Torrent Talk (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

The Porsche, at least today is scarce. The copy of the DVD is not. Nor is the copy anyone else's product.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

It is up to society to decide for each and everyone of these cases, not the artists, not the programmer, not the song writer, not the movie producer. As of now society has decided that society benefits by giving some exclusive rights to the artists, the programmer, the song writer, the movie producer. However, at any time society can change its mind (ignoring treaty obligations) and even today those rights aren't absolute.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm really late to this, but I think people are getting overly hung up on the term "stealing."

Well, that's what the poll question asks. Whether violating intellectual property laws is morally wrong is a more interesting question. But in order to address that question without undue baggage, I think it helps to first dispose of the notion that it's stealing.

Absolutely!

scoobygang is smarter than most people.

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

The answer to each and every one of these is a resounding yes.Not only do we live in an era where technology has enabled us as a society to enjoy unprecedented access to art and thought, but we also live in an era where enabling free transmission of these things allows greater rewards to the artists than ever before in history.The "downside" to that is that the rewards do not come by traditional means. It's no longer a matter of deals with agents and cutting royalty checks. It's about leveraging past successes into astronomical futures. And it's very possible in each and every case you've suggested.In order to profit and excel as an artist in the modern techno-economy, you must stay on top of the changes in your industry. If you are incapable, you need not an agent, but a PR/Marketing guru. If you refuse to stay on top of changes in your industry and society, then you don't deserve to reap the rewards. It's not society's place, nor law's, to coddle "professionals" who aren't willing to put in the time or effort to actually be professionals.You have to play the game now, just like you had to in years and decades past. It's just that the game is entirely different now. Adapt or perish.

 

[kaa]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.

 

[Jason Bourne]

So imagine these scenarios:

1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?

2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?

3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?

4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

The answer to each and every one of these is a resounding yes.Not only do we live in an era where technology has enabled us as a society to enjoy unprecedented access to art and thought, but we also live in an era where enabling free transmission of these things allows greater rewards to the artists than ever before in history.

The "downside" to that is that the rewards do not come by traditional means. It's no longer a matter of deals with agents and cutting royalty checks. It's about leveraging past successes into astronomical futures. And it's very possible in each and every case you've suggested.

In order to profit and excel as an artist in the modern techno-economy, you must stay on top of the changes in your industry. If you are incapable, you need not an agent, but a PR/Marketing guru. If you refuse to stay on top of changes in your industry and society, then you don't deserve to reap the rewards. It's not society's place, nor law's, to coddle "professionals" who aren't willing to put in the time or effort to actually be professionals.

You have to play the game now, just like you had to in years and decades past. It's just that the game is entirely different now. Adapt or perish.

If you can't ever profit from your talents, you will be looking to do something else. If every time you create a masterpiece - someone is able to take away your ability to market that product, there is no incentive to make the product. If I can't make a living as a song-writer - then I have to do something else - and society loses the song-writing.

The game is not different - people have been trying to make money off the fruits of others for centuries. What is different are the tools people are using.

BTW - the bolded makes absolutely no sense in the context of this conversation. How is anyone not being professional?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The game is not different - people have been trying to make money off the fruits of others for centuries. What is different are the tools people are using.

Yep, today just like the past the song writer reaps few of the rewards of his fruits as the music business through its army of lawyers and lobbyist use the tools of the laws and contract language to take ownership of the fruits and to seek rent from those trying to enjoy the fruit.

 

[Jason Bourne]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.

In the not too distant past, I was a graduate-assistant at a very good college - grading papers in a 400-level class. I can assure you that the ability to write is no where close to being a commodity. It will not be a commodity in our lifetimes.But taking your post at face value - you must concede a few points - those things all have value now, and even looking into your future, the ability to program and build computers or robots to do these functions would have value. But according to what I have read here - if someone builds such a program/robot - it is fair game to get a copy of that for free and replicate it to my heart's content.I fear that too many people live in a world of entitlement. Why should I pay for something when I can take it for free? I am not really hurting anyone because I would never have paid for it, so its not costing the artist any money. I still want it though - just don't think I should have to pay for it.

 

[eoMMan]

I just hope that everyone who downloads stuff all of a sudden has their company / employer / whatever affected by the free distribution of its product or service. I hope revenue falls drastically, and people get laid off. Then perhaps, when it's their own paycheck affected by this, they will see it in a different light. But that's a pipe dream, and as long as it's nameless, faceless people getting hurt, it doesn't matter to most people (oh, quick note: it's not just the million dollar artist who makes money off of music / movies.)

You mean like your employer losing production from their employees due to them posting on message boards?

 

[Warsteinner]

I take out CDs from my local library on a regular basis and rip them to my computer and then put them on my ipod. Am I a criminal?

 

[Disco Stu]

I take out CDs from my local library on a regular basis and rip them to my computer and then put them on my ipod. Am I a criminal?

