Warez Arrests

[Alan Dunkin]

I think more and more artists - well, independents I guess - do their own deals with recording studios through third parties and the like - all they need is publishing power, which doesn't even need a publisher these days, and some marketing.

--- Alan

[Shadarr]

I think part of it is regular inertia, but part of it is the RIAA protecting their monopoly. It's hard to get your CD in stores as an independent, it's hard to get your songs on the radio or your video on MTV. And it's not all because you're unknown, there's all sorts of things like payola which come into play.

Yes, record companies do provide marketing muscle, but not equally. It's something of a gamble, because although it may be nearly impossible to get radio play without a record contract, signing the contract doesn't guarantee you radio play. Once the company has your signature, they own your work. They will only spend money promoting it to the extent that they think they will get a return. And once you sign, you've lost the right to explore other avenues, even if the company isn't promoting you.

[Midnight Son]

I own a lot of music CD's I bought before 2000 when I stopped in protest. I have so many it could be called "with intent to distribute" if I sell them thru Ebay.... how many years in jail is that?

[Kunikos]

"I think I should get things for free. The world should change the way it does things so I can get things for free."

Karl Marx, loosely paraphrased.

Nothing is for free, especially in a Marxist society.

[Menzo]

Like I said earlier, you need to quit whining that people are stealing from you and deal with reality. Consumers don't care about you. Give them something that is worth the price you are charging and they will pay for it.

If only this were true. However, in a capitalistic society, this is exactly the opposite of true.

Consumers want to pay as little as possible for everything. This is inherant in the market, and it's a good thing. The ONLY reason people don't steal everything is because of laws and the difficulty of doing so. If there were no laws and there were no guns, knives, etc., people would simply take whatever they want, whenever they wanted it (tragedy of the commons).

Piracy of PC games is a problem because it's EASY. It's easier now than it ever was before, and it's therefore a bigger problem than ever. Those of you who think you know things probably make yourselves feel better by saying that piracy is as big a problem on consoles as it is on PCs. This is not true. Just because your five friends have modded Xboxes doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, piracy on consoles is negligable.

There will be typical responses to this from everyone who simply wants what they want for free. Blah blah, you ship buggy games so I should get to steal them if I want. Blah blah, you put draconian copy protection on your games so I'm a victim and have to steal your games. Blah blah, information should be free. Blah blah, you screw your developers so I'm just screwing you (and the developers) right back.

Whatever. It's stealing, and it's wrong. I can only hope that most of you who actually think it's OK are just young and stupid. It's fair to be young and stupid, because you'll probably just grow out of it when you get a real job and discover what the real world is like. But those of you who already have real jobs and still think it's OK to steal, fuck you.

[RickH]

So then I ask, jeez, if that's true, why don't they just give the music out for free? Your answer is "Because their recording contract won't let them." What I'm asking you, though, is why they enter a recording contract in the first place, if all they really want is to give their recordings out for free and then make money off concerts.

As I understand it, that was pretty much the Grateful Dead's business model.

[RickH]

I own a lot of music CD's I bought before 2000 when I stopped in protest. I have so many it could be called "with intent to distribute" if I sell them thru Ebay.... how many years in jail is that?

If you're serious, there's no need to worry. As previously discussed, the doctrine of first sale protects legal holders who sell their copies of a work.

[Moggraider]

Consumers want to pay as little as possible for everything. This is inherant in the market, and it's a good thing. The ONLY reason people don't steal everything is because of laws and the difficulty of doing so. If there were no laws and there were no guns, knives, etc., people would simply take whatever they want, whenever they wanted it (tragedy of the commons).

Not necessarily true. First, I thought the tragedy of the commons applied to public goods being neglected, not to the inherent evil nature of man ;). Second, I stopped downloading music when I started buying from alldirect.com - pretty much any CD I want for 9-10 bucks. It's really a matter of cost-benefit analysis - getting a batch of music fresh and brand new all at once for a low cost, or sorting through spoof files and bad rips on P2P networks. If CD's were cheaper in retail stores, they'd be better impulse buys for everyone, and the distribution of wealth between label and artist would be presumably more equitable (if artists made any less they wouldn't bother with labels at all; they'd just self-release everything). I won't launch into a rant against capitalist greed - that's been done before - but there's a reason CD sales have declined over the years, and it's not just because of P2P software. Look at the boom in iTunes.

