First of all, don't use this cheap trick and slightly change the subject. I was referring to booklets and not books. Yes, I would rather read a booklet on my high quality LCD screen than reading it on my coach from a small piece of paper. I would not want to read entire books in front of a screen! While I agree in this matter (books) doesn't mean I also agree in a different matter (booklets).

And second of all... Huh? I don't understand this kind of argument less and less as time passes by! This is the year 2007 and there are DAPs with displays, WLAN almost everywhere, video and music servers for your home, laptops... etc. you're not tied to your desk when you want to look at artwork in its (original) digital form, in fact you're not tied to your desk when you want to consume any kind of digitial medium that is stored or played back by a computer, because computers are now everywhere, not just on your desk anymore. If you really want to you can also read the digital booklet while you're