Time for the music industry to enter the 21st century

[Pei]

A music recording is only information. In the modern world infomration can be transported around, replicated and stored very rapidly and cheaply. People don't by CDs because they like round pieces of plastic, they buy them for the music (i.e. information on them). The CDs themselves are valueless to the customer if they can get the information in a handier, more portable and cheaper form. The music industry clings to CD sales like a shipwrecked man holding onto a bit of wood which is being slowly pulled out to sea: it's time to let go of the wood and swim for the beach. The RIAA and friends need to give up on them; the future must lie in selling the information directly as raw data over the internet at much reduced prices. The reality is that people will always be able to rip-off CDs and send the data to their friends. If you can read the data (i.e. play the music) you can copy it. Trying to co-opt the hardware and software vendors to preserve the primacy of hardcopy recordings is not going to work: the vendors can make more money selling cheaper, less complex and restrictive devices -  why should they limit there own market?
This is the way things are and they aren't going to change. The media vendors need to create cheap and easy ways for people can get the music they want: only then people won't go to the hassle of file swapping and digital piracy (not that it will go away but at least they should be able to make a decent living). The longer they delay and try and cling on to the hardcopy sales the more people will get used to the idea of piracy and the problem will become bigger in the long run.
They can can cut production costs, transport costs and the middle-men (retailers and whole-salers) and sell cheaply to many more people. I'm talking $1-2 per collection (album, coose your own 20 songs etc.), a few cents per song.
Ultimately sueing your own potential customers is a bad business practice. Music piracy is criminal but the fact of the matter is that the way all information is used, transported and stored has changed and left the media vendors behind. It's too late to go back: it's time to go forward.

The music industry is not the only one is this boat:
Books and magazines are just waiting for a handy cheap device to allow you to comfortably and easily read the data anywhere.
Films are just waiting for enough people to have broadband and direct hookup to their (or the amalgamation of the home TV and the home PC).

[lasersailor184]

I disagree.  



Keep CD's around.  They are a decent medium.



However, offer something that downloaders can never have unless they buy the cd.


Be it toughly encoded movies, new songs, music videos.  




Remember, industry revolves around trying to sell something that the competitor isn't.

[Pei]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I disagree.  



Keep CD's around.  They are a decent medium.



However, offer something that downloaders can never have unless they buy the cd.


Be it toughly encoded movies, new songs, music videos.  




Remember, industry revolves around trying to sell something that the competitor isn't.

Industry revolves around selling something that people will buy. I'm not saying get rid of CDs but they will become like records: of interest to collectors and specialists like DJs. Given that the vast majority have now or will have soon the ability to download and play the data directly CD recordings provide no value. Nowadays when you buy a steroe it has an mp3 player. Portable mp3 players are cheap and getting cheaper. Most of us have computers and internet access: people don't need CDs any more. They aren't going to pay inflated CD prices when they can just download or rip the music from someone else.

As to "toughly endoded": as I said if you can read the data you can copy it. The only way to limit this (and you can only make it more difficult, not impossible) is to restrict the whole process by having the software and hardware vendors make their products try and enforce your copyright. But why would a software vendor or hardware vendor do this? They have to make more complex (and hence more expensive) products to no value to themselves (unless you are Sony of course adn you have your foot in both camps: and even then the hardware division won't be too happy about it). The software or hardware vendor is also building functionality which the majority of their customers don't want and don't like. So you are asking the software and hardware vendors to piss off thier own customers. How many will go for that do you think.
Copyright abuse is impossible to stamp out: what you can do is try and make it so the majority of people find it easier and more reasonable to not do so.

[Pei]

OK the other option for copyright enforcement I didn't mention is massive international government intervention. This will basiclly require some kind of global agency to co-ordinate it and having every aspect of data flow and manipulation subject to massive government regulation and intervention, at tax payer exspense (I'm sure all the free-market conservatives on this board will love this option).
Even then it will be impossible to control as many countries will either not join or join and then exploit the system (or allow it to be exploited): there will be too much money in it for 3rd world countries to resist.

[john9001]

i was able to "download" data and listen to music for free in the 50's, i think i used something they called a "radio".

[FUNKED1]

Record companies = sleazy middlemen

[Pei]

Originally posted by john9001
i was able to "download" data and listen to music for free in the 50's, i think i used something they called a "radio".

