yer funny.

Not as funny as your “redneck” style of atrocious grammar and spelling. There’s only one “p” in “rip.” “Backpeddling” is spelled with only one “d” and uses an “a” in its place. Sentences require capitalization. You’re just proving how language skills are degrading over the generations because of “txt tlk” and auto-correct.

But I agree with your point that it’s not okay to rip off artists and pay them nothing. That’s why the “less people” you refer to are escaping the major labels that don’t pay what they deserve.

heard of oatmeal…

I personally like Quaker Instant Oatmeal: Cinnamon and Spice. It may not be good for the blood sugar, but it does keep me full longer.

I don’t see what this has to do with us, and I especially don’t see why this has somehow become our responsibility, but I’m going to debunk you on the most stupid of points.

No, artists can’t simply tour and sell t-shirts.

Which is what this site has been continuously saying, especially for the latter. Simply selling T-shirts is extremely useless.

Younger people mostly do not buy music; they do buy hardware and access.

Because we have different options for entertainment, and hardware is more likely to be multi-purpose? Personally, I purchased Linkin Park’s first two albums, and still continue to listen to those. I’m not fond of their later work. Have I stolen from them?

But older people file-trade, they stream, they steal and they buy less than before.

So which is it, then? You maximists are frequently insistent that everything boils down to the present generation of youngsters being a part of some Internet conspiracy and wrecking the industry. But I’ll tell you this: old people don’t have a lot of time and, while they may not have a clear stand on piracy, they’re also easily peeved at things that don’t make sense like 3DS games getting region locks.

It’s not file-trading, but the payouts on Spotify, Pandora, Turntable.fm, or whatever else are shockingly low.

So you admit that filesharing has never been the problem.

If you have an iTunes collection of more than a few thousand songs, you’ve almost certainly swapped, torrented, or swapped hard drives in your life. And almost everyone has a collection of a few thousand songs.

This is absolutely fucking stupid. Why are all the IP maximists insistent that everyone magically acquired and currently has a massive library of songs? Do you really think that everyone’s entertainment options revolve around the Top 40 hits of the last decade?

Mass-marketed, ‘lottery winner’ style successes will continue.

As in, whether you are a success depends whether people like you or not? Gee, that sounds familiar – oh, right, it’s because that’s how life works in general.

Her’s a simple solution: listen to the goddamned market and propose solutiona based on that.

Look at the differenc ebetween Origin and Steam as the major example of this. Valve gives people a reaosn to buy. Origin, until recently, was almost unusuable for most of its users.

No, it’s probably the rhetorical equivalent of God coming down and damning you for saying “Jesus was a man”.

I’ll say this again: for it’s points I can actually agree with, that site and some of its authors couch it in such brain-eaterrhetoric that I can’t actually accept their views as valid.

Fail: it’s pirates not updas(?)

I like your comment Josef. If I may make one additional point, the “morality” argument as much as it’s pushed and said is completely ridiculous for one reason that hardly ever gets mentioned (at least by those pushing said argument), it’s purely subjective.

Every single person has morality/code of ethics. Every single person. With the exception of the more especially heinous things like murder, rape, and the abuse of the weak, no two people for the most part will agree on what is moral or immoral. That’s the long and short of it.

In these comments we’ve seen Audrey saying “it’s theft” (over and over, yes, Audrey we got your point, could you move on please), pure and simple and it’s “morally wrong and unethical”. However, we had someone else respond that not sharing is “morally wrong and unethical” and someone else point out that withholding items from the public domain (due to ever increasing copyright length changes, bought… I mean, brought about by lobbying on the behalf of copyright holders) is “morally wrong and unethical”. And that alone is all the proof we need that morals should never come into such a debate. We already have three people saying that three completely different things are all morally wrong and unethical. That’s just three people, two of which will never be able to convince the former of anything but her belief that “it’s theft”.

So how can we move forward when we’re held back by such trivialities as one another’s morals? We can’t. But we can debate the ACTUAL (as in independently produced) facts on the matter, we can try and discuss mutually beneficial solutions (and by mutually I mean to ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, which includes the public, because the point of copyright originally was that it would be allowed as long as the public gained something from it by the Public Domain), and so on and so forth. But we can’t get anywhere if we keep having to repeat the same talking points over and over. The handful of ACs so far seem to want to contribute nothing beyond calling the rest of us thieves, piracy apologists and hurling much worse insults than that (and on a regular basis I might add).

Personally, I’d love to debate this properly and respectfully and reasonably. But that just won’t happen til we can get past the “moral” stuff. (I should also add, I tried to read what Lowery wrote, as I mentioned above. But when I got to the part that you noticed as well, where he brings the deaths of two supposed friends into the argument and use their deaths to further his own agenda… well, I thought that was “morally wrong and unethical” and I was quite repulsed by such an action, which is why I just closed the browser at that point. This is my way of saying, “See, it’s all subject insofar as what is or is not moral or immoral goes. So let’s move past it already.”

Sorry to all if this is kind of rant-like. My wisdom teeth are coming in and I’m in pain and I haven’t (or better said, can’t at the moment) eaten breakfast or had my morning caffeine intake.

“…karma is the most powerful force on earth.”

No, like most aspects of religions, it’s just a made-up concept so people can feel good about themselves. It is neither powerful nor a force.

Do you have a reality-related argument?

…except people aren’t “ripping off artists” here.

They are doing the modern equivalent of listening to the radio or watching MTV. There are plenty of bands I have enjoyed in that manner over the years without paying a dime to directly.

That wasn’t evil and neither is Pandora and Spotify.

If you push Top 40 tripe you’ve always had the problem that your stuff is flooding the airwaves for free.

This actually reminds me of a radio ad from the 80s complaining about this very thing. The narrator was trying to tune into radio stations and found that they were all playing the same song.

…except no one has to “illegally download” anything.

That’s the beauty of the real world as opposed to the fantasy land that the media conglomerates and their victims (artists) have been living in.

Legal payment avoidance methods have always been available.

Did you know that Fahrenheit 451 was inspired by Bradbury seeing some kid with a portable radio and going full Luddite over the situation? Nothing is really new here.

They need that argument. They need that argument like a security blanket because they don’t have anything more meaningful to say. They don’t have a real argument so they have to “hijack” theft.

On a certain level it’s kind of like plagarism.

“Something that makes you go hmmmmm”

Thanks for admitting you’re an unethical thief… I think that about says it all.

Techdirt is a dumping ground for ehtically-challenged thieves. It becomes more obvious the more time you spend here.

What a bunch of red herrings and tangents. Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL. Only a sociopath would argue with this.

You’re the one that’s ethically retarded. You are either ignorant or a liar. You are either unaware of moral history or willing to lie about it while trying to insult others.

The notion of “common law crimes” is an important one. It captures a set of small well defined crimes that pretty much everyone can agree on. So can things like the 10 Commandments.

There are pretty clear and universal moral guidelines.

These universal moral guidelines to do NOT label sharing of information or copying of creative works as crime or sin.

If your notion of morality genuinely reflected reality, you would not be alive to post your hypocrisy. Your entire bloodline would not exist. The modern world would not exist. The knowledge of the West would have been lost after the fall of Rome and any new developments from India or China would never have gotten to the West.

Book “piracy” is a very important part of the Catholic tradition.

You can thank your cushy life and the fact that you even have a life to that tradition of “rampant piracy”.

“What a bunch of red herrings and tangents.”

Yes, that is what your comments are. No need to inform the rest of us.

“Downloading music and listening to it without paying the artist who created it is UNETHICAL.”

Well, downloading music is illegal, but only insofar as if what is being downloaded is being done so without authorization. Because downloading music is also legal. (Or need I remind you how iTunes, Amazon and a plethora of other legal sites work?)

Listening to music without paying the artist who created it is also legal. (Or should I point out how the radio works? Pandora? Spotify? Or the other sites and options that allow for someone to legally listen to music without paying for it.)

In fact, with the exception of downloading copyrighted material without prior authorization, downloading music and getting music for free is perfectly legal. Because there is plenty of music out there distributed freely and free to download.

My favorite band, Alkaline Trio, routinely releases new songs whenever a new album is about to be released, to download for free. They also give people who pre-order the album (like myself) access to the album about a week early in any format of my choosing, but I have to download it (no streaming available). So that’s an example of downloading of music I’ve done, I did pay. But it’s an example of how downloading music is not necessarily illegal, which is how you try and paint any/all downloading to be.

Only an idiot would argue that downloading/enjoying music without paying to do so is unethical. In point of fact, the vast majority of people would consider it a non-issue. As in, it’s completely ethical to do so

Just curious. Would copying someone else’s answers (e.g., the known A+ student) on a final exam be ethical? After all, the A+ student still has his/her answers.

God, you’re such a pathetic, lying sociopath, Karl.

Are you seriously trying to say that piracy hasn’t had a negative economic effect on musicians???

Douchebag indeed.

The douchebag here is you. Why? Because rather than rebut what Karl did say, you pulled “piracy” out of nowhere (I don’t even see it mentioned by him at all in his comment).

Also, calling someone a sociopath DOES NOT make it a fact. It just means you have nothing better to say. In general.

Now, if you’d like to stop putting words in people’s mouths and actually discuss what was said, we all look forward to what drivel you come up with that isn’t an ad hom.

“I get free music every day – completely legal free music that the artist is giving away. “

Fantastic you have no excuse than for stealing from and exploiting those who are not giving it to you than.

David Lowery argues that people who pay for Spotify are doing what you call stealing.

