besides services like iTunes and physical CD's. As a matter of fact, many indie artists (and some popular bands) are now allowing people to download their music for whatever price they want to pay for it. Amanda Palmer is one of them. I think it's a brilliant idea. If you want to pay $0.99 because you think a song is worth that much, then so be it. If you love Amanda and her art and want to see her continue to flourish and thrive, you could pay $10 for one song. Art should be like that, really. However, I do understand it's just not "art" but it's a business/career as well. Can't live off of air.
I'm not a believer that the big record companies are the bad guys, any more than any company is inherently the bad guy. Frankly, very few of us individuals have the ability to "make" something from raw materials. And essentially, that's what many big companies do.
I am more critical of consumers who want something for nothing. It's the old "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is" philosophy.
I wish now I could cite the article, but I think it was in Australia (?) that one of the big box Best Buy-type stores is now charging a $5 entry fee because so many customers are coming in, seeing what they want, and then leaving and ordering from an online distributor...leaving the store as simply a show room.
I wish now I could cite the article, but I think it was in Australia (?) that one of the big box Best Buy-type stores is now charging a $5 entry fee because so many customers are coming in, seeing what they want, and then leaving and ordering from an online distributor...leaving the store as simply a show room.
In the United States, they are curbing that issue promptly with the online shopping taxes they are beginning to institute. But this is really a totally different idea than downloading music for free online. You're speaking more about little brick and mortar stores versus online shopping/big name outlets, right? Either which way, it is a problem. I try to support local stores/shops as often as I can. It's pricier, but I don't think I'd feel good buying my clothes from a store where a poor 9 year old girl suffered in a sweat shop all day to make me a skirt so I could save $10.
SPEAKING OF... if you have a smartphone, care about certain causes (i.e. sweatshop/child labor, animal cruelty, GLBT discrimination, GMO's in foods, etc.), and shop like the rest of the world has to (hello!), this is an awesome app to have-- and it's free!:
A lot of stores, Target being one of the big ones, actually match online prices, including amazon, to stop that practice of people coming in to check something out and ordering it online cheaper and tax free. You can bring your phone with and show the cost of the item at the register and they'll give you the amazon price. The days of no online sales tax is fast coming to an end. Our state just past a law requiring most online places to collect state sales tax, even if they don't have a brick and mortar store associated with it. I do try to support local stores when I can, but with one income and 5 people to feed, we actually drive 45 miles out of town to do our grocery shopping (though not at walmart, it's a state-based smaller chain) because even with gas at $4 a gallon it's still cheaper. Yesterday I had to buy a bag of shredded cheese locally and it was almost $5 :eek2:
ANYhow, we all try to do the best we can with the money we have. But if our choices or circumstances mean we can't afford something we want, then we should be living without it. Not justifying why we should take it anyhow because somewhere, someone owes us or because we feel it's ok to do because they are a big, rich company. As I said above, I do believe there are some exceptions. But I also think the majority of people who download music and movies for free do it because they can't, or don't want to pay for it, or are too lazy to do so. I do think plenty of people also do it in a manner of "sticking it to the man."
But if our choices or circumstances mean we can't afford something we want, then we should be living without it.
But... isn't that a bit contradictory? I'm just thinking from a vegan mindset. To me, if cheese is that expensive, do you really need it if you can't afford it? Just sayin'. The stuff is poison full of puss and blood and actually leeches calcium from your body (not to mention, incredibly inhumane via factory farming practices). You're better off eating broccoli and spinach or something for your calcium, which is much healthier and in the long run much cheaper. When I changed my diet to a healthier plant based diet, my food bill *decreased,* even though so many people like to scare others into believing that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is the only thing average folks can afford.
Like I said, this is just what went through my mind (since I'm vegan) when I saw your post. Really not trying to preach about veganism, but was more trying to point out your own contradicting statements. You say on one hand that people shouldn't buy things they can't afford or are too pricey, yet you made an "eek" face at the price of cheese. To me, that says you really can't afford it or don't care to pay so much for it at the very least, so why are you buying it?... If you do this with cheese, then you might be doing it with other things (i.e. cable TV, an extra car and car insurance, extra cell phones, etc.). Most times when I see people complaining they don't have enough money (not directing this at you specifically over "cheese", but just in general this popped into my mind just now), I usually find that they *can* find the money to make more humane, wiser choices for their families (i.e. not shop at Wal-Mart or whatever "scandalous" store may be in the news at the time). But deep down they really don't want to, because that would mean they would have to change and give up things they want/are attached to, thus big corporations keep controlling us and win over the little guy (which ironically enough, is "us!"). It seems that is the American mentality, really. "We are poor, we don't have enough money," yet you look at their lifestyle and there is excess and abundance that could be cut back on easily. It's just that they don't want to. They think it's their "right" to have this, that, and the other, and yet STILL complain they don't have enough for more.
