Amazon.co.uk yesterday trumpeted the launch of its MP3 download service, but a group of upstart coders chose the same day to blow their own horn about a Firefox plugin linking the e-tailer's service to The Pirate Bay. The Amazon service is flogging albums from £3 and individual songs from 59p. However, the 'Pirates of the Amazon …
"Ultimately, the only way for a professional musician to make money in your free downloads for-all economy, is to join a function band.
Is that *really* what you want?"
I see you've missed my point. There will always be a demand for contemporary music and since we live in capitalist times people will be able to earn a living from it. I was merely stating that the current system might be forced to change, due to technology. How do you think hard-backed encyclopaedia sales have been since the introduction of the internet? What about all those poor horse-drawn cart makers after cars hit the market? Technology generates wealth, but at the same time, inevitably and beautifully, culls those businesses involved in the "old way" of doing things. Just because one group has managed to exploit a particular market for generations does NOT give them the right to that market in perpetuity. Think of it another way - those involved in the record industry should be f-ing grateful that they've been able to make so much money, so easily for so long. If they lack the innovation to compete in the modern market then I'm sorry but it's good riddance. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Who knows, artists that struggle under the current model for music distribution might even find things easier in the next one?
Re: Sean Baggaley
as i said before, artist should get pay for his original work. all your case( exc. Dickens) are original works, and should be paid.
how much? usually originals of recordings, manuscript or any artistic work from a laureated artist flech considerable sums and people pay good money to go to see bands. if nobody wants to buy your (original) art or you dont get enough to do a full living from it, dont blame the copyright breacher.
@ AC re: @ AC re: @ AC ... :)
"I see you've missed my point."
I see you missed /MY/ point too!
I wasn't referring to one of the "old way" major labels: My example referenced a small, independent music labels who can't sell either physical media, OR downloads.
The sad fact is that operations like Pirate Bay are not doing anybody any favours in the long run. Let's put a slightly different perspective on some of those previous comments:
"Unfortunately for them, modern technology has made their product easy to duplicate, but since the file sharers are not making money from these copies,
...No, but neither does the artist, and they lose the ability to sell their product in the face of a free (in your world, legal) alternative.
"it should never be classed as illegal"
...Can I have your car keys? I'd like to give your car to the poor and needy.
"There will always be a demand for contemporary music"
...provided it is free to download.
"and since we live in capitalist times people will be able to earn a living from it"
...provided that 50% of £0 > £0.
Dear Rubbish Music
Ok, so they got rid of the DRM. Good job!
And they're selling 256Kbps MP3 albums for three quid? You just got a customer - for having the right price-point for the right product!
What? Whaddayamean Physical Graffiti by Led Zeppelin MP3 album costs £11.98? (Insert numerous others selling for the same price as full-quality physical media)
£3 is just the selected albums promo price?
They still don't fucking get it.
So? Both you, and the OED are wrong. Theft is a legally defined term, the OED has nothing to do with it.
This is not, by the way, an attempt to justify anything. It just frustrates me to no end when people abuse terminology.
Copyright, DRM et al ....
Let's look at this copyright issue. Can I assume that all the posters here work for the computer industry in one form or other? Can I also assume that we all regard programmers as 'creatives' ie they produce software for other users to use? How are we going to pay the programmers and distribute the software? We can sell through commercial distributors, through shareware sites and freeware distribution but its our choice on how we get the software to the users, and to some extent their choice as to how much they pay. In turn, the commercial software releases have a percentage of their price channeled into R&D both for that product and other programmes that may or may not see the light of day. Your shareware product will only be updated on demand and the freeware is 'as is' - it may have no support and just disappear. Our whole industry depends on these models to survive, and you will continue to pay for software until you don't use it anymore - so what's wrong with paying an artist everytime you use / download a piece of music?
Whilst we have various methods of distributing the product, in the software business we can (and have) the most powerful DRM systems in the business - our users don't even own the product, just a licence to use the software - and we have the ability to lock out users who don't relicence the product and pay us a fee.
At the end of the day copyright is there to stop people ripping other people off - if you'd written Visicalc wouldn't you want to be receiving the royalties from it for AS LONG AS PEOPLE BOUGHT IT? It's the same with music and writing - respect the people who've put the effort in to create something for you - and the support systems / companies that take a chance on their work and get the product to market.