Yes. Specifically a criminal from 1992.

 

[GoFishTN]

It's copyright infringement, not stealing.

 

[Chaka]

Lots of complaining but very few solutions being offered in here. File sharing is here to stay so let's here some solutions to the problem.

My contention is that if the music industry changes their pricing structure (say to $2-$5/album instead of $12-20) then illegal file sharing will be dramatically reduced. Why are people in here saying that their only option is to increase prices to make up of lost revenues when they also have the option to lower prices and go for higher volume?

I wonder how many of the free music downloaders here paid money to buy Radiohead's In Rainbows?

I wonder how much money freeware distributors make with the "Please Donate" option on the DL page for their software. I imagine that the ones with good products make significantly more.

Perhaps lower prices and higher volume is not the solution but telling people to stop because it's wrong apparently isn't the solution either.

So what are the other options to fix the problem?

 

[culdeus]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.

In the not too distant past, I was a graduate-assistant at a very good college - grading papers in a 400-level class. I can assure you that the ability to write is no where close to being a commodity. It will not be a commodity in our lifetimes.But taking your post at face value - you must concede a few points - those things all have value now, and even looking into your future, the ability to program and build computers or robots to do these functions would have value. But according to what I have read here - if someone builds such a program/robot - it is fair game to get a copy of that for free and replicate it to my heart's content.I fear that too many people live in a world of entitlement. Why should I pay for something when I can take it for free? I am not really hurting anyone because I would never have paid for it, so its not costing the artist any money. I still want it though - just don't think I should have to pay for it.

I don't think you understand what the word "write" means in that context. Try again.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Lots of complaining but very few solutions being offered in here. File sharing is here to stay so let's here some solutions to the problem.My contention is that if the music industry changes their pricing structure (say to $2-$5/album instead of $12-20) then illegal file sharing will be dramatically reduced. Why are people in here saying that their only option is to increase prices to make up of lost revenues when they also have the option to lower prices and go for higher volume?I wonder how many of the free music downloaders here paid money to buy Radiohead's In Rainbows?I wonder how much money freeware distributors make with the "Please Donate" option on the DL page for their software. I imagine that the ones with good products make significantly more.Perhaps lower prices and higher volume is not the solution but telling people to stop because it's wrong apparently isn't the solution either.So what are the other options to fix the problem?

I don't have any stats - and two things seemingly converged - rise of itunes and fall of Napster - but I do get the sense that this is a business model that can curb file sharing. It does not have to be itunes - but an online shop with proprietary, yet widespread acceptance, software to eliminate file sharing.You raise a good point about pricing - I think the music industry needs to figure that out - what is the price point where they generate the maximum revenues. Same with movies. Netflix is seeing new life with unlimited streaming of content for a monthly fee. Get major studios in line with this, and you will soon see faster releases - DVDs are dying, but they are not dead - so the studios are trying to protect that revenue stream by delaying the view instantly versions. Once the studios see they can make more money from Netflix et al, than they can from DVD sales, they will move content faster.With TV shows, I think you are seeing the solutions on-line - networks are releasing online shows for free, and supported by limited advertising.

 

[scoobygang]

Lots of complaining but very few solutions being offered in here. File sharing is here to stay so let's here some solutions to the problem.My contention is that if the music industry changes their pricing structure (say to $2-$5/album instead of $12-20) then illegal file sharing will be dramatically reduced. Why are people in here saying that their only option is to increase prices to make up of lost revenues when they also have the option to lower prices and go for higher volume?I wonder how many of the free music downloaders here paid money to buy Radiohead's In Rainbows?I wonder how much money freeware distributors make with the "Please Donate" option on the DL page for their software. I imagine that the ones with good products make significantly more.Perhaps lower prices and higher volume is not the solution but telling people to stop because it's wrong apparently isn't the solution either.So what are the other options to fix the problem?

I use a subscription plan, but the market seems to have largely rejected that approach.Nobody likes it, but if I'm a media company, I'm lobbying for a compulsory broadband license tax that is then allocated based on legal downloads (that would presumably be free).Another option is for most media to be hosted in the cloud and not downloadable (with physical media basically dying out). There would still be tools to burn the output from your client, but it would be clunky and quality would probably suffer. Making copies less desirable.Finally, there is the underhanded method. Which is for media companies to hire hackers to seed torrent sites with spectacularly destructive viruses and (hopefully) not get discovered. As long as file sharing is limited to small communities of trust, content providers aren't hurt much more than they were when you copied a cassette for a friend.

 

[Jason Bourne]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.

