I read this thing Duff Mckagan wrote and he said that in 97 Napster, who was rolling in money from sponsors, offered the major labels a percentage of all money they made to give to the artists and whatever else. Apparently the majors fucked up, refused, and as a result of that now people are downloading more than ever, and any chance the labels and artists had to make money is forever gone.
______________________________________
random story: Last year someone verbally shit on me for not download and not condoning downloading and at one point said "I dont have money for music, this is the only way i can get it"
I hate when people say that.
I want a Les Paul Custom. Should I go steal one?
I wouldn't be surprised. It's beause the major labels don't want an alternative channel for distributing music that they can't control. In the past, even if you were indie, you still had to sell through a major label if you wanted to compete with major label artists. Now, with alternative modes of distribution, it poses a competition for the majors that seriously undermines their ability to call the shots. They will no longer be able to rest on their laurels. They will have to compete with non-majors for the same customers, whereas previously they had no such competition.
As for the morality of downloading and the "stealing analogy", I think it's largely flawed. The concept that an idea should be considered property is a bit strange. How can an idea be property? It doesn't exist, it has no scarcity or physical limits. It cannot be removed from your care, or moved anywhere for that matter. If an idea is spread, it doesn't reduce the available quantity of that idea left. You can't deplete an idea. It doesn't exist but in our minds. It can only be represented and that representation be reproduced. The purpose for copyright law was meant to be a means to stop other artists from coming in and re-recording their song a week after it was released and calling it their own. . . giving a period of time where the artist could be the sole person known for the work before it is passed off into the public domain to be mangled with and improved on by others. What it was meant to do was not to criminalize consumers who share music with each other non-commercially. Sure, there might be somewhat of an effect economically if people cease to purchase albums. That's merely just a change in the music market, not some hotbed of criminality. The nature of technology is that physical media is not necessary. If you steal a CD, you are stealing an actual tangable product. This is something that had manufacturing value and scarity attached to it. You have physically removed property from someone else unwillingly, thus you have stolen it. The key point is that it CAN be physically taken. An idea, whether in musical form or word of mouth, can not be removed from your posession.
Another argument deals with the senses. Can you say that it is stealing to look at a sculpture in a museum that can be seen from a window without paying the price of admission? Would it be stealing to peer into the window and look at it? What about viewing a picture that someone took of the sculpture on their vacation? Should it be argued that they are morally obliged to book travel to the museum where the sculpture is kept to pay admission to see it properly? Is it a moral crime to look at the picture? Would this be the same thing as walking into the museum and walking out with the sculpture? Would it be considered stealing to view this sculpture, even if the artist has identcal copies that you can buy for your own? After all, you are just looking at a picture of it, you didn't physically remove the sculpture. How can it be different with auditory perception. Really, the argument of anti-file sharing people is that this person is stealing because they are listening to something that they didn't purchase and thus aren't authorized to listen to, even though a physical copy is available to buy if they wish to have it. They did not desire to purchase the physical product you are selling for whatever reason and so they opted to merely "look at a picture" of it instead. You are in effect saying that the perception of your art is something that can be and should be controlled - that it's an immoral and criminal act to listen to something unless you grant permission for it to be listened to. This person is not taking your physical product which holds your idea (the CD), they are just "taking a picture" of it because the technology exists for them to do so, and showing their friends because they enjoy your art and wish others to enjoy it as well.
Thus: Is file sharing stealing? No. If you want to talk economically, that's a better argument with some debate on both sides to be considered, but as a moral question: There is absolutely nothing immoral about file sharing, nor should it be "illegal". It is not stealing, and people who share music should not be punished, but should be provided with new ways to economically contribute for their enjoyment of the art. It is the fault of the musicians and labels for not adapting to new technologies and consumer attitudes. What you need to do is to provide another kind of physical product that your fans will want to own - not to just insist that they pay for the right to hear the ideas themselves. If you refuse to do anything other than cling to technologies that your customers consider obsolete and not worth purchasing, then you are guilty of being an unwise businessman, and that's the only place where the guilt lies. Adapt and innovate. Any time an industry changes there is a flux period. it's the people who take the reigns and pioneer the way that become the big boys next time around while the old dinosaurs fade away.
hahahahha... just joking (em I?)... Great video, thanks for sharing it... BTW, i'm learning chinese right now (no joking)... is hard, that's all i can tell....