But could you record it at indistinguishable quality levels from the original broadcast and play it whenever you wanted?

[lasersailor184]

I didn't mean encode the music.  I meant encode the extras so that it will only play off of the CD / you can't play it by copying it onto your computer.

[miko2d]

Anything that can be encoded can and will be decoded.

 Selling extras that people do not want to entice them into paying for what they want would not work anyway.

 The whole issue with music, etc. revolves around the concept of property - is the so called "intellectual property" a real property or not?

 By most definitions intellectual property is not property. It is not "scarce" - there are unlimited amounts of it thta can be had for zero expense.

 By taking someone's intellectual property and consuming it, you are not depriving that individual from consuming that property as would be the case with any physical property.

 The only reason the concept of intellectual property was invented by the act of government was it's supposed benefit for technological progress or art creation.
 That enforcing intellectual property rights is beneficial for progress is far from obvious and there is a good reason to beleive the opposite is true.

 Theory and history shows that scientific, technological and artistic creation exist and prospers even without the commertial exploitation of the property rights.

 As the information technology develops, the enforcement of the artificial intellectual property concept becomes much harder to enforce and requiting greater expense and violation of the human rights.
 It may be more efficient to dump that concept all together and allow the free market to sort out the consequances. Of course the vested interests would not allow that to happen but it would work.

 Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover. Probaby more efficiently.

 miko

[ra]

Theory and history shows that scientific, technological and artistic creation exist and prospers even without the commertial exploitation of the property rights.

Theory is BS.  

If people want to create artistic and scientific breakthroughs without retaining any rights to their efforts they are free to do so.  

Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of civilization, and it has been so since the invention of the printing press.

ra

[miko2d]

ra: Theory is BS.
 If people want to create artistic and scientific breakthroughs without retaining any rights to their efforts they are free to do so.

 You call the "theory" BS and in the next sentense state that same theory and your agreement with it. You are not consistent.

 There is no theoretical justification for the view that creative work would stop if there were no retained intellectual property rights.
 The historical example provides ample evidence of enormous amount of creative achievement not linked to retained property rights.


Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of civilization, and it has been so since the invention of the printing press.

 Would you care to justify that opinion?
 Whatever you mean by 'civilisation", how would it be prevented from existence by the abcense of intellectual property rights?

 How did civilisation exist before the patent offices and international patent agreements? It seems to have done OK.

 miko

[Wanker]

Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover. Probaby more efficiently.

BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong, but nice try, Miko.

History is filled with evidence of artists that depended on the royalties from their creations to live and give them the freedom to be able to continue to create.

Do you realize how long it takes to compose an opera?

You're arguing that it would be more efficient for a composer to compose his opera in his spare time between going to work at his day job, as opposed to composing full time, and paying the bills with royalties from his previous works.

Nope, you're wrong this time, Miko.

[ra]

You call the "theory" BS and in the next sentense state that same theory and your agreement with it. You are not consistent.

Agree with what?  I state the fact that anyone can decline to exercise his own intellectual property rights.  You are free to spend your life finding a cure for cancer and then give it away.  I don't see a lot of progress coming from such endeavors, though, I'll put my money on medical research funded by the value of intellectual property rights.  

There is no theoretical justification for the view that creative work would stop if there were no retained intellectual property rights.

The same can be said of all rights.  What does that prove?

The historical example provides ample evidence of enormous amount of creative achievement not linked to retained property rights.

How would these examples negate a right?  What rights cannot be said to be unnecessary?  The Bill of Rights is a list of things which historical example can easily prove to be utterly unecessary.  Ask the typical European if the 2nd amendment is necessary to an advanced culture.

Would you care to justify that opinion?

Fine, I'll modify my statement: Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of free men.

Property rights are the most fundamental rights of free people, and intellectual property rights are the highest form of property rights.  The value of an invention or a poem can only be sustained through intellectual property rights.  If a man works a week to build a row boat and another mans destroys it, the builder has lost all the value he put into the boat.  If a writer writes a novel which is then digitized and distributed around the world for free, the novelist has lost the value he put into the book.  There is no difference, except in some pointy headed theory.

ra

[miko2d]

Wrong, but nice try, Miko.
History is filled with evidence of artists that depended on the royalties from their creations to live and give them the freedom to be able to continue to create.
Do you realize how long it takes to compose an opera?