In the not too distant past, I was a graduate-assistant at a very good college - grading papers in a 400-level class. I can assure you that the ability to write is no where close to being a commodity. It will not be a commodity in our lifetimes.But taking your post at face value - you must concede a few points - those things all have value now, and even looking into your future, the ability to program and build computers or robots to do these functions would have value. But according to what I have read here - if someone builds such a program/robot - it is fair game to get a copy of that for free and replicate it to my heart's content.I fear that too many people live in a world of entitlement. Why should I pay for something when I can take it for free? I am not really hurting anyone because I would never have paid for it, so its not costing the artist any money. I still want it though - just don't think I should have to pay for it.

I don't think you understand what the word "write" means in that context. Try again.

I understand the term - there are lots of people who earn a living based on their ability to write coherently. The better, more unique, the content you can generate - the greater the value. That will never change.kaa suggests that the ability to create content - painting, songwriting, program - will become a commodity with no value. I disagree - even if the ability to create content morphs into the ability to build or program a robot to do these things.People will always be able to create value by providing something that others want - in the context of this thread - people are downloading content because they want it. The question is - should they pay for that content? If nobody pays for that content - what is the incentive to create content?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Finally, there is the underhanded method. Which is for media companies to hire hackers to seed torrent sites with spectacularly destructive viruses and (hopefully) not get discovered. As long as file sharing is limited to small communities of trust, content providers aren't hurt much more than they were when you copied a cassette for a friend.

Maybe it says something about the things I worry about, but I've always wondered why that wasn't more common. J

 

[Phurfur]

In the coming decades, I think it is better for the artist for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. For one, it creates independent musical acts that aren't associated with corporations siphoning money out of their account.

Step 1: Form band

Step 2: Publish website

Step 3: Make Youtube video

Step 4: Reel in money from touring around the country

Absolutely cuts out the middleman, and if I have to download to revolutionize the industry, then ¡Viva la Revolución!

Did you forget about Ticketmaster?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Another option is for most media to be hosted in the cloud and not downloadable (with physical media basically dying out). There would still be tools to burn the output from your client, but it would be clunky and quality would probably suffer. Making copies less desirable....

I think this where just about all of the items mentioned in this thread (music, movies and TV, software, books, games) are going as long as we replace "downloadable" with "downloadable to permanent storage".

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...If nobody pays for that content - what is the incentive to create content?

Because creating content is what truly creative people do. If we as a society values this, maybe society should start collectively paying to keep artists from starving.

 

[Jason Bourne]

...If nobody pays for that content - what is the incentive to create content?

Because creating content is what truly creative people do. If we as a society values this, maybe society should start collectively paying to keep artists from starving.

Weird - because we kind of have a system in place to do that, and to reward those that produce exceptional content. Don't want to pay the same for all content, do we?

 

[KGB]

i hope everyone in this thread who is against torrents has compensated the artist for their background picture on their computer (assuming its not a stock/free/personal photo). I believe at least 1 FBG has anothers digital photo as their background. same goes with backgrounds for cell phones. also ringtones. alot of people just use a song as a ringtone. that is also stealing.

i hope no 2 websites have the same player ranked #1 RB this year either. 1st come first serve here too. WHERE DOES THE INSANITY END?!

 

[Jason Bourne]

i hope everyone in this thread who is against torrents has compensated the artist for their background picture on their computer (assuming its not a stock/free/personal photo). I believe at least 1 FBG has anothers digital photo as their background.

I have a picture of my daughters - is that acceptable?

same goes with backgrounds for cell phones.

I have whatever came on the phone.

also ringtones. alot of people just use a song as a ringtone. that is also stealing.

I have two ring tones that I paid for and downloaded, in addition to whatever ring tones came with the phone.

i hope no 2 websites have the same player ranked #1 RB this year either. 1st come first serve here too. WHERE DOES THE INSANITY END?!

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

 

[ODoyleRules]

OK. I admit that I have sung "Happy Birthday" to my daughter in a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of family and its social acquantances is gathered.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...If nobody pays for that content - what is the incentive to create content?

Because creating content is what truly creative people do. If we as a society values this, maybe society should start collectively paying to keep artists from starving.

Weird - because we kind of have a system in place to do that, and to reward those that produce exceptional content. Don't want to pay the same for all content, do we?

Joe's musician friends seem to be not so certain. And please lets not confused "mass marketable" with "exceptional". Most things that are truly "exceptional" only serve niche markets, though there are of course exceptions to prove the rule.