[SlyFrog]

Not necessarily true. First, I thought the tragedy of the commons applied to public goods being neglected, not to the inherent evil nature of man.

No, it's pretty much describes the inherently greedy nature of man (if you want to call that evil, that's fine). It means that if there is a publicly available good, it will be overused, abused, and disappear or be sullied to the point of losing value. It means that rational wealth maximizers will attempt to take as much as they can from it, and since there are a damn near unlimited number of rational wealth maximizers, there will be a rush to take as much as possible, which will end up destroying it. Whereas, a more measured, restrained approach to exploitation of a common might allow it to survive and give more to the public over the longer term.

However, copyright is not really a "tragedy of the commons" situation. If free access is permitted, the item at issue does not deplete, and is not actually destroyed by the use of the commons (future works might; this is as close to the commons depletion as you get here). If free access is not permitted, if the artist controls the terms of use, there really isn't much of a commons. Instead, it is a product to be sold.

I think. I need to think about it some more. It's an interesting theory.

Someone needs to bring the Coase Theorm into this somehow. :lol:

[Damien Falgoust]

When bookstores can't sell a book, they tear the cover off and mail it back to the publisher, effectively saying this book has been destroyed. This is cheaper than shipping the whole book. The publisher gives them some or all (I don't know which) of the cost of the book back. If they don't destroy the book and instead turn around and sell it without a cover, they're violating the terms of their agreement with the publisher.

Assuming this is correct -- I don't know enough about the publishing biz to say for sure -- what you are describing would amount to a mere breach of contract claim between the publisher and bookseller. It would not be "illegal" in the sense that that there is a law on the books somewhere that prevents the sale of coverless used books.

You, in your capacity as an individual, could, for example, sell a coverless used book at a garage sale with no penalty.

Unless there's a law out there that I'm unaware of (in which case I welcome correction), I call shenanigans on the "coverless book sales are illegal" claim.

[Hump]

Yes, otherwise the big corporations might take 15% reductions in net earnings for FY2006 and then America would be DOMED11!!11!!!!

Sorry, current copyright law is such a joke that it's hard to take the topic seriously anymore. I realize QT3 is heavy on writers and programmers who will shortly dogpile me but it's hard to care about a set of laws that are so frequently ignored by average joes and are so obviously written to suit corporate interests.

They can dogpile me too, because whenever I hear this the first thing I think is "If you can't make money in the current market, you need to change your business model, not the market." People and corporations who try to force the market to support their model are going to waste a lot of money on lawyers and will eventually be replaced by someone who figures out a business model that works.

Lets take into account how much the US Govt. is spending overseas to curtail piracy. At that point it becomes OUR money that is getting wasted. As much as I agree with those who's job this affects, it comes down to the fact that the entertainment industry is about 50+ years behind in their distribution model and until they start realizing that the days of 4 hour lunches and 6 figure SUV's are a thing of the past then this will contunue to be an endless argument.

[jpinard]

And President Bush signed a law last month creating penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone caught distributing a movie or song prior to its commercial release.

There's rapists and child molesters who get less than that. Welcome to the Plutocracy, where hate crimes will soon be replaced with "corporate crimes" (i.e. crimes against corporations) which will be punishable through flogging, caning, and, in severe cases, death.

--scharmers

Our prison's are already overflowing and turning inmates loose early. Where are they going to contain these people? These non-violent offenders?

[Mark Asher]

When bookstores can't sell a book, they tear the cover off and mail it back to the publisher, effectively saying this book has been destroyed. This is cheaper than shipping the whole book. The publisher gives them some or all (I don't know which) of the cost of the book back. If they don't destroy the book and instead turn around and sell it without a cover, they're violating the terms of their agreement with the publisher.

Assuming this is correct -- I don't know enough about the publishing biz to say for sure -- what you are describing would amount to a mere breach of contract claim between the publisher and bookseller. It would not be "illegal" in the sense that that there is a law on the books somewhere that prevents the sale of coverless used books.

You, in your capacity as an individual, could, for example, sell a coverless used book at a garage sale with no penalty.

Unless there's a law out there that I'm unaware of (in which case I welcome correction), I call shenanigans on the "coverless book sales are illegal" claim.

You probably break the law when, as a bookseller, you send in the cover for credit and turn around and sell the coverless book. I'd imagine that's some kind of fraud. You're essentially stealing money at that point.

