US Gov admits piracy figures are bogus

[quixotecoyote]

My mom (not a professional musician) made an album along with some musician friends. They used a studio. Didn't cost an arm and a leg. Sounded very good.

You say I don't grasp the time commitment, yet you still did it? What I grasp is that many people are very dedicated to their hobbies.

Yeah, we were dedicated to our hobby, but it was still a hobby to do in our spare time. None of us were as good as we would have been if we spent the 40 a week at schools/jobs on the craft instead. It also drastically limited the number of practice sessions, recording sessions, performances, and tours we could do. It also meant that the band was going to be a short-term grouping because we couldn't afford to stick together rather than move for work/education opportunities.

Now, you might be happy getting lower quality/quantity hobby music in exchange for being able to legally make copies without permission, but lets not pretend there isn't a tradeoff.

This is even more apparent when it comes to video games and movies that require infrastructure, large teams of people, and years of dedication to get current levels of quality. Now I enjoy a good hobby game as much as the next guy, but the quality doesn't compare.

 

[rjh01]

And yet classical orchestras were viable for hundreds of years prior to the invention of recording. Their income came from live performances and teaching, similar to most classical musicians today. I doubt that orchestra (not soloists) members earn a very high percentage of their income from the royalties from orchestral recordings.

Not sure what your point is however before the 20th century there was a lot less choice of entertainment. There were no movies, radio, TV. So to listen to music you had to go to an orchestra.

 

[Steve]

Not sure what your point is however before the 20th century there was a lot less choice of entertainment. There were no movies, radio, TV. So to listen to music you had to go to an orchestra.

In the context of the thread - piracy - I took Rolfe's post to imply that professional orchestra musicians had to rely on income from recording sales to provide the level of income that their commitment, training, etc. required. In this context my point was that I did not think that was the case, or at least much less so than for musicians performing more contemporary types of music. I admit that I may have misunderstood Rolfe's post.

 

[Meed]

Now, you might be happy getting lower quality/quantity hobby music in exchange for being able to legally make copies without permission, but lets not pretend there isn't a tradeoff.

I'm not sure, but I think many could still be professional musicians without IP protections.

This is even more apparent when it comes to video games and movies that require infrastructure, large teams of people, and years of dedication to get current levels of quality. Now I enjoy a good hobby game as much as the next guy, but the quality doesn't compare.

Yeah it's more true in regard to movies and especially games. If movies didn't use such ridiculously extravagant budgets, including things like paying lead actors tens of millions of dollars then they'd have a much easier time making a profit in the theaters. Yeah the quality may suffer a little, but reliance on special effects and explosions rarely makes a film good anyway. Look at Star Wars I-III. There are trade offs, but I'd rather there be more rather than less freedom when it comes to information exchange. Times change.

 

[Ducky]

I'm not sure, but I think many could still be professional musicians without IP protections.



Yeah it's more true in regard to movies and especially games. If movies didn't use such ridiculously extravagant budgets, including things like paying lead actors tens of millions of dollars then they'd have a much easier time making a profit in the theaters. Yeah the quality may suffer a little, but reliance on special effects and explosions rarely makes a film good anyway. Look at Star Wars I-III. There are trade offs, but I'd rather there be more rather than less freedom when it comes to information exchange. Times change.

I don't think having more freedoms when it comes to information exchange requires the destruction of the concept of IP or artists not being paid for their IP.

 

[Meed]

It doesn't "require" it, but reducing the extent and severity of IP laws would definitely increase freedom when it comes to information exchange. I would draw the line at plagiarism.

 

[Psi Baba]

And in fact always has been. Though many sites claim otherwise, can you find a case where the RIAA sued someone for making a backup?

The dishonesty of the anti IP movement is rife with examples like the headline here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

"Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use"

And as is so often the case, reading a bit into it, you'll see personal use had nothing to do with it, and the charge was distributing copyrighted material to a filesharing site

Personal use had nothing to do with it? Really? When I read the article, I saw this:

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

 

[SnidelyW]

So, if I post something here someone thinks is worthy of downloading, according to the music industry, I should be paid something as it is a product of the 'creative process', correct? Hey, I may have to live on the proceeds from my quotes (Not likely, but one can dream). However, there is nothing to prevent me taking my quote act on the road, and fill concert halls to listen to them, right?

So, taking that a teeny step further, any creative process downloaded off the internet should be purchased, right?

 

[SnidelyW]

 

[Meed]

I can't imagine what incentive you'd have to post otherwise