Downloading

Indeed, I also hope that we'll see a change towards free downloads ... another factor that could help is that today the cost of recording/producing music is much lower than it was 20 years ago. With the current technology it's possible that artists record and produce their music on their own - which means that they're also free to decide how to distribute it.

BTW: I fully agree on what Seth Godin said about the industry, and "vinyl and polycarbonate" in particular. The actual music is what's most important, not the medium. Sure, booklet and cover art are nice, but ultimately they're just marketing tools. Today you can go to the artist's website or wikipedia page ... all the important information is there. No need for booklets. I know why some people say that they don't like downloads because they need to have something tangible, but IMO that is a mind set which will slowly become extinct. I'll say it again: The actual music is that which really matters ... and by purchasing mp3s I get it all. 

rogerthat wrote: But most people know it's wrong to steal because they have been conditioned to accept it - by parents and society, and by seeing thieves being made an example of.  That doesn't seem happen in the internet world because lot of parents themselves download and they are not seen to get caught and punished.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 05:08

I have been following this discussion with much interest and think it is a very important one. It also made me think what my opinion was, but to be honest I had never really thought about it and do not have so much of an opinion. So I did not vote yet.

With that in mind this morning, I found a blogpost of Seth Godin. I had never heard of him, but what he said was very interesting. His overall point (as I understood it) was that it needs a new paradigm to get solved and that was something, I think, I can agree with.

Here is the blogpost: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/02/music-vs-the-music-industry.html     

And here is the interview where he is reffering to:  http://www.rollogrady.com/rollo-grady-interview-seth-godin/

 

Some parts:

“The music industry is really focused on the 'industry' part and not so much on the 'music' part. This is the greatest moment in the history of music if your dream is to distribute as much music as possible to as many people as possible, or if your goal is to make it as easy as possible to become heard as a musician. There's never been a time like this before. So if your focus is on music, it's great. If your focus is on the industry part and the limos, the advances, the lawyers, polycarbonate and vinyl, it's horrible. The shift that is happening right now is that the people who insist on keeping the world as it was are going to get more and more frustrated until they lose their jobs. People who want to invent a whole new set of rules, a new paradigm, can't believe their good fortune and how lucky they are that the people in the industry aren't noticing an opportunity”.

“Digital is about to surpass the CD, and once it starts to happen it's going to happen faster and faster and faster. The more interesting thing to me is who is going to control the playlist. If there is an infinite amount of music available - and I would argue that as soon as the amount of music available exceeds the amount of time you have in your life, that's infinite - somebody will have the leverageable spot of deciding what to listen to next. And it's unclear whether someone will charge to tell me that or will pay to tell me that. It's still up for grabs in every one of these vertical silos. Who are the tastemakers and how do these ideas spread? The analogy I like to give is if you're an author and Oprah Winfrey calls, you don't say, ‘How much are you going to pay me to go on your show and give away all the ideas in my book?’ In fact, if you could you would pay to be on Oprah.”

“It's really fine and good to have a moral or ethical conversation. I think it's more productive to have a practical conversation about power. The fact is that the industry will never have enough power to keep someone from pirating something because they think they're going to end up in jail. The numbers that would end up in jail are too big. They're probably not going to have enough power to get people not to copy something because they think it will get them in trouble with their mom. After all, it's an industry built on getting in trouble with your mom”.

rogerthat wrote: Yes, but it will happen in the absence of killer penalties and their being seen to be enforced.  The most important difference in the internet world is not people's morality - which is the same as in any other situation - but that the internet is so difficult to administer.

I'm not so sure that is true - I think in the Real World most people do not steal because they know it is wrong, not because it is inherantly more difficult to do than simply pressing "save" or through fear of getting caught or because they believe that the concept of ownership (or whatever) is unethical. The reason for this is nothing to do with morality - it is simple self-preservation - if stealing is a valid means of ownership, then it would be impossible to own anything (including the shirt on your back).

In essence, yes. The killer blow was cheap mass storage - once people had the ability to store large files Pandora's box was open. But to paraphrase the NRA - PCs don't download illegally, people download illegally - just because you have the tools does not make it legal to use them.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 03:06

You have to transfer information from the internet to your PC to be able to see web-pages - the saving of that information is a process that runs on your PC - if it wasn't built in to your browser, then someone would create a routine to do it and there is nothing anyone could do to stop that. Torrent software does not download and save whole files - it is done in small packets no bigger than a typical web page and not always from the same source. So it is easy to see that the mechanism that allows you to see web-pages or to access streamed content is the same mechanism that could be used by software similar to torrents in transfering large files from one PC to another over the Internet.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 02:47

rogerthat wrote: There's really only one way the problem would ever be solved - disable the whole idea of accessing files of any size off the internet!   Think about it: if there was no program code that let you save files off the net onto the PC, would you be able to download?  Obviously not.

There's really only one way the problem would ever be solved - disable the whole idea of accessing files of any size off the internet!   Think about it: if there was no program code that let you save files off the net onto the PC, would you be able to download?  Obviously not.  But my friends, a whole way of doing business built on communicating seamlessly cutting across physical borders will never be dismantled only for the sake of things like music or movies.  As somebody put it, they are luxuries and it is ostensibly the prerogative of the makers of luxury to take care of themselves; the world will go on with or without them. Harsh it may be, but it's the truth.

There really can be no debate about the legality of dowloading: it has no legality whatsoever, if you download, you steal.  But what would be more interesting to discuss is what would be the ramifications of a music world without downloading - in particular to prog or other non-mainstream artists.  I hope you appreciate how hard it would then be for them to ever break through and attract the attention of potential audiences.  You cannot really get into how they could do it in the 70s - or 80s in the case of metal - because we can only discuss the here and now, the reality of today.  It is true that if you cannot afford it or access it, you should wait till you can.  However, if that were the case, the receipts from stage performances that artists depend on in no small measure as a source of income would imo be dented.  Iron Maiden are returning to India for the third time in three years.  The significance of this in a country where any form of Western music that is not promoted through the medium of Bollywood has negligible, if any, exposure cannot be underestimated.  It in fact would not have happened in the 80s.  A Matter of Life and Death sold well here which is what opened Iron Maiden's mind to a new market but this market was built on the strength of downloading by an audience which had difficulty affording or accessing their music.  You still have to know where to look for the CDs of a band as big as Maiden; you will NOT bump into them in just about any and every store, and I am a resident of India's biggest city, no less.  I really like Henry Plainview's point about videos on youtube;  it's something I do to evaluate whatever recommendations I get - tongue-in-cheek, let me add that if I don't like a handful of videos and give up on the band, I would at least not have stolen a whole album off the artist in the process.   Illegal to upload videos on youtube without the artist's permission?   Yes. But...

I am not really going to get into the details of what I do and don't do; all I can say is my physical collection is already burgeoning in my apartment in this space-starved city; I wonder how rich I would have to be to store a collection as big as Slartibartfast's, buying that many albums would be easier and cheaper in fact!    In summary, yes downloading is illegal and regardless of what goes on in reality, nobody can tell you the individual that it is ok and that you should feel proud about it.  Having said that, does prog-utopia await in a hypothetical future world where it's impossible to download?  Not really, I am not convinced at all on that count, there is something seriously wrong in the model of the music industry but nobody knows what could possibly be a more feasible one at this point; and if any alternative models have been suggested but haven't been adopted, one has to conclude that the industry is loath to give these a fair shot.  Head buried in the sand, much?

P.S:  I think I made it abundantly clear, but let me reiterate that nothing in my post should be construed as advocating illegal downloads.  It was just a relevant detour to the central point of the discussion.

I'm dangerously close to being banned for simply stating my opinions so I'd better stay out of this thread altogether.  

HughesJB4 wrote: So I'm confused. Rules state can't promote illegal activities. Can I then say that I illegally download music, but I don't condone it and if I could afford it, I'd prefer to buy it instead?

Edited by Henry Plainview - February 15 2009 at 23:38