I said people shouldn't buy things they cannot afford, what is "too pricey" varies widely among people and families. We needed cheese for our pizza, so we had to buy cheese. It's not as if we are going without something else, or not paying a bill because we bought a package of cheese, so no, I don't see it as contradictory. If I wanted pizza and could not afford $5 for cheese and so stole it, then yes, I would have contradicted myself. Just FYI, don't assume what kind of cheese I am buying or where I am shopping. Not all cheese comes from factory farms (or Kraft, Crystal Farms or any of the other biggies). Which is, in part, why it costs so much. Just because I choose to buy the cheese that costs more, doesn't mean I'm happy to have it cost more. It was expensive to us because normally we can buy the same cheese at the whole food co-op for less and so the higher price was somewhat of a surprise to me. Also don't assume I buy cheese for calcium, as I do not. We eat plenty of leafy green and other fibrous veggies that we grow at home, thanks. We happened to want a home made pizza, and so we needed cheese. It is in no way akin to stealing music because I cannot afford to pay for it so justify taking it.
I said people shouldn't buy things they cannot afford, what is "too pricey" varies widely among people and families. We needed cheese for our pizza, so we had to buy cheese. It's not as if we are going without something else, or not paying a bill because we bought a package of cheese, so no, I don't see it as contradictory. If I wanted pizza and could not afford $5 for cheese and so stole it, then yes, I would have contradicted myself. Just FYI, don't assume what kind of cheese I am buying or where I am shopping. Not all cheese comes from factory farms (or Kraft, Crystal Farms or any of the other biggies). Which is, in part, why it costs so much. Just because I choose to buy the cheese that costs more, doesn't mean I'm happy to have it cost more. It was expensive to us because normally we can buy the same cheese at the whole food co-op for less and so the higher price was somewhat of a surprise to me. Also don't assume I buy cheese for calcium, as I do not. We eat plenty of leafy green and other fibrous veggies that we grow at home, thanks. We happened to want a home made pizza, and so we needed cheese. It is in no way akin to stealing music because I cannot afford to pay for it so justify taking it.
Don't assume I assume.
:nyah:
(P.S. I don't buy your cheese story (humanely grass fed/farm raised cheese for $5??? Did you buy a half of an ounce?? Please.) for one second. No need to fib. And, no, I'm not assuming that one. Don't deflect the topic or take what I said personally. Like I stated, I was talking in general and not directing those comments towards you personally. Even though I stated that, however, it seems that what I have said about acting poor but having more than enough and attachments seems to have struck a chord....)
I've been downloading music for like 10 years now, and it bothered me a bit in the beginning, but not so much nowadays. I'll download anything that's available if I want it, books, movies, games, music. I don't think it's necessarily right, but I obviously don't mind doing it. If it's something from say an indie game developer, I'll usually buy it. Or a musician that I really love, or a movie. I'll buy those too. Overall though, I just grab it.
My local electrical shop just closed after three generations. They blamed model numbers. It means people can check out the product, take the model number and buy it online. Still, at least they buy it.
I agree, Florian. When I buy camera equipment, I can always get it online a little bit cheaper. But, if I can buy it at the camera shop, I do. And then, when I am having a problem with a camera or just need a little tutoring, my camera shop is happy to deal with me, and I go to the front of the line...as compared to the guy who bought online and expects "free" help.
I think that in an ideal world we would not be producing/consuming products associated with animal suffering, modern slavery, huge pollution, destruction of nature or global warming, and we'd not be downloading pirated music or films. I'm an idealistic person, but it seems a little absurd to be so concerned with downloading when we have so many other problems of an entirely different order. Is it strange that I think like this?
I think that in an ideal world we would not be producing/consuming products associated with animal suffering, modern slavery, huge pollution, destruction of nature or global warming, and we'd not be downloading pirated music or films. I'm an idealistic person, but it seems a little absurd to be so concerned with downloading when we have so many other problems of an entirely different order. Is it strange that I think like this?
Good question.
I'd respond by saying that it reminds me of the saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff; it's all small stuff." The problem with that saying is that it's not all small stuff.
When I think of the 5 primary Precepts, I agree with the general consensus that I think I have seen on this forum that in each case one must make judgements. That there are few things in the Precepts that are 100% carved in stone. But I don't think that should open the door to unnecessary exceptions to the Precepts. I'm thinking, for example, of the kids in our school's lunch line who would steal a food item (an apple, or a desert, or a roll). They usually were not poor kids and were not kids on free or reduced lunch benefits. And it usually wasn't about being hungry, because often that same kid would throw a large part of their lunch in the trash. And, when caught, their answer was, "But it's just a roll." I could make an exception for Jean Valjean stealing to feed his family (an example that has been brought up on this forum), but I have a harder time making an exception for something that is not at all a necessity of life -- a song.
You're right, though. There are much bigger fish to fry in life, but sometimes its the smaller issues where an individual can make a bigger impact.
I received your PM's, @karasti, but I'd rather reply here since I sort of need to apologize to everyone, not just you.