[TriggerHappy]

So then I ask, jeez, if that's true, why don't they just give the music out for free? Your answer is "Because their recording contract won't let them." What I'm asking you, though, is why they enter a recording contract in the first place, if all they really want is to give their recordings out for free and then make money off concerts.

Marketing is part of it, and expenses for tours is another. Venue costs, travel costs, room and board are usually covered by the studio as part of the contract.

[Damien Falgoust]

You probably break the law when, as a bookseller, you send in the cover for credit and turn around and sell the coverless book. I'd imagine that's some kind of fraud. You're essentially stealing money at that point.

Well, sure, but on those facts it's the "faked return" that's prohibited, not the mere sale of coverless books. It certainly wouldn't be fraud if, say, they sold some books whose covers had been removed in lieu of returning them to the publisher.

[Qenan]

So then I ask, jeez, if that's true, why don't they just give the music out for free? Your answer is "Because their recording contract won't let them." What I'm asking you, though, is why they enter a recording contract in the first place, if all they really want is to give their recordings out for free and then make money off concerts.

Marketing is part of it, and expenses for tours is another. Venue costs, travel costs, room and board are usually covered by the studio as part of the contract.

Ultimately, those are a form of payment as well, no?

[Backov]

So then I ask, jeez, if that's true, why don't they just give the music out for free? Your answer is "Because their recording contract won't let them." What I'm asking you, though, is why they enter a recording contract in the first place, if all they really want is to give their recordings out for free and then make money off concerts.

Marketing is part of it, and expenses for tours is another. Venue costs, travel costs, room and board are usually covered by the studio as part of the contract.

Ultimately, those are a form of payment as well, no?

They are NOT covered by the studio. Every nickel the studio spends for you (the band) HAS TO BE PAID BACK. It's like you getting a mortgage, and when you're done paying it back, the bank keeps your house.

[Rywill]

But isn't the counter-argument: recording studios are fronting the bands a lot of money. 95% of the time, the band is not a hit and that is just lost money to the studio because the band never pays them back. If the band IS a hit, the studio gets repaid and gets to keep the band so they (the studio) make enough money to pay for all their bad investments plus turn a profit. From the band's perspective, you are selling yourself into slavery for a few years in order to get someone to front you all this money on a very uncertain prospect (your potential success), but if you hit big, you will eventually have an awesome life. Even if you are only moderately successful, it's a chance to make a living doing what you like (playing concerts), which you would never have the chance to do without the studio's help.

I have no doubt that the studios are very sophisticated and the bands are very much not, and the bands end up signing bad contracts because they don't understand how the accounting will be done and the studio guys make it sound like it's going to be all wine & roses and they're going to be the biggest thing ever (like what that article said). I also have no doubt that studios take advantage of the niavete of bands and try to do underhanded things like underreport their grosses or overreport their expenses. All of which is, obviously, scummy as hell.

But it seems like people are overstating the case when they try and make it seem like the studios are pure leeches who do nothing but cripple righteous bands, giving them nothing in return, and then use the money to light their cigars, and the poor bands can't do anything about it because the suits and the megacorporations control everything. It sounds like there's plenty to be pissed at the labels about without overselling it.

[steve]

Everyone knows record labels are scum, so I guess downloading music in silent protest really sticks it to the man. That this scenario further screws the artists who are already being screwed is weird, but whatever.

So you do support the bands by going to all their live shows, right? But concert attendance is generally depressed too, but that's because people are protesting the ticket cartels and the high cost of concert-going, right? That's true, but traveling is more expensive, there's no money coming in from the label because the CD isn't selling, etc.

Of course all of this is irrelevant. If you're going to justify copyright infringement as a form of protest, you can't just do it while sitting at home or posting on message boards about it. You need to go public. You need to be willing to be arrested so you can take your case to the public, and have your day in court. I'm sure they'll be sympathetic to your cause.

And while I think everyone agrees that copyright law has gone batty insofar as how the terms are extended, I take some comfort in the fact that the same laws that protect Mickey Mouse also protect my bad fiction.

[Backov]

Rywill,

Not only do they never understand the accounting, it doesn't matter if they do. Even if they are a hit, or are even profitable, most of the time they never see that cash.. Only the mega stars tend to make any cash.

The problem is that the record companies are super scummy and have awful accounting practices. Part of their scam is that only certain "approved" auditors are allowed to audit their books, and they apparently are very hard to get (and record company picked).