 

[scoobygang]

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

The "fact" or idea/expression distinction is a bit far afield from what most of this thread is about, but it is illustrative.Let's take the example of Joe. I'm sure Joe will tell you that FBG's ranking tables other paid content is copyrighted. But what if I started Scoobyguys with my very own rankings? Surprisingly, my rankings are completely identical to FBG's and they change as Joe's changes. The only difference is that a subscription to Scoobyguys costs half as much as a subscription to FBGs.Now if Joe is smart, he's embedded an agreement from me not to reproduce those rankings in the click-through license on his site (I have to imagine he does this). Because under copyright and other IP law itself, Joe would have little recourse against Scoobyguys. Joe can't copyright the idea that Chris Johnson is going to be better in 2010 than Steve Slaton. He can't copyright any historical information about those guys performances. He MAY be able to copyright the compilation of those ideas and information, but that's a "thin" copyright and only available for really novel ways of organizing the information. Placing the best guys on top likely won't cut it. What about the concept of VBD? Maybe he can trademark the term, so Scoobyguys will just use the term "Positional Contextual Drafting" or PCD. I doubt he can get a business method patent on VBD.So Joe really doesn't have many "rights" in anything he does. Yet he presumably puts a lot of work into what goes up on FBGs. If he can't monetize that work, he won't have an adequate incentive to continue ranking players. The incentive structure is the same, but our law treats them differently. Our law draws lots of these types of distinctions. Why doesn't every restaurant that sells buffalo wings pay a royalty to the Anchor Bar? The answers to these questions are actually kind of boring. The IP Clause of the Constitution doesn't mention them (although Congress could likely do it anyway under the Commerce Clause) and bar owners and fantasy football rankers don't have a powerful lobbying group. But the differences highlight one simple fact. Generally industries that are not protected have found a way to survive anyway. There's little IP protection in the fashion industry. Designs are copied all the time. Fashion survives (although they continue to lobby for more IP protection). Several scholars have argued that copying serves an efficient function in the fashion market. High end sucessful designers have their reputations enhanced by spawning knock-offs.

 

[Chaka]

Finally, there is the underhanded method. Which is for media companies to hire hackers to seed torrent sites with spectacularly destructive viruses and (hopefully) not get discovered. As long as file sharing is limited to small communities of trust, content providers aren't hurt much more than they were when you copied a cassette for a friend.

Maybe it says something about the things I worry about, but I've always wondered why that wasn't more common. J

I know HBO used to flood torrent sites with bogus downloads. Not viruses just garbage files, the deterrent was that people didn't want to have to DL multiple 350-700Mb files to find the one good one. I think they stopped the practice with the rise of broadband connections.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And let me clarify too about my friends. This really is more about them than it is FBG stuff. I'm sure some people share passwords and such but that's not really high on our radar. My feeling on this came about after having lunch with my friend last week.

They're a really good (I think) band that is trying to get traction http://thedirtyguvnahs.com/Home.html Sound is Old Rolling Stones / Black Crows type music.

They have two self produced CDs and have a 3rd in production now. No record deal. They've been named "Best Band In Knoxville" for a couple of years but primarily play small venues around the South East not too far from home. 700 is a big crowd for them. All of these guys are in their 20's and have other jobs. Some are married. All are very bright, most with college degrees. That's only pertinent as they're all at the "fork in the road" of do they pursue their music as a career or do they go get a "real" job that would probably preclude them doing the music seriously. It's an interesting dilemma as they don't want to give up but they also don't want to pass on another "normal" career that might be rewarding as well.

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

We all know that CD sales have plummeted as people get their music from itunes but more importantly, from illegal sharing sites where the artists gets nothing. Now a band is essentially looking at touring as the only real way they're making income. And obviously for guys that have a family, this becomes a much less attractive thing. The rock star gig sounds cool. In reality, for most guys with a family, being gone 300 nights a year is not that good.

As I'm talking to him, it's becoming apparent that the choice has gone from "Should we pursue this thing where we can make a living creating music for a CD and touring a little" to "Should we pursue this thing where we make a living playing live 300 nights a year?"

Now many I'm sure would say, "suck it up and tour". But I think that's not really being fair. The reality is that this paradigm has shifted simply because people are now illegally obtaining the music. It's not like market preferences have changed. It's that people are able to do something easily now that's illegal.

I don't know that any of that really matters. It's just some background as to where I was coming from on this.

J

 

[Chaka]

Does everyone here watch all the commercials when they DVR a show? It is because those advertisers are willing to pay a premium that television shows are even made. Stop watching commercials and TV content will disappear.

 

[Jason Bourne]