It is EVIL
Leaving aside the lack of DRM, and the respectable bit rate.. It just doesn't have the tracks I want. I innocently searched for a track that had been stuck in my head ("Hide The Tears" by Kryptic Minds and Leon Switch), and it offered me some SHAKIN' STEVENS. ARGH!.
Can I forward the cleaning and therapy bills to Amazon customer service, do you think?
- The Invisible Opera Company
Do you have the downloaded song..............yes?
did you purchase it...........................................no.
did someone else purchase it.......................no
did you pirate a copy.........................................yes
did you deprive creator a sale.........................yes
you're a thief.......................................................get over it and admit it
from a former napster user...........so i'm posting anonymous 'cuz the riaa and their kin are the bigger wankers
Does anyone actually read the fecking articles?
All they have done is inject a link button into an Amazon page.
All they have done is turn the following steps:
1. Browse Amazon for some music
2. Open another tab in your browser
3. Browse to ThePirateBay
4. Type the name of the music into there
5. Download the torrent from ThePirateBay
1. Browse Amazon for some music
2. Download the torrent from ThePirateBay
I believe this would commonly be called a mashup - the mp3s that are downloaded in the final steps of both of these are not necessarily sourced from Amazon (most mp3s that are available for illegal download still come from pre-release/sampler CDs and are available well before Amazon or iTunes make them available).
It gets pretty tiring seeing every single article about mp3s/DRM turn into a slagging off match between tosspots that really don't have a clear grasp of the facts in the article...
@ Daniel ... really getting off topic here ...
... but it frustrates me no end when pedants continue with pedantry when they are clearly clueless of the context of their pedance (I think I may have just made that word up).
You are saying "the OED is wrong" and "has nothing to do with it"!?!
Theft may well be a "legally defined term" (whatever that means), but guess what, we're not in a court of law! If you hadn't noticed there isn't anyone here with a curly wig or a hat shaped like a tit! We are in the comments section of a third rate digital rag, where I think the dictionary takes precedence (though the use of a dictionary is fairly optional as well)!
Arrgh me hearties, I'm off to pirate some software and thieve some music from those prissy modern rockstaaarrrgghhss!
And in the laws Piracy is COMMERCIAL LARGE SCALE copyright infringement.
And legal terms REALLY DO mean something when you're talking about the FUCKING LAW.
"did you deprive creator a sale"
Deprived of what would have POTENTIALLY been a sale.
But then again, I could potentially cop off with Angeline Jolie. It's POSSIBLE!
"your a thief". No. Civil tort, not criminal theft.
"small, independent music labels who can't sell either physical media, OR downloads."
And I can't sell buggy whips or house cardigans (cardigans that fit over the house).
should the government step in to make sure?
Now what this label CAN do is help promotion of the people who pay them. They can produce the professional looking CD's and other merchandise for the bands that want to pay them to sort the details out.
If they don't want to do that, why should the government help them out? They don't help ME.
re: Copyright, DRM et al ....
You forgot "Do we get life + 70 years rights on the code" and "Do we expect to be paid for work we HAD done, not work we ARE DOING".
And 90% of programmers do not work for Microsoft (Software division), Symantec, Eidos, etc. So without copyright, your boss still needs you to secure the computer perimeter. Still needs you to write a script that will display the monthly data for the board by next Thursday, etc.
And we do not get copyright on our stuff, so we lose nothing. The company sells no software so lose nothing.
"I love the architectural ouvré of Nash and his contemporaries -- you'll see examples all over London. It has wonderful aesthetics. Does this mean I should be allowed to live in any of their houses for free?"
No, but you CAN build a house that looks EXACTLY THE SAME. Maybe from cheaper materials and in a less desirable area.
That's what an MP3 copy IS.
And as Dan said: what about the estate of Hans Christian Anderson or Charles Dickens (hell, Mozart/Handel/Lizt and Shakespear himself to cover most of Art), we don't take over dead people's houses unless we BUY and then own them and they become OUR house.
Now show me the receipt that says you bought any rights to any of their works.
Show me ANYONE who has bought the rights to the works from the descendant of one of those people and so they now own it.
a) Copyright ("Art" as you put it) isn't property
b) You're all trespassers and should be jailed
re: Let's take a look...
And even worse, the used version of the CD NONE of the money goes to the artist!