He implies that people who legally rip CDs are doing what you call stealing.

We’re not talking about Bittorrent here, or a turnign of the tide. We’rre talking about whetehr to move the line and why.

The trichordist is not getting it right and they block comments of people who do. They’re basically aggressive panhandlers.

Here’s a good response to this subject, the best I’ve seen. Ben Sisario read and comprehends what Emily and Lowery actually said, and he gets what’s really being proposed by the trichordists. The Times is not in any way pro-piracy.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/npr-intern-gets-an-earful-after-blogging-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/

I agree that Lowery’s post is a Phenom but not in a good way. I see it as an elder statesman saying his only choice is to demand charity. It’s chilling and sad, but it won’t make me purchase more albums. I don’t use them.

Resnikoff is distracted. Here’s the truth: people aren’t buying albums, and that has nothing to do with Leigh, Prate Bay or anyone else in the tech world. The vast majority do in fact “do without” and love it. We don’t pirate or copy or rip and we also don’t buy. That’s why your revenues dropped. So why are you yelling on this forum?

David wants a pony?
Can I give him a donkey?
An eDonkey to be precise.

I do share software all the time that is why open source was invented.

What software do you want mate?

Sourceforge

What if you copy only some of the other student’s answers?

He was most likely referring to Lowery’s site. 🙂

Thanks for not reading the article, and spamming the entire thread with your insistence that everyone who doesn’t agree with you must be a thief.

I should have known Techdirt would have a good rundown on this. I was so surprised to see such BS spread around like it was making great points. The Trichord’s anti-tech slant is just childish and pathetic.

Don’t jump to conclusions, you don’t know what David Lowery has done, only what you think you know.
He is one of the early independent alternative artists to create his own label in the “80’s, worked at various full-time jobs before working in music full-time. Has a college degree in Math. Studied as a futures- trader and worked as one. Toured and created music with two bands he co-created in the last 25 years. Yes co-owned and ran a music studio and produced bands. Yes done more than a half-a-dozen cross country tours…..including his first one with REM in the 1980’s. Song credits in many movies and tv shows.
Acting credit and music in the Sundance film “River Red”.
A paper route in his teenage years, working at the local newspaper office in High School and College. Dj at his college radio station. yes guest lecturer at the
University of Georgia and now full-time teacher in the business/music .department. Is a father, husband, brother, son, nephew, uncle ,friend and
a damn fine human being! Has put a song out on an album for Sweet Relief a charity for musicians, and donated to this charity. Think he puts his money where his heart is! ……. s have you really done MORE than David Lowery has?????? Don’t speak up if you don’t have the facts!

I think Masnick makes a sophisticated (and sophistic) argument and that his followers, including Beadon, who are less intelligent and less honest, offer their childish reinterpretations.

It would be interesting to know what Masnick would tell a kid of his if they asked if it was okay to download music from a pirate site. I bet the truth would surprise a lot of his followers.

Or if his kid asked if it was okay to copy the answers from a fellow student’s exam, because, after all, he’s not stealing the answer, he’s just copying it. The other test taker still has the answer so they’re both better off, right?

Yes. He just explicitly argued that it’s better to be a crappy, unpopular band that sells no albums because apparently all he cares about is scamming the system for the maximum possible percentage of sales

Wow, you can’t even bother to take things out of context? He doesn’t say it’s better to be “crappy,” he says it’s ‘better’ to be unrecouped from a financial investment standpoint. From the perspective of Wall Street and those in Silicon Valley. YOU guys here are the ones who are always droning on about how music is fungible, without realizing that that is a direct dismissal of the true value of music to an audience. It’s not even a subtle point to grasp. Of course, if you’ve never made any money at art…

The guy who thinks that bands shouldn’t care about having fans – they should just care about getting a good advance then not even worry if anyone likes their album?

That’s an incredibly gross mis-characterization. First of all, no one gets an advance without already having fans unless they are a complete corporately fabricated entity (and in those cases, there’s no advance, it’s all the conglomerate’s money). Obviously, the majority of musicians are not corporate fabrications, so it’s a given that they’ll have a fanbase before they’re signed. Labels don’t even look at bands that have no fans. But then again, if you’ve never actually had any success as an artist…

That they should declare victory if they only sell a handful of copies, just because they got some cash upfront?

Strawmen. No one ever said that. And you’re quite vociferous about it. Almost foaming…

Pointing out the math is not a roadmap to “victory.” Just a look at the numbers.

Those are not the motivations of any musician I know, even the ones who very much want to make money with their music. Those are not the motivations of any musician I care to listen to, either

Obviously. And as I mentioned, NO ONE is arguing that point.

But I’ll bite: WHO are these musicians you know who very much want to make money? Do you know, personally, anyone who IS making a living at music? Names please.

Just to add to the LOLs: the GRD is dead.