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

The "fact" or idea/expression distinction is a bit far afield from what most of this thread is about, but it is illustrative.Let's take the example of Joe. I'm sure Joe will tell you that FBG's ranking tables other paid content is copyrighted. But what if I started Scoobyguys with my very own rankings? Surprisingly, my rankings are completely identical to FBG's and they change as Joe's changes. The only difference is that a subscription to Scoobyguys costs half as much as a subscription to FBGs.Now if Joe is smart, he's embedded an agreement from me not to reproduce those rankings in the click-through license on his site (I have to imagine he does this). Because under copyright and other IP law itself, Joe would have little recourse against Scoobyguys. Joe can't copyright the idea that Chris Johnson is going to be better in 2010 than Steve Slaton. He can't copyright any historical information about those guys performances. He MAY be able to copyright the compilation of those ideas and information, but that's a "thin" copyright and only available for really novel ways of organizing the information. Placing the best guys on top likely won't cut it. What about the concept of VBD? Maybe he can trademark the term, so Scoobyguys will just use the term "Positional Contextual Drafting" or PCD. I doubt he can get a business method patent on VBD.So Joe really doesn't have many "rights" in anything he does. Yet he presumably puts a lot of work into what goes up on FBGs. If he can't monetize that work, he won't have an adequate incentive to continue ranking players. The incentive structure is the same, but our law treats them differently. Our law draws lots of these types of distinctions. Why doesn't every restaurant that sells buffalo wings pay a royalty to the Anchor Bar? The answers to these questions are actually kind of boring. The IP Clause of the Constitution doesn't mention them (although Congress could likely do it anyway under the Commerce Clause) and bar owners and fantasy football rankers don't have a powerful lobbying group. But the differences highlight one simple fact. Generally industries that are not protected have found a way to survive anyway. There's little IP protection in the fashion industry. Designs are copied all the time. Fashion survives (although they continue to lobby for more IP protection). Several scholars have argued that copying serves an efficient function in the fashion market. High end sucessful designers have their reputations enhanced by spawning knock-offs.

Data, and its compilation, as you have noted is very difficult to protect - and copyright laws generally do not protect compilations of data.But Joe does have something else - a contractual agreement with those who subscribe to his services. Its not the greatest protections - as it would be expensive to enforce - but lets say Scoobyguys is getting its information via footballguys - Joe could sever the contractual relationship, he could seek relief in the courts - and damages if the case warranted.But this is not efficient - and Joe is not going to go after everyone who shares the rankings with their buddies. But, if he felt the impact of lost business to Scoobyguys, he might be more inclined to pursue that case.This is similar to the strategy the Record Companies have pursued - they don't try to enforce the copyright against every single user - but they do try to identify big users and make examples. I've seen lots of news articles about a student who is sued for big bucks - and it is usually because they have gone above and beyond "typical" downloads. They use the publicity to scare others into not infringing on the copyrights.

 

[scoobygang]

This is similar to the strategy the Record Companies have pursued - they don't try to enforce the copyright against every single user - but they do try to identify big users and make examples. I've seen lots of news articles about a student who is sued for big bucks - and it is usually because they have gone above and beyond "typical" downloads. They use the publicity to scare others into not infringing on the copyrights.

All of what you have said is true. But I think it supports one of my main points. Which is that copyright law is a terribly inefficient way of compensating artists.Record companies have the resources to pay a law firm $800 an hour to go after file sharers. Joe's buddy's band does not. Heck, they likely don't have the resources to hire a computer forensics company to find the file sharers in the first place. Copyright law does little to help Joe's friends (with the possible exception of Bono or someone outright stealing their song). Copyrights aren't like real property rights. If you trespass on my property, I can call the police right away to eject you. If you infringe my copyright, I have to spend a bunch of money to enforce the right. So not only does copyright restrict the spread of art, it does so in a way that privileges large rights holders over small rights holders.

 

[Chaka]

And let me clarify too about my friends. This really is more about them than it is FBG stuff. I'm sure some people share passwords and such but that's not really high on our radar. My feeling on this came about after having lunch with my friend last week.

They're a really good (I think) band that is trying to get traction http://thedirtyguvnahs.com/Home.html Sound is Old Rolling Stones / Black Crows type music.

They have two self produced CDs and have a 3rd in production now. No record deal. They've been named "Best Band In Knoxville" for a couple of years but primarily play small venues around the South East not too far from home. 700 is a big crowd for them. All of these guys are in their 20's and have other jobs. Some are married. All are very bright, most with college degrees. That's only pertinent as they're all at the "fork in the road" of do they pursue their music as a career or do they go get a "real" job that would probably preclude them doing the music seriously. It's an interesting dilemma as they don't want to give up but they also don't want to pass on another "normal" career that might be rewarding as well.

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

We all know that CD sales have plummeted as people get their music from itunes but more importantly, from illegal sharing sites where the artists gets nothing. Now a band is essentially looking at touring as the only real way they're making income. And obviously for guys that have a family, this becomes a much less attractive thing. The rock star gig sounds cool. In reality, for most guys with a family, being gone 300 nights a year is not that good.

As I'm talking to him, it's becoming apparent that the choice has gone from "Should we pursue this thing where we can make a living creating music for a CD and touring a little" to "Should we pursue this thing where we make a living playing live 300 nights a year?"

Now many I'm sure would say, "suck it up and tour". But I think that's not really being fair. The reality is that this paradigm has shifted simply because people are now illegally obtaining the music. It's not like market preferences have changed. It's that people are able to do something easily now that's illegal.

