Stealing is as fun as kites
God bless this iPod world we live in. In a half hour at Ivan's, I grabbed over 400 songs, stocking up on my history (Neu's Neu 1, the Stooges' Fun House), trying to get over my skepticism about a few things (ESG, the Free Design), getting some of Ivan's favorites (Jacksons Michael and Joe), some classics that I didn't have (the Association, Flock of Seagulls, Alan Parsons Project), and, strangely, the entire Spoon catalog. My "Never Played" playlist just doubled in size. And quadrupled the number of times I'll think "what the hell is this?"
I can never really figure out how I feel about this kind of file trading. It doesn't really seem like "stealing", as it's one person sharing with another something that has already been bought. If someone buys a sandwich and gives someone half of it, is the second person "stealing" because he didn't get his own sandwich? He may be a mooch, but he's not a thief. I suppose I can see the other side of the argument, though. Ultimately, like so many other things, I just don't think about it and carry on as normal.
As a matter of actually giving you something of possible value today, there's a couple of applications that have made my file-sharing life possible. One is a fantastic Mac-only app called Senuti that allows you to transfer songs from your iPod to you computer. Someone else may know of a PC version which can do the same thing. The other software I got is called JHymn, which strips the Apple protection from songs bought in the iTunes store, converting them to mp3s if you want that. It's worked pretty well for me, although, when it converts the file, I have to go back into iTunes and re-locate the files from their references in iTunes, which can be a pretty big pain. But it allows me to share stuff with you patient, procrastinating readers, and that makes it all worthwhile.
16 comments:
just to play devils advocate - because that's popular today, and I have no strong feelings about music sharing, but it isn't really like sharing a sandwich that you bought - because you pay for that singular product and it doesn't matter how it's used. A better analogy, I think, is that it is more like being at an all-you-can eat buffet and being the only one who bought a plate, but sharing with everyone at your table. shoot - now I'm hungry.
You're right. I'm bad at analogies. I guess where the buffet argument fails, though, is that the restaurant has to pay for the food that's only being paid for by one person but eaten by a lot. With music, there's only a cost to make a CD, which someone bought, but no cost to the creator for the ripping of a CD. So my copying of those files didn't really cost anyone anything.
At the very least, it's a lot more vague because an mp3 is not a tangible product that cost anyone anything to make. The only way people can lose money is in kind of an arbitrary way: you have to somehow prove that the person copying the files actually would have purchased the album to show that the creator of the album is losing any money.
I just think that the whole issue is different than whether it's "stealing" or not. It's just something that pops in my head everytime I do something like that.
hmmm, true, true - good point on the tangible product tip...
In your case, no it isn't stealing. With reference to the mp3 files you're not buying, selling, or processing anything bought, sold or processed. But somewhere, there's someone on a street corner selling bootlegged copies of movies and cds that they burned from the internet. Those street merchants are making money on something that they have no right to make money on. There may be someone misusing their office photocopier to make copies of the Harry Potter book so they can sell them on the street corner.
I don't know what all of this means. I guess it means that although you're not being devious about it, the potential is there.
By the way, I think every single one of us has been in dozens of situations where we've said (for example) "Hey, I'm gonna go buy the new Scorpions record today", and your friend has said "Nonsense... I'll burn a copy for you". Instead, you spend your $12.99 on hookers and crank.
$12.99?!! Man, hookers and crank are so much cheaper in Greensboro. Why did I ever move?!
I think Doug's analogy is dead on. Ripping a CD may not cost the original creator in terms of additional production costs, but it does represent lost revenue. Just like sharing your buffet plate with another person...the restaurant only collected 1X the buffet price rather than 2X. The record company is only getting paid 1X the CD price when they otherwise would have gotten more. Of course, that's assuming you would have bought the CD had you not had access to copy it. I've always found that the majority of the MP3s I have are music that I would not have bought anyway...either they're individual songs I liked but the albums containing them were otherwise crap, or they're things I was curious about but wouldn't risk shelling out the cash for without knowing first whether I'd like it.
Personally my stance has always been that the record companies were stealing from us, by taking a product that costs $1.47 per unit to make, and selling it for 10 times that. Plus keeping most of the revenue for themselves, and giving the musicians $1 - $2 per unit. The demand for downloading and copying music wouldn't be as great if people didn't feel that cd pricing was such a rip-off.
If I wasn't too lazy I'd start a CD version of Netflix. That way you could try listening to lot of different stuff without risking buyer's remorse. And you wouldn't need to have a cd sitting on your shelf collecting dust 90% of the time just so you could listen to it again in the future.
I stopped caring about the ethics of filesharing when I finally acquired the means to participate in it.
Actually, in theory I think it's important to protect a musician's only means of making money off their music (well not "only", but you know...) by not depriving them of a buying public, which filesharing kind of does. But again, that's only in theory. I think many or most still buy the Thing if they love it. I'm torn, but I think most arguments on both sides have a "yeah, but" response. It's new territory.
I've always wanted to ask an anti-filesharing stickler how they feel about roommates sharing a CD. Wouldn't this constitute a breach of the sharing thing? The very same thing happens when you burn a CD, doesn't it? Unless they want to prevent the simultaneous airing of an original and its copy--which, as we all know, can cause meningitis, depletes lawns, and displeases Allah--it seems the same to me.
But I'll tell you this much, if there's one thing I will not tolerate, it's kite-sharing. Fucking kite-sharing.
It's very telling that a lot of the artists I respect the most (like Jeff Tweedy) are all for filesharing because they care about the music more than the money, while a lot of the artists I respect the least (like Metallica (although I have not seen Some Kind of Monster, which, admittedly, might make me respect them a little more)) have come out against it, which I can only interpret as them being more interested in the money.