 How am I wrong?
 I never said that there is no evidence in history that people received royalties or depended on them. I never said that not a single person would be affected. Sure - some will not do something or do that something differently if he/she cannot receive royalty.
 I said that "Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover."

 Since there are clear examples of many cases when artistic or scientific creation was not driven by pursuit of royalty, I am right when claiming that it is possible.

 Throughout most of history and even now to the great degree the creative achievement was driven by the people's need to create and to earn non-monetary rewards and satisfaction or to earn monetary rewards in other ways than royalties.
 Throughout most of history and even now to the great degree the people doing creative work were financed by private patrons, by voluntary donations and by their "day jobs".

 You're arguing that it would be more efficient for a composer to compose his opera in his spare time between going to work at his day job...

 Efficient? Define "efficient" before you use that term. Depending on its meaning, I can make a case that it would be much more efficient if the royalties did not exist.

 For beginners, we would have less of the the corrupting and destructive commercial mass culture because no patron would comission such crap. I believe that the destruction of culture and society weights a lot in the calculation of efficiency.

 A whole lot of research is not done or discarded because someone has independently discovered the same thing few months's earlier.
 A lot of research is not done because it now takes a huge copany with millions of dollars and dozens of patent lawyers to be able to exploit one's own discovery rather than have it legally stolen from you and be prevented from its use for 15 years. How is that efficient?


ra: Agree with what?

 You agree that there is research and creative work going on that does not depend on royalties, but you call exactly the same statement of mine "BS".

The same can be said of all rights. What does that prove?

 If someone took your right to live, it could not be said that you would continue to live.
 If someone took away your property rights, it could not be said you would continue make use of your property.
 If someone took away your right to have children, it could not be said you would continue to have children.

 But if you were denied the right to charge for your idea or invention, it can be said that you are not denied the right to use the idea or invention. When somebody uses the information that you posess, you do not stop posessing that information. That cannot be said about any material object that you posess.

 The concept of property applies only to scarse resources. If you had infinite number of lives rather than one, taking one would not constitute violation.
 Taking a picture of yourself or your house or your land does not constitute a property violation because your use of property is not affected no matter how many pictures are taken. Much like with "intellectual property"

How would these examples negate a right?

 Not talking about rights here - just about the fact that abcence of inellectual property or royalties does not stop creative process.

What rights cannot be said to be unnecessary?

 Property rights. Right to own one's body and product of ones's labor. Nobody shoudl be able to deny you the use of your body or property. However when someone sings your song, he id nod denying you the ability to sing that song.
 The bill of rights just confirms the property rights in more expanded form but it does not introduce any new rights.

If a writer writes a novel which is then digitized and distributed around the world for free, the novelist has lost the value he put into the book. There is no difference, except in some pointy headed theory.

 There is a huge difference. The writer has not lost his novel - he still has it.

 Any right of a person is an obligation on other persons. A right to own property is nothing more than an obligation not to deprive a person from the use of his property and an obligation to help that person to protect his property.

 A writer's "right" to royalties means an obligation on me to participate in punishing some people for unothorised reading of his novel.
 I am to act as a slave of that writer and finance his income with my taxes and possibly personal perticipation. If I refuse to participate, I will be coerced, arrested or killed if I resist.
 If some other country posts his novel on his website, I may be barred from trading with the people of that country or even drafted to attack that country to prevent its theft of our values as if it stole our real property or kidnapped people.
 I take coersion seriously - I do not like it a bit to be coerced for frivolous puropses or someone profit.

 The profits the autor is getting for the novel come not from his labor but from my taxes and obligations imposed on me to knock heads for him. I believe it's an oppression to make me act as his enforcer.

 If he only wrote that novel to make profit from royalties, that means he based his decision on my forced/slave labor.
 If he knew he would not be able to rely on my slave labor for his profit, he would not have embarked on writing the novel and would not have lost anything. Most likely he would have chosen a different way to profit from his work.

 To you the difference between being a slave or being a free man may be a "pointy headed theory" but for some it is not.
 I want to pay my taxes to police to protect people, not make profit for them.

 miko

[FUNKED1]

Do you like Anerican nusic?
I like Anerican nusic.