I don't know that any of that really matters. It's just some background as to where I was coming from on this.

J

It's an interesting story JB but really it's a sob story and little more. They have the option to be working musicians, most bands don't even have that much good fortune.The timeline of music history is littered with the corpses of bands that tried and failed. At any point in time most bands do not even have a remote chance of success. In the past I had to buy a CD to decide if I even like a band beyond whatever single that made it on the air. As a result fewer bands even got any national exposure. Today any garage band can get their content out there and if they are good they will succeed, although what success means today may be different than it was in the 80/90s. I would guess that because of the realities of media delivery today there are probably more bands able to work for a living than at any time, but just because they can get regular work doesn't mean they have a right to be super-mega-rock-stars. The great ones will achieve that the rest will have to grind it out.

I am sorry your friends have tough career choices but the field has changed in the music industry and they are really no different than the rest of us who have had to make tough career choices. For example I agonized for nine months about whether I should apply my PhD in genetics to a career in that field or whether I should try and become an entrepreneur and join a start-up company in the field of Workers' Compensation settlement negotiations. It was brutal making that decision. I went with the latter and am grateful 1) that I had the choice & 2) it has turned out very well for me.

Your friends should be happy they have the option at all, if they love making music then they will pursue that path, if they are any good they will be rewarded for their efforts if they are great they will be able to work because they want to not because they have to. Just like the rest of us.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

I have reason to believe it is extremely easy to limit a torrent search to just HD-quality files, a movie in such a format can range from 1.5GB to 4.5GB, so it can download in 3-4 hours if they're from a good site. DVD quality is less than 1 GB and can be had in 30-90 minutes. I also have reason to believe such files need no further processing or preparation to view on a TV if a person is 1) capable of clicking the media sharing tab in the Windows media player, and 2) hitting the "search for media servers" icon on a PS3-type device.I don't think anyone capable of setting up torrent on their PC would be unable of following through with the rest. I doubt that puts me in the minority.

is that better than just plugging your TV into the video card via HDMI cables?

In my case, it's probably the same because all the video is coming off of a NAS so I'm limited to the speed of the LAN at one point or another in the chain. Never noticed anything weird, though.I do have my HDTV plugged into the video card as well and a media center remote for the PC, but I still find using the PS3 easier to navigate.

interesting. I am still in the process of setting mine up. Navigation is def an issue.

 

[Disco Stu]

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

This doesn't sound accurate to me. Artists have always gotten bent over by the record companies. They still do. When you download a song from iTunes the artist gets 8 to 14 cents, depending on the contract. And until they recoup the costs of recording and producers they don't even get that.I think your friends are guilty of "good old days syndrome". Only the biggest stars could ever really make good money on album/cd/mp3 sales. There was no way these guys were going to realistically make a living in the way described.

 

[beer 30]

I take out CDs from my local library on a regular basis and rip them to my computer and then put them on my ipod. Am I a criminal?

Yes. Specifically a criminal from 1992.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

And I'd ask another question - is there a "line" for sharing? In other words, if I buy a CD I like, can I burn a copy for my son? Should I have to buy everyone in my household a copy that wants to listen? Hmmm.

Ever borrow a book? Ever lend a book? Ever xerox a page out of a book from the library? Ever borrow or lend a computer program disk to someone else? It's all stealing.

Lending and borrowing books isn't stealing. Photocopying one page out of a work of several hundred pages isn't likely copyright violation either.

 

[phthalatemagic]

I just assumed people downloaded torrents for a trial basis. If they liked what they got, then they'd purchase it. I don't know if it's illegal, but it doesn't seem morally wrong for me to try out a movie or music. If I like it, I'll buy it. If I dislike it, I delete it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And let me clarify too about my friends. This really is more about them than it is FBG stuff. I'm sure some people share passwords and such but that's not really high on our radar. My feeling on this came about after having lunch with my friend last week.

They're a really good (I think) band that is trying to get traction http://thedirtyguvnahs.com/Home.html Sound is Old Rolling Stones / Black Crows type music.

They have two self produced CDs and have a 3rd in production now. No record deal. They've been named "Best Band In Knoxville" for a couple of years but primarily play small venues around the South East not too far from home. 700 is a big crowd for them. All of these guys are in their 20's and have other jobs. Some are married. All are very bright, most with college degrees. That's only pertinent as they're all at the "fork in the road" of do they pursue their music as a career or do they go get a "real" job that would probably preclude them doing the music seriously. It's an interesting dilemma as they don't want to give up but they also don't want to pass on another "normal" career that might be rewarding as well.

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

We all know that CD sales have plummeted as people get their music from itunes but more importantly, from illegal sharing sites where the artists gets nothing. Now a band is essentially looking at touring as the only real way they're making income. And obviously for guys that have a family, this becomes a much less attractive thing. The rock star gig sounds cool. In reality, for most guys with a family, being gone 300 nights a year is not that good.