Pop stars, too, seem to be all up in arms about filesharing, but maybe that's because their albums are often comprised of two singles buffered by a lot of crap, and people who just want the radio songs and not the whole album just go and rip 'em off of the World Wide Wave. In which case money probably is being lost, but my philosphy about that is very deep and complex: Fuck 'em.
From what I've heard about that Metallica movie (which I really need to see as well), it won't make you respect them more - it'll make you laugh at them more.
Amen on Some Kind of Monster. It's fantastic, and it actually did make me like their music more. At the very least, it's worth it to see what has to be the world record for lowest-slung bass.
I actually don't mind Lars Ulrich's objection to file sharing. He sees it as taking for free what he feels is their product that people should pay for. That's his perspective, and it makes sense that he would feel that way. I just don't think it's nearly as simple as that. Music will find a way to adjust and be enjoyed and people will find ways to make the new adjustments make money.
I don't think it's that some bands care about money and some don't. They all want to make a living from their music. It's just that the musicians who are pro- file sharing are typically those that are still putting out new music, and they see file sharing as an opportunity to expand their fan base. On the other side, bands like Metallica, who have their best days behind them and aren't putting out anything new, rely solely on their royalties for income. They need to do everything they can to make sure people still go out and buy the 15 year old black album. Otherwise they may have to go back to the studio, or worse, on tour, and do some actual work.
The Metallica movie was kind of interesting, but it was sort of disgusting at the same time. That's always a recipe for fascinating.
My problem with it is more general in that I'm getting invited more and more to participate in people's (previously private) shame. From the tired reality love shows, celebrity confessional interviews with Larry King or Carson Geraldo Stossel, books by convicted dickheads like Jason Blair or Jose Canseco, Bob Dole shilling viagra by forcing me to imagine Mr. Limpy Limperton...it goes on and on. Now I get to watch these dudes get therapy from a total imbecile who can keep getting paid if he can keep them convinced that they're dysfunctional. One blow-up fist fight would have cost them much less, and would have been much more fun to watch.
But I watched it, and was enthralled, so what does that say about me? Maybe it's that this one-time stalwart of meathead metal is now saying things like "it's not what you said, it's the way you said it" that bugs me most. Everybody's gotta be mr. sensitive.
The whole therapy angle of "Some Kind of Monster" was interesting and made for great theater/cinema. But my enjoyment of that film (alongside my continued disinterest/dislike for Metallica's music in general) just underscored my interest in pretty much *any* music documentary, especially one that takes place in a recording studio. As for downloading music, I generally will partake in this activity fueled by one of two motivations: a) to catch a sneak preview of an eagerly awaited future release or 2) to "try on" something just out of sheer curiousity. In case a), I'll almost always end up buying the real thing once it's available by legit means. In case 2) the artist may eventually get my dollars or may not. It is in these cases where there is little justification or defense. (The whole "it's not stealing cos I wasn't going to buy it anyways" viewpoint doesnt seem to hold much water.) That doesn't mean I won't still do it from time to time. I guess I can sleep at night knowing I'm a part-time theif. The bottom line for me is that downloading music and owning digital files will never really take the place of actually owning the physical artifact.
I've just never been able to really see any of it as "stealing" at all. That word implies that one tangible thing is owned by someone and you take that one thing without paying for it. An mp3 has been reproduced and no one it making any money or paying any money off this reproduction. It's a more abstract concept than "stealing". I can see the argument that it's still wrong, but it's just hard to see it as theft.
I'm never trying to justify my file-trading and grabbing, even if it sounds like that. I never really have any particular problem with it.
But I do think that whether or not you're going to buy it does make a difference. If it's a difference between someone never ever hearing my music because they don't want to pay for it and someone getting it from a friend, I'd MUCH prefer the latter, whether or not they end up buying it. So arguing in favor of file-sharing because you wouldn't be exposed to the music otherwise seems to hold buckets of water to me.
Hey, it's always preferable for anyone to make money off of doing what they love. But it's just as nice, if not nicER, to think that people can make the enjoyment of art and music their first priority, ahead of whether or not the artist makes enough money at it.
Side note to Scott: Metallica actually did have a new album come out (what the movie was about) and the tour that came after it shattered box office records and made them millions. They don't need to worry about not making money because of file-sharing. They're doing just fine. I think it's probably more of the principle of it than the actual dollars. Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can also understand how they could come to that conclusion.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say with those "case 2" instances. Allow me to give some concrete example. A few months before the latest Oasis record came out, I had the opportunity to download it. I had no real interest or burning curiousity to hear the newest Oasis record; I merely grabbed it b/c it was there and hey why not? (In this case, my record geeky self was drawn to something mostly on account of its heretofore unavailability.) To my surprise, I ended really liking the album. But I still haven't bought it and have doubts that I ever will. I can justify it all kinds of ways (that band already has tons of money, the major labels' pricing system is way out of whack, etc), but when I get right down to it, I can't really justify this in any sort of ethical sense. I use the term "thief" sorta tongue in cheek. Obviously, if I felt this sort of thing was really "wrong" I likely wouldn't do it. I'm just saying that even tho I do occasionally dabble in this activity, I don't really consider myself one of those ardent file-trader's right's types. To sum, if downloading music leads me to an actual purchase (whether it be a cd or ticket to a show), I can justify that every time. If it doesn't lead to a purchase, less so. But that doesn't mean I won't still do it! IE, give me that Betty Swayne track, yo! ;)
As for the whole "it's better to be heard and not bought then never heard at all" viewpoint, as a member of bands, I wholeheartedly agree with you! But I also acknowledge the artist's right to take his/her *own* stance on that one.
Post a Comment