I'm sorry I ragged on you about the cheese and the "fibbing" thing. Truth be told, I was just in a really foul mood when I wrote that. It wasn't anything to do with you or your posts, really. I actually felt really bad after I wrote all of that, because it was one of my infamous "in-the-heat-of-the-moment-posts" where I tend to get all judgemental and preachy. I really don't mean to do it, but when I go back and re-read it later with fresh eyes, I can see that sometimes I can come off quite curt and bitchy. So I do apologize for all of that.
It's funny, because a week or so ago Ajahn Brahm posted a video on YouTube, and one of the things he posted was something along the lines of "don't be hypocritical" and go around and telling someone to do [insert thing], but you can't even keep that rule yourself. What made it click that I was doing that myself was when I posted that whole Buycott app post (and created a new thread for it), and someone here pointed out that I was using a sweatshop phone to use an app to find out which products not to buy made in sweatshops.
So anyway, yeah. I remember saying to myself after watching AB's video that, "You know, that's something I really need to work on. I can't point my finger and call someone a hypocrite and point out their inconsistencies and think I'm being all Miss Perfect and flawless." Because as that Buycott app post showed me, sometimes I don't even know I'm being a dang fool even though I'm trying hard not to.
So yeah... maybe one day I'll get all of this right. But when I'm wrong I like to admit I'm wrong. (And if I don't admit I'm wrong, it's either because I really am seeing something different than you, or having a civil conversation is not an option at that point or even ever.) But I do try to admit when I'm wrong and apologize for it. And I tend to be wrong a lot. So, I am sorry. I'm really working nowadays on trying to realize I'm not always right and take other peoples' perceptions and feelings into consideration. I know I don't like it when people do it to me, so why would I think people like it when I do it to them?
Okay... sorry for going off topic. But this is pretty much an apology to anyone I have been bitchy towards during the past couple of days here.
I need to write a short addendum to the previous post b/c when I re-read it just now, it doesn't really make any sense-- at least not the way I intended it to.
I wasn't saying sorry for "calling you out" on "being hypocritical", @karasti. I was saying sorry for *accusing you* of being contradictory/hypocritical when you weren't. And I'm was also trying to admit to the fact that I am being exactly that of what I was falsely accusing you of doing. Does that sound a bit clearer now?
I actually had 2 different stories going on in my mind at the time, but they melded together when I was writing the above post (made sense in my mind when I was writing it). What I was trying to illustrate (but I left this point out somehow) is that I'm also acting hypocritical, not just with the Buycott thing, but also when I go shopping, I know I'm not always grabbing for the most humane options, just as how I unjustly accused you of doing. So I pretty much projected my own short comings onto you, really. Your PMs were right; I know nothing about you or what you do or where you shop or how you spend your money, etc. So, again, I'm sorry for trying to play mind reader and scolding you for things I may do myself, actually.
I hope that clears things up a bit. The above post sounded muddled to me, so I thought better safe than sorry and came back to re-explain. Thanks.
I knew what you meant, @SillyPutty, and like I said I am sorry too if my PM came across as bitchy. All is good! I have my bad bitchy days, too.
It's funny to think about, isn't it, when we have a lot of ideals in mind about things and then realize that we can't, or don't, live by them ourselves. As the saying goes (and i find often true for myself) we need to practice the most what we try to teach others, lol. It's just like with the mining thing here, I'm against the mining yet I use things all day, every day, that require the materials they get from mining. In a sense, we're all hypocrites about some things. In some cases, our finances simply can't keep up with our ideals, or living in society can't keep up with what our values might prefer. Value conflict is just difficult, for sure. In many senses, I'd rather not have a computer at all, but it's pretty hard to get along without it. All the information from the school, from activity teams, bills, it all comes through the computer. I can't not have a phone when I have a kid with a life-threatening medical condition. So, we can only do our best, we all do and I know you aren't any exception to that
In a sense, we're all hypocrites about some things. In some cases, our finances simply can't keep up with our ideals, or living in society can't keep up with what our values might prefer. Value conflict is just difficult, for sure.
In this world of ours, We walk above hell, Gazing at flowers.
Comments
But the difference is that the advert is property not of the musician, but of the record company (Robert Fripp's label is one of the very few exceptions). There have been some musicians (like Fish of Marillion) who is not even permitted to perform certain of his own songs (I think it was EMI that was doing this).
I di think the record company ought to get a percentage of money from the CD sales, but not what they currently get out of the deal. And they should not be allowed to own the music, which was never theirs to begin with (you want to talk about THEFT???)
I'm not saying this makes it therefore OK, but the matter of ownership and the traditional music industry model is insideous and exploitative. Musicians are not the victims of illegal downloaders, they are victims of the record industry. Its criminal:
techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml : This is the sort of thing that gets brushed under the rug when the RIAA, their lobbyists and the politicians go on and on about "illegal downloads."
Like I said, regardless of who owns the actual material, it isn't you (any general person) so you don't automatically have a right to it just because you don't approve of the RIAA and the other agencies and how they conduct business. If an artist chooses to sign with a big recording studio/label, that is still their choice and they understand that their music becomes someone else's. That doesn't mean it becomes ours.