As I'm talking to him, it's becoming apparent that the choice has gone from "Should we pursue this thing where we can make a living creating music for a CD and touring a little" to "Should we pursue this thing where we make a living playing live 300 nights a year?"

Now many I'm sure would say, "suck it up and tour". But I think that's not really being fair. The reality is that this paradigm has shifted simply because people are now illegally obtaining the music. It's not like market preferences have changed. It's that people are able to do something easily now that's illegal.

I don't know that any of that really matters. It's just some background as to where I was coming from on this.

J

It's an interesting story JB but really it's a sob story and little more. They have the option to be working musicians, most bands don't even have that much good fortune.The timeline of music history is littered with the corpses of bands that tried and failed. At any point in time most bands do not even have a remote chance of success. In the past I had to buy a CD to decide if I even like a band beyond whatever single that made it on the air. As a result fewer bands even got any national exposure. Today any garage band can get their content out there and if they are good they will succeed, although what success means today may be different than it was in the 80/90s. I would guess that because of the realities of media delivery today there are probably more bands able to work for a living than at any time, but just because they can get regular work doesn't mean they have a right to be super-mega-rock-stars. The great ones will achieve that the rest will have to grind it out.

I am sorry your friends have tough career choices but the field has changed in the music industry and they are really no different than the rest of us who have had to make tough career choices. For example I agonized for nine months about whether I should apply my PhD in genetics to a career in that field or whether I should try and become an entrepreneur and join a start-up company in the field of Workers' Compensation settlement negotiations. It was brutal making that decision. I went with the latter and am grateful 1) that I had the choice & 2) it has turned out very well for me.

Your friends should be happy they have the option at all, if they love making music then they will pursue that path, if they are any good they will be rewarded for their efforts if they are great they will be able to work because they want to not because they have to. Just like the rest of us.

Didn't you mention something about your business that you'd started and how you had a 5 year jump on the competition? What if other companies started illegally taking your ideas or processes that were copyrighted and forced you to cut your prices by 75% while you didn't have the resources to legally challenge them? Would that be a "sob story" and should you just be glad you had the opportunity to try in the first place to have a business?J

 

[Joe Bryant]

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

This doesn't sound accurate to me. Artists have always gotten bent over by the record companies. They still do. When you download a song from iTunes the artist gets 8 to 14 cents, depending on the contract. And until they recoup the costs of recording and producers they don't even get that.I think your friends are guilty of "good old days syndrome". Only the biggest stars could ever really make good money on album/cd/mp3 sales. There was no way these guys were going to realistically make a living in the way described.

I think it's accurate that artists now make a ton less on CD sales than they used to be able to make. Whether that's enough to live on would be dependent upon one wanted to live etc.J

 

[scoobygang]

Didn't you mention something about your business that you'd started and how you had a 5 year jump on the competition? What if other companies started illegally taking your ideas or processes that were copyrighted and forced you to cut your prices by 75% while you didn't have the resources to legally challenge them? Would that be a "sob story" and should you just be glad you had the opportunity to try in the first place to have a business?J

Ideas and processes can't be copyrighted. It's question begging to assume that whatever ideas and processes you're talking about would be protected by any form of IP law. What type of things are you talking about?

 

[jb1020]

i paid $25 for copied dvds, this is criminal

 

[Disco Stu]

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

This doesn't sound accurate to me. Artists have always gotten bent over by the record companies. They still do. When you download a song from iTunes the artist gets 8 to 14 cents, depending on the contract. And until they recoup the costs of recording and producers they don't even get that.I think your friends are guilty of "good old days syndrome". Only the biggest stars could ever really make good money on album/cd/mp3 sales. There was no way these guys were going to realistically make a living in the way described.

I think it's accurate that artists now make a ton less on CD sales than they used to be able to make. Whether that's enough to live on would be dependent upon one wanted to live etc.J

Math problem...There are six guys in the band. If they had a typical record contract they'd get about a dollar per cd sold. That would be split six ways, but only after paying recording costs (producer, studio rental, any other session musicians, etc). How many cds would they have to sell to make a living?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I guess I'm more sensitive to that as I have several friends that are struggling to get music careers off the ground and this kind of thing directly impacts them.

The fact that it took the influence of your friends to get you interested in this is really shocking to me. I know you aren't in the music business, but you are in the business of creating and distributing content on a subscription basis. It would seem like the parallels there would be pretty clear. I guess you just didn't connect the dots.

 

[culdeus]

So imagine these scenarios:1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

In your case, I think its more a question of how long it will take before each of these things becomes truly a commodity. There was a time a few hundred years where few people knew how to write. If you could write, you could be employed in a nice job. Fast forward a few hundred years, and the ability to write is a pure commodity. No-one will pay you to write.Each of these things you mention, creating a painting, writing games, writing songs, making a movie, eventually robots and computers will be smart and creative enough to do all of these things, reducing their value to zero.