Also, if the record company doesn't like your second album, they can lock you up forever. For instance, Joan Osborne is a jazz girl. Her first album was great and had a big hit on it. She's recorded (last I heard) 2 other full albums, both of which were rejected by the record company. Since they hold her contract, she'll basically never have another CD released until she records something they like. And it doesn't matter that her albums would probably be great, the record label doesn't want them because they think they won't sell as well as the first one. Remember - she has no option to go elsewhere.. Due to the contract, they basically own her until she gives them 5 albums they actually release.

As for supporting your favorite artists - either buy direct if they're indie, or pirate all their albums and send them about $1 per album. That's about what they'd get from a $20 album, if the record company didn't fuck them on it, which they do. Going to their concerts helps alot too.

Read the Albini article and/or the one by Courtney Love. It really exposes this biz for the scam it is.

Along with a few other groups, the major record labels are organizations which should be cleansed from the face of the earth by fire.

[Squirrel Killer]

But isn't the counter-argument: recording studios are fronting the bands a lot of money. 95% of the time, the band is not a hit and that is just lost money to the studio because the band never pays them back. If the band IS a hit, the studio gets repaid and gets to keep the band so they (the studio) make enough money to pay for all their bad investments plus turn a profit.

That's a great counter-argument to "Labels/studios are evil", but I thought we were discussing "why don't they just give the music out for free?" To which the answer is because they enter into contracts that prevent them to do just that. Why do they enter such contracts? Because a) they don't know any better, b) signing with a label has been their (misguided) dream, c) the money is too tempting, and maybe, arguably, a dash of d) the label misrepresents the deal.

Now, to an extent, some of that is changing, thanks to artists like Albini and Love explaining the racket to up-and-coming artists. But the truth of it is, while signing will get you screwed, going indie is pretty tough too.

[chet]

I only pirate indie bands, that will teach them...

[mouselock]

And while I think everyone agrees that copyright law has gone batty insofar as how the terms are extended, I take some comfort in the fact that the same laws that protect Mickey Mouse also protect my bad fiction.

Mickey seems to me to be a particularly bad example to use in terms of protecting copyright, since it seems abundantly and instantly clear to me that no matter how old he may be now, Mickey in no way is a property that should pass into the public domain. Disney has built a huge empire off that brand, but if I'm getting the anti-copyright pitch right here, it ought to just go "Whelp, we've milked the mouse for all we could in the last X years, time to turn him over to the world."

Strikes me as rather silly. I'm sure I'm missing something somewhere though. (Especially as copyright pertains to things locked up in vaults instead of actively developed, although I also have trouble seeing how those two ought to matter when it comes to deciding who owns which property when.)

[Jason McCullough]

As tempting as it is to have this entire argument again, isn't there like a definitive webpage that'll do it all for us? Seems rather rehashed.

Do you realize that because there wasn't copyright right until late in his life, Mozart died nearly penniless?

Bullshit. One:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart

Mozart's life was fraught with financial difficulty and illness. Often, he received no payment for his work, and what sums he did receive were quickly consumed by his extravagant lifestyle.

Two, plenty of artists back then made out like bandits, and plenty barely got by. The patronage model was apparently about the same in terms of net support for the arts as the copyright model; that's what I've picked up from reading, and I've seen no concrete evidence on the topic. "Lack of copyright" is an non-sequitir for Mozart's poverty.

As to the moral absolutism on display: it's a market, and markets have different ethical standards than personal interactions for good reason.

Personally, the entire music industry smells like cannibalistic cartel feeding off an ever-more cynical button pushing of popular tastes, and eventually it'll collapse under its own contradictions - who knew Marx would be right about the fundamental insustainability of capitalism, but only in the case of the music industry?

[Wobbo]

Bottom line--if artisans (muscians, game designers, movie makers, etc) can't get paid, they won't do it. Just look at Communist Russia which eliminated intellectual property rights "for the common good". All they got was poor Shostacovic. Do you really want this state of society? Intellectual property laws developed for the benefit of society. Do you realize that because there wasn't copyright right until late in his life, Mozart died nearly penniless? Vivaldi was long before copyright and he died penniless too. Is that fair?


Lorini

this is false, communist russia did NOT eliminate copyrights, and the economic hardship was obviously quite separate from that. Despite your racism, plenty of musicians, painters etc. from Eastern Europe continued to create because thats what they do - culture comes from community not from a need to make money.

Most important art would have been created regardless of the monetary value it had. Bach Beethoven and thousands of others made quality art and plenty of money long before IP laws existed. At that time most art was created for the church which had a centralized role in organization of culture - no competition no market. In fact most of the works of art from mroe than 25 years ago woudlnt have been created without help from donors or the state - consumer choice usually has a NEGATIVE impact on artistry because of pack mentality and "lowest common denominator" issues.

And I love how whenever these arguments come up only white people count, IP laws never existed in places outside of Europe for even longer than they did *not* in Euprope - I suppose all the art of native Latin America, Asia or Afrika doesnt mean anything?

Its true that now in our modern economy people need to sell themselves to live - not just artists - but thats a problem with our society that we should deal with, throwing people in jail is not a solution.

Personally, the entire music industry smells like cannibalistic cartel feeding off an ever-more cynical button pushing of popular tastes, and eventually it'll collapse under its own contradictions - who knew Marx would be right about the fundamental insustainability of capitalism, but only in the case of the music industry?

im not a marxist but there are PLENTY of other examples of industries that destroyed themselves, or *would* have destroyed themselves if governments had allowed it. What most people forget about is that the so-called "free-market" is (and always has been) heavily subsidized by the state; this internet were speaking on is a good example

[Jose Liz]

They figured out how to run pirated PSP games.

[chet]

this is false, communist russia did NOT eliminate copyrights, and the economic hardship was obviously quite separate from that. Despite your racism, plenty of musicians, painters etc. from Eastern Europe continued to create because thats what they do - culture comes from community not from a need to make money.

And I love how whenever these arguments come up only white people count, IP laws never existed in places outside of Europe for even longer than they did *not* in Euprope - I suppose all the art of native Latin America, Asia or Afrika doesnt mean anything?

Trying to get your point...

Is Russia a race? Is Ray Parker Jr white? Would my racism 10,000 miles away really stop someone from producing art not meant for me?

Aren't you the racist? To say that laws in europe or america only count for white people? Or maybe I am just naive, not being black, maybe they don't have the same laws whites do. I have no idea. Oh wait, I am a white from eastern europe, so I guess other people are holding me down with their some white racism?? Huh???

Fascinating post, good to see you finally figure a way to work racism into a topic...

Chet

[Rollory]

Some former coworkers of mine have ended up in about three different small bands. They trade MP3s around all the time and share their own songs with friends. They basically just want to be heard. Recordings, to them, are advertising; the live shows are how they make their money.

As for myself: I don't pirate very often, but I don't buy games very often any more either. At this point I have a real problem with buying a game when the stores don't accept returns in case of defects or suck. I've been burned a couple of times too many buying games that should have been good and that turned out to be far inferior to what I had been led to believe I was buying. In such situations, I want my money back. If you won't give it, then the next product you put out, you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. I will insist on trying the game without paying for it. If I particularly like it I will pay for it. If I am ambivalent I may still play it but not bother to pay. It's less fair to the developer, but less unfair to me, and that's what I care about. Whether you go out of business isn't my problem (particularly since the genres of games I like tend to be coming out of the really small indie groups these days, bought direct over the net for nominal fees).

There is also the copy protection issue, which at this point is as much one of principles as of verifiable problems. It is my computer. You do not have any right to dictate what will or will not be happening on it. If you have a problem with that, I will not buy your game; end of discussion. I may play the game anyway, but the question of whether you get money for it has already been decided, by you.

Console games happen to address both these concerns adequately - and not only that, I can borrow a friend's and try it out freely, without any goddamned mothership trying to verify that the copy isn't being used in two places at once. I don't pirate console games and have no particular interest in doing so.

[steve]

Mickey seems to me to be a particularly bad example to use in terms of protecting copyright, since it seems abundantly and instantly clear to me that no matter how old he may be now, Mickey in no way is a property that should pass into the public domain.

I agree with this 100%, though even if Mickey entered public domain it could continue as a trademark.

[SlyFrog]

Console games happen to address both these concerns adequately - and not only that, I can borrow a friend's and try it out freely, without any goddamned mothership trying to verify that the copy isn't being used in two places at once. I don't pirate console games and have no particular interest in doing so.

Well, to be fair, you could do that with most computer games too. Taking the CD out of the console is pretty much the equivalent of uninstalling the game from a harddrive. Your friend could always do that and let you try the computer game.