@JoyfulGirl Actually, I don't, unless it was actually put on youtube by the recording company/studio. It took a bit to get in the habit of checking, but I do it pretty consistently now. I don't spend much time listening to music (or videos) via youtube though, it's mostly used to watch my teacher's videos. At this point, every single song, every single movie, and every single game we have, was purchased legally. I don't always agree with the laws. But then it's a matter of working to change the laws, not breaking them just because I don't agree with them. The precept doesn't say not to steal except from greedy, rich, corrupt organizations. It says not to steal, period.
Several weeks ago, Kashi posted up a YouTube file here of some Tibetan mantras that was absolutely spellbinding. Never heard of the artist before (Deva Premal) and I never would have had that not been posted. I listened about half of it and I was already going to iTunes to buy it. Tell me, where in the world would I have been able to listen to this, to even have some exposure to it without the internet? I live near Memphis and it isn't like there are radio stations around here that play that sort of thing! Not to mention other even more obscure music. This is how I discover most music (I haven't listened to the radio in I don't know how long).
I think we've taken for granted just how much the internet has changed the exposure of music--which was previously much more narrow, confined to major labels and local radio stations--and who kept a fairly tight rein on people's listening habits. It could never dictate people's listening interests, but it could keep the pond as small and as narrow as possible to maximise their own profit. (there is also the common practice of record labels signing on an artist who sounds similar to another big artist in order to UN-promote them and relegate them to the dust bin. Of course the artist doesn't find out about their intentions until the ink is on the paper) All of this is falling apart now because of the internet. The old dinosaurs don't like this one bit because it means OTHER musicians are being heard now, one's that aren't contracted with them. They are losing the control they once had. The internet really changes things more than we have known and we still haven't digested all of the implications. But the RIAA is in major resistance mode.
Being a music enthusiast living on both sides of the event (life before and life after the internet) the difference is more radical than most people realise. The record companies and the radio stations know it, and they are right to be scared. Too bad.
Yes, you can easily turn it around from "do not take that which is not freely given" and say that the person who did buy the song shared it and that because it belonged to him that makes it ok. But that person didn't own it, that is what makes it stealing. It was not theirs to give, in the case of downloading pirated movies and music. It has to be, *I* think given by the rightful owner. If someone steals something, and then gives it to me and I know it has been stolen, I am still guilty of a crime. Heck sometimes if a person receives stolen property even without knowing it was stolen, it can still be a crime. Now, our laws don't always reflect the precepts, that is true. But in the case of music and movies, that information IS owned by someone, and it's not us. Therefore it is not within our moral rights to do what we please with it, regardless of how we feel about the morals of those who control the music and movies.
Anyhow, it's up to each of us to decide how best to live the precepts (if we have taken them) and the path in the ways that we interpret them. My view is a combined view of how I read the precept on stealing, and the laws regarding piracy (regardless of how I feel about those laws). Just because we convince ourselves that our intent is pure, doesn't always mean it is.
I guess the bottom line for me is that, if the person who actually does own the item/material/information is fine with people sharing and using it, the it's not stealing. If they are not ok with it, and consider it theft of something that belongs to them, then it is theft whether we want to see it as such and whether our intent is truly "I know this isn't mine and I'm going to take it anyhow, muahahaha!!"
I have shared music (which I paid for) with others, with the intent of sharing something they previously had never heard before and ended up enjoying it, creating a new fan of a particular band or even a whole genre of music.
At any rate, I have an absurdly massive and diverse music collection-- maybe 2% of it is illegal downloads (because I could find it nowhere else after a great deal of searching). I'd say that at least 75% of my purchases were due to initially hearing it on YouTube uploaded by a fan. If it weren't for YouTube, iTunes and Amazon would be thousands of dollars poorer for it.
For what it's worth, I'm not judging anyone who does any of these things. We all have to figure out what it means to us, and arrive at conclusions that we truly and honestly believe are the right thing to do, ideally with the guidance of a teacher who can help us determine if our motives are really pure or if they are just more clinging and greed. I used to have pirated music, and movies. Never a large collection by any means, and in my case I truly and utterly could not afford to buy them, having a son and making $7 an hour. That was my reasoning at the time. Most of that music, I now legally own, along with the movies. I have a friend who literally has terrabytes of movies that are all illegal, and he justifies it that the companies won't miss the money and he wouldn't buy anything he couldn't get for free. For a time my dad got satellite tv for free because he ordered a Russian card for his receiver on the internet. We all make decisions and reason with them. Just make sure that you regularly investigate how you feel about your decisions and actions. As I routinely do so, I find my view evolving and changing rather regularly, and that's a good thing, I think. I usually find that the more I insist on something, the stronger I hold onto it, the more it's a problem for me that I rather would not see.
Now, I do see it being possible that illegal downloads can in fact benefit musicians. If we were considering the moral integrity of someone who is hosting an illegal filesharing site, then this would be a relevant consideration to factor in. ie. if a person was hosting an illegal filesharing site for an entirely altruistic reason to benefit musicians then that is certainly better than someone who does so for selfish reasons such as to earn revenue from site visitors.
However, for the question of whether it is right or wrong to personally engage in illegal downloading, I don't really see how the fact that illegal downloads can benefit musicians is relevant. When someone is downloading pirated music, is that person ever really doing it altruistically in order to the benefit the musician? It seems that if someone is downloading pirated music themselves, then it would be for their own selfish reasons, ie. to gratify their own desire for pleasant sounds without having to pay the cost of obtaining a legal copy. However, if that is not the case, I would say that the wrongful character of the act of illegal downloading would be mitigated if the intention behind such act was a purely altruistic one.
As for what constitutes stealing, i think karasti's approach that such question be decided by the law of the land is consistent with the Buddha's teachings. In the Vinaya, stealing is regarded as one of the most serious offences for monks which would result in expulsion from the Sangha. The rule against stealing is formulated as such: The formulation of the rule which refers to kings arresting criminals indicates that it is the laws of the land that determines whether an act constitutes stealing. This means riverflow's questions can be answered as follows: When you rent a carpet cleaner you have entered into a contract with the business owner which would state the conditions for the hire. What you should do in this situation is upon returning the carpet cleaner you should ask the business owner whether you were allowed under the contract to let a friend use it. If the contract doesn't allow it then the law probably entitles the business owner to demand compensation from you. If you refuse to pay this compensation, then yes it could be regarded that you have engaged in theft.
On the other hand, if you knew the contract did not allow for use of the cleaner by third parties, and you gave it to your friend for use with the intention to conceal this fact from the business owner so that you won't have to pay extra charges, then yes, this could be considered as theft. I don't think there's any law which requires that one entree per person be ordered in restaurants. However, if there is some sort of sign in the restaurant stipulating that each customer must order one entree each, then that would create a contractual obligation which you have accepted by choosing to eat at the restaurant. If you then try to deceive the restaurant owner that two entrees have been ordered but in fact only one was ordered and paid for by your friend, then yes, that could be regarded as theft. When you buy an album, I think normally you would obtain a license to use it for private, non-commercial home use. So no, that would not be theft.
Sharing, most of the time, is not illegal when it happens between 2 people as long as one of them is not breaking a previously agreed upon contract. With with piracy that sharing is not really sharing anymore. A music company isn't going to have a problem with you sharing something with a friend, because like I said before that falls under fair use for most things and is within your rights for the purchased item. Just like I can buy a movie and invite a few friends and their kids over to watch it with us. They will have a problem with you "sharing" 100 cds worth of songs with millions of other people. I'm not sure how a comparison can be made between the 2.
I know that the majority of music listeners don't fall into that category, but there are enough of them out there to help sustain more than the latest boy band or whatever people listen to right now. Those lesser known musicians would be known even less were it not for the opportunity that YouTube can provide. If I don't hear it, I'm not aware of its existence. If I'm not aware of its existence, I certainly can't find it so I can pay for a download. If it wasn't for YouTube, I wouldn't have discovered Ellen Fullman's strangely beautiful music. Its not like a TV or radio station is ever going to play her music-- ever. How else would I find out about it? And I could cite numerous other examples of this sort of thing.
Is it theft to listen to an upload by a fan only to turn around and purchase the mp3 afterwards? Because if it wasn't for that upload, I would've never found out about the song and would never have paid for the download later.
I don't want my listening to be limited to the crap music that major labels want to feed me on Clear Channel, MTV, or whatever. Why should they get to dictate to music enthusiasts what we can and can't have exposure to? I can't vouch for file sharing sites since I haven't used them in years (and most of those mp3s were replaced with high quality legal downloads). But I can certainly vouch for YouTube. I think it is a great way to share new music (not "new" new, but in terms "new exposure"). Many people's listening habits are far more diverse now than they were in the 80s or the 90s and the internet has helped to make that possible.
Anyway, whatever the solution is, it isn't corporations legislating against this sort of thing, nor is it the other extreme of letting people download whatever willy-nilly. It isn't a black-and-white issue and it never has been (the music industry did the exact same handwriging with the advent of the tape cassette too, and recording off of the radio, copying records onto cassette).
I wouldn't mind more ads being on YouTube with that money per ad going to the record label even, not too unlike a radio station. YouTube already has ads, though I don't know where that revenue goes. Some people on YouTube complain about the ads, but I wouldn't mind them at all if they provided a way to let fans upload music.
Anyway, I used to keep up with all the goings-on with the RIAA-- it is all about control. It isn't really about the illegal downloads or uploads at all, but clamping down on fans and musicians who don't fall within the manufactured realm of popular music. They want to keep their power over a more narrow range of music which is often mediocre, and therefore easier to throw onto a conveyor belt. And they call that "music."
As far as music in general, I always found the differences interesting. My ex was a musician. It was an extremely serious thing for him and he was actually offended if he found an artist to be brilliant and someone disagreed. He took great offense to most popular music and just found it horrific to listen to.
But then I realize that we saw music from a completely different point of view and what we got out of it. He was looking at the tone, the exact sound, the quality of the musical notes and how they came together. Bad music to him was like fingernail on a chalkboard, it actually hurt him in some way (he was also HF autistic so he had that going on). For me, I listen to what you and my ex probably qualify as pretty horrible music. But I don't listen to much. I have an ipod with I think 335 songs on it and that is the extent of my entire music collection at this point. Most of it 80s and 90s hair bands and a few random other things, lol. I don't listen to the radio or like most of the current music.
I listen to music (or did mostly in the past) as a way to connect with my own feelings on various matters. I liked it not for how it sounded most of the time, but for how it put words to feelings I couldn't put words to and how it allowed me to wallow in whatever feelings I had at the time. I came at music very different than my ex, and than you, and that is ok, too. But New Kids on the Block played a HUGE role in my early years, lol, as did bands like Motley Crue, Pink Floyd, Metallica, later on some country music, and so on. Like I said, I was about the words, and not the music. Pink Floyd was on band my ex and I could listen to together because I could appreciate the words, and he the music. But that was rare, lol.
ANYHOW, it's just a circle. First of all, I think many people look at music the same way I do, that is why the radio waves are filled with that kind of music. it's not music, it's just words that rhyme, but words that speak to younger people who don't yet have the words to use themselves for how they feel and think. Second, the RIAA puts out what people clamor for. Like so many other things in our society it's fed by what people ask for, and what people ask for is what they are fed. People are told what to like and they buy it pretty easily because of that lack of emotional maturity and meaningful communication in their own lives. I think
To your other questions, yes, it is wrong...unless the item is totally out of print.
In terms of DJ'ing...what is the condition of sale?
What do you mean make one's own music with? To you mean you buy a CD and then select a few songs to put on your own home-made CD? If so, that's okay because the record manufacturers get a cut from the sale of blank CDs.
Your last question -- I guess it has to be based on what the law is.
You are on a panel of a company. Your pane's job is to brainstorm ideas. John has rifled through your notes that he found on your desk. He comes the meeting and presents your idea as his own. He gets a raise, you get fired because you never come up with any good ideas.
That's intellectual property.
This is music CD, right?
At least that's how our school system treated it...and we were a very legally-oriented system because we such a large system and a national leader (even international leader) that they always worried that if our people violated such a law, we could be made an example.
If you go on bittorrent and download the new IronMan3 and try to tell me it's not stealing, well, I'm sorry but you're wrong. If you are going to download the new Lady Gaga album because you don't want, or can't afford the $16 for the cd, then again, I'm sorry, that's stealing. Are there other issues in which it is not as clear? Yes, for sure. Are there laws I don't agree with? Yes, for sure. I still follow them. Are their precepts and Buddhist ideas I haven't fully come to terms with in-so-far as changing my entire life, and the lives of my entire family around after 36 years of living one way? Yes. But I take responsibility for that and I work on it, every day. I listen to what others say and I investigate how I feel about the issue, and try to make the changes I can and take responsibility morally for that which I am not quite able or ready to change. But I do work on trying not to justify my poor behavior or actions just to convince myself that what I am doing is ok. Sometimes it is ok. Sometimes, it is not. Even when it's not, sometimes we decide to do it anyhow. That's up to us to decide to do, no matter the issue.
First of all @karasti I never meant to attack you and your relationship with fishing personally, it was just an example. I just remember the post, and I don't remember who were posting in it or or not. So, I want to apologize if you felt that you were attacked personally, I don't think that is what this forum should be about.
Second of all, I rarely download anything anymore. So I guess like I have tried to explain in my post I think downloading to some degree is stealing. But I also think that it has its plus sides, and one of them being more people can accsess music, and understand cultural codes. I don't think stealing is always bad actually, I rarely steal (except an occasional downloading). I understand that most of you wont agree because you think downloading is stealing period. Personally I think that is a very black and white way of viewing this issue.
I don't think I have more to add, I think this has been a very interesting discussion.
I agree, there are pros and cons to everything, and few things are black and white. There are a lot of things that come into play, of course, and they all have to be considered and measured when we make choices about such things. We do the best we can.
Nor do they own the music. They own the recording and that is all. The intellectual copyright belongs to the artist forever. The publishing belongs to the publisher and artist. The bulk of the money is usually in the publishing, which the label never sees.
Then the label also has to pay for design, manufacturing and distribution. Meanwhile itunes takes 35% of sales. Yes, I did say 35%. Online banking takes a few % also. Etc etc.
Anyone who starts a label these days is a complete idiot, not a greedy exploiter of musicians. I had two labels in the 80s and we gave a lot of help to our artists who were uniformly grateful. This would be impossible now, suicidal in fact.
Youtube is not the problem. The problem is that the last video I put up on Youtube was on the front page of a filesharing site within 24 hours, their featured FREE track and FREE video. If people download from these sites this is not freeing the artist from their label, it is robbing the artist of their income and thus their career. It is also distributing their music in low res MP3 form that sounds cr.. , er, very poor, which is never what an artist wants. Recently someone stripped out the music from a video of ours and used it on their own video, so poor youtube quality was turned into a low res mp3 and re-encoded back to video and re-posted to the public, no credits given to the artist and their work badly represented. This is the sort of thing that causes such a problem.
The artist can benefit, by authorising Youtube to put adverts on the front of all video containing their music, whoever posted them, and sending them the revenue, but it's bolting the stable door too late.
There's no way to turn back the clock but I bet most good artists would if they could. Few see the current situation as being to their benefit. Most would love to be signed to a money-grubbing record label trying to exploit them in every way possible. Then they could pay the rent and concentrate on their art.
I'm seeing more and more artists/companies collecting revenue from YouTube advertisement and other similar venues. So if you watch the video over and over again and watch the commercials in the beginning, is that not "paying" for the song? So if you download the song, haven't you paid your $0.99 already?
Not saying that not buying something is now obsolete, but times are changing and artists are finding new ways to get monies for their art besides services like iTunes and physical CD's. As a matter of fact, many indie artists (and some popular bands) are now allowing people to download their music for whatever price they want to pay for it. Amanda Palmer is one of them. I think it's a brilliant idea. If you want to pay $0.99 because you think a song is worth that much, then so be it. If you love Amanda and her art and want to see her continue to flourish and thrive, you could pay $10 for one song. Art should be like that, really. However, I do understand it's just not "art" but it's a business/career as well. Can't live off of air.
I am more critical of consumers who want something for nothing. It's the old "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is" philosophy.
I wish now I could cite the article, but I think it was in Australia (?) that one of the big box Best Buy-type stores is now charging a $5 entry fee because so many customers are coming in, seeing what they want, and then leaving and ordering from an online distributor...leaving the store as simply a show room.
SPEAKING OF... if you have a smartphone, care about certain causes (i.e. sweatshop/child labor, animal cruelty, GLBT discrimination, GMO's in foods, etc.), and shop like the rest of the world has to (hello!), this is an awesome app to have-- and it's free!:
http://www.buycott.com/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/05/14/new-app-lets-you-boycott-koch-brothers-monsanto-and-more-by-scanning-your-shopping-cart/
ANYhow, we all try to do the best we can with the money we have. But if our choices or circumstances mean we can't afford something we want, then we should be living without it. Not justifying why we should take it anyhow because somewhere, someone owes us or because we feel it's ok to do because they are a big, rich company. As I said above, I do believe there are some exceptions. But I also think the majority of people who download music and movies for free do it because they can't, or don't want to pay for it, or are too lazy to do so. I do think plenty of people also do it in a manner of "sticking it to the man."
Like I said, this is just what went through my mind (since I'm vegan) when I saw your post. Really not trying to preach about veganism, but was more trying to point out your own contradicting statements. You say on one hand that people shouldn't buy things they can't afford or are too pricey, yet you made an "eek" face at the price of cheese. To me, that says you really can't afford it or don't care to pay so much for it at the very least, so why are you buying it?... If you do this with cheese, then you might be doing it with other things (i.e. cable TV, an extra car and car insurance, extra cell phones, etc.). Most times when I see people complaining they don't have enough money (not directing this at you specifically over "cheese", but just in general this popped into my mind just now), I usually find that they *can* find the money to make more humane, wiser choices for their families (i.e. not shop at Wal-Mart or whatever "scandalous" store may be in the news at the time). But deep down they really don't want to, because that would mean they would have to change and give up things they want/are attached to, thus big corporations keep controlling us and win over the little guy (which ironically enough, is "us!"). It seems that is the American mentality, really. "We are poor, we don't have enough money," yet you look at their lifestyle and there is excess and abundance that could be cut back on easily. It's just that they don't want to. They think it's their "right" to have this, that, and the other, and yet STILL complain they don't have enough for more.
Just FYI, don't assume what kind of cheese I am buying or where I am shopping. Not all cheese comes from factory farms (or Kraft, Crystal Farms or any of the other biggies). Which is, in part, why it costs so much. Just because I choose to buy the cheese that costs more, doesn't mean I'm happy to have it cost more. It was expensive to us because normally we can buy the same cheese at the whole food co-op for less and so the higher price was somewhat of a surprise to me. Also don't assume I buy cheese for calcium, as I do not. We eat plenty of leafy green and other fibrous veggies that we grow at home, thanks. We happened to want a home made pizza, and so we needed cheese. It is in no way akin to stealing music because I cannot afford to pay for it so justify taking it.
:nyah:
(P.S. I don't buy your cheese story (humanely grass fed/farm raised cheese for $5??? Did you buy a half of an ounce?? Please.) for one second. No need to fib. And, no, I'm not assuming that one. Don't deflect the topic or take what I said personally. Like I stated, I was talking in general and not directing those comments towards you personally. Even though I stated that, however, it seems that what I have said about acting poor but having more than enough and attachments seems to have struck a chord....)
My local electrical shop just closed after three generations. They blamed model numbers. It means people can check out the product, take the model number and buy it online. Still, at least they buy it.
I'm an idealistic person, but it seems a little absurd to be so concerned with downloading when we have so many other problems of an entirely different order. Is it strange that I think like this?
I'd respond by saying that it reminds me of the saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff; it's all small stuff." The problem with that saying is that it's not all small stuff.
When I think of the 5 primary Precepts, I agree with the general consensus that I think I have seen on this forum that in each case one must make judgements. That there are few things in the Precepts that are 100% carved in stone. But I don't think that should open the door to unnecessary exceptions to the Precepts. I'm thinking, for example, of the kids in our school's lunch line who would steal a food item (an apple, or a desert, or a roll). They usually were not poor kids and were not kids on free or reduced lunch benefits. And it usually wasn't about being hungry, because often that same kid would throw a large part of their lunch in the trash. And, when caught, their answer was, "But it's just a roll." I could make an exception for Jean Valjean stealing to feed his family (an example that has been brought up on this forum), but I have a harder time making an exception for something that is not at all a necessity of life -- a song.
You're right, though. There are much bigger fish to fry in life, but sometimes its the smaller issues where an individual can make a bigger impact.
I'm sorry I ragged on you about the cheese and the "fibbing" thing. Truth be told, I was just in a really foul mood when I wrote that. It wasn't anything to do with you or your posts, really. I actually felt really bad after I wrote all of that, because it was one of my infamous "in-the-heat-of-the-moment-posts" where I tend to get all judgemental and preachy. I really don't mean to do it, but when I go back and re-read it later with fresh eyes, I can see that sometimes I can come off quite curt and bitchy. So I do apologize for all of that.
It's funny, because a week or so ago Ajahn Brahm posted a video on YouTube, and one of the things he posted was something along the lines of "don't be hypocritical" and go around and telling someone to do [insert thing], but you can't even keep that rule yourself. What made it click that I was doing that myself was when I posted that whole Buycott app post (and created a new thread for it), and someone here pointed out that I was using a sweatshop phone to use an app to find out which products not to buy made in sweatshops.
So anyway, yeah. I remember saying to myself after watching AB's video that, "You know, that's something I really need to work on. I can't point my finger and call someone a hypocrite and point out their inconsistencies and think I'm being all Miss Perfect and flawless." Because as that Buycott app post showed me, sometimes I don't even know I'm being a dang fool even though I'm trying hard not to.
So yeah... maybe one day I'll get all of this right. But when I'm wrong I like to admit I'm wrong. (And if I don't admit I'm wrong, it's either because I really am seeing something different than you, or having a civil conversation is not an option at that point or even ever.) But I do try to admit when I'm wrong and apologize for it. And I tend to be wrong a lot.
Okay... sorry for going off topic. But this is pretty much an apology to anyone I have been bitchy towards during the past couple of days here.
I wasn't saying sorry for "calling you out" on "being hypocritical", @karasti. I was saying sorry for *accusing you* of being contradictory/hypocritical when you weren't. And I'm was also trying to admit to the fact that I am being exactly that of what I was falsely accusing you of doing. Does that sound a bit clearer now?
I actually had 2 different stories going on in my mind at the time, but they melded together when I was writing the above post (made sense in my mind when I was writing it). What I was trying to illustrate (but I left this point out somehow) is that I'm also acting hypocritical, not just with the Buycott thing, but also when I go shopping, I know I'm not always grabbing for the most humane options, just as how I unjustly accused you of doing. So I pretty much projected my own short comings onto you, really. Your PMs were right; I know nothing about you or what you do or where you shop or how you spend your money, etc. So, again, I'm sorry for trying to play mind reader and scolding you for things I may do myself, actually.
I hope that clears things up a bit. The above post sounded muddled to me, so I thought better safe than sorry and came back to re-explain. Thanks.
It's funny to think about, isn't it, when we have a lot of ideals in mind about things and then realize that we can't, or don't, live by them ourselves. As the saying goes (and i find often true for myself) we need to practice the most what we try to teach others, lol. It's just like with the mining thing here, I'm against the mining yet I use things all day, every day, that require the materials they get from mining. In a sense, we're all hypocrites about some things. In some cases, our finances simply can't keep up with our ideals, or living in society can't keep up with what our values might prefer. Value conflict is just difficult, for sure. In many senses, I'd rather not have a computer at all, but it's pretty hard to get along without it. All the information from the school, from activity teams, bills, it all comes through the computer. I can't not have a phone when I have a kid with a life-threatening medical condition. So, we can only do our best, we all do and I know you aren't any exception to that
We walk above hell,
Gazing at flowers.
~ Issa