In the not too distant past, I was a graduate-assistant at a very good college - grading papers in a 400-level class. I can assure you that the ability to write is no where close to being a commodity. It will not be a commodity in our lifetimes.But taking your post at face value - you must concede a few points - those things all have value now, and even looking into your future, the ability to program and build computers or robots to do these functions would have value. But according to what I have read here - if someone builds such a program/robot - it is fair game to get a copy of that for free and replicate it to my heart's content.I fear that too many people live in a world of entitlement. Why should I pay for something when I can take it for free? I am not really hurting anyone because I would never have paid for it, so its not costing the artist any money. I still want it though - just don't think I should have to pay for it.

I don't think you understand what the word "write" means in that context. Try again.

I understand the term - there are lots of people who earn a living based on their ability to write coherently. The better, more unique, the content you can generate - the greater the value. That will never change.kaa suggests that the ability to create content - painting, songwriting, program - will become a commodity with no value. I disagree - even if the ability to create content morphs into the ability to build or program a robot to do these things.People will always be able to create value by providing something that others want - in the context of this thread - people are downloading content because they want it. The question is - should they pay for that content? If nobody pays for that content - what is the incentive to create content?

Try one more time.

 

[KGB]

i hope everyone in this thread who is against torrents has compensated the artist for their background picture on their computer (assuming its not a stock/free/personal photo). I believe at least 1 FBG has anothers digital photo as their background.

I have a picture of my daughters - is that acceptable?

same goes with backgrounds for cell phones.

I have whatever came on the phone.

also ringtones. alot of people just use a song as a ringtone. that is also stealing.

I have two ring tones that I paid for and downloaded, in addition to whatever ring tones came with the phone.

i hope no 2 websites have the same player ranked #1 RB this year either. 1st come first serve here too. WHERE DOES THE INSANITY END?!

I really have no idea where you are going with this.

I guess you missed the part i just bolded.

 

[Christo]

And if you read on, Jefferson says:

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Our society has given an exclusive right. So according to Jefferson, all the haters in this thread don't have the right to complain.

Yes, society decides whether or not ideas are freely shared or not, not those that falsely claim ownership to creative works falls under general property rights.

Say what now?

 

[Joe Bryant]

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

This doesn't sound accurate to me. Artists have always gotten bent over by the record companies. They still do. When you download a song from iTunes the artist gets 8 to 14 cents, depending on the contract. And until they recoup the costs of recording and producers they don't even get that.I think your friends are guilty of "good old days syndrome". Only the biggest stars could ever really make good money on album/cd/mp3 sales. There was no way these guys were going to realistically make a living in the way described.

I think it's accurate that artists now make a ton less on CD sales than they used to be able to make. Whether that's enough to live on would be dependent upon one wanted to live etc.J

Math problem...There are six guys in the band. If they had a typical record contract they'd get about a dollar per cd sold. That would be split six ways, but only after paying recording costs (producer, studio rental, any other session musicians, etc). How many cds would they have to sell to make a living?

What are you trying to say?I'm saying that because of illegal file sharing, bands today make significantly less money than they used to be able to make from CD sales. Do you disagree with that?J

 

[phthalatemagic]

Joe - what would you do if you found FBG's premium content on available via torrent?

 

[Disco Stu]

As I talked with my friend about this, I'm asking about how viable the money is to be made. That's where we talked more about the CD sales stuff. In years past, artists could essentially survive on CD sales. They make a CD, it sells a ton, and they tour basically to support the CD. Touring for many of the bands was almost like a "book tour" or marketing blitz to help sell the CD.

This doesn't sound accurate to me. Artists have always gotten bent over by the record companies. They still do. When you download a song from iTunes the artist gets 8 to 14 cents, depending on the contract. And until they recoup the costs of recording and producers they don't even get that.I think your friends are guilty of "good old days syndrome". Only the biggest stars could ever really make good money on album/cd/mp3 sales. There was no way these guys were going to realistically make a living in the way described.

I think it's accurate that artists now make a ton less on CD sales than they used to be able to make. Whether that's enough to live on would be dependent upon one wanted to live etc.J

Math problem...There are six guys in the band. If they had a typical record contract they'd get about a dollar per cd sold. That would be split six ways, but only after paying recording costs (producer, studio rental, any other session musicians, etc). How many cds would they have to sell to make a living?

What are you trying to say?I'm saying that because of illegal file sharing, bands today make significantly less money than they used to be able to make from CD sales. Do you disagree with that?

J

I'm trying to say the thought of being able to make a living from selling cds (and maybe touring a little) was a pipe dream regardless of file sharing.Back in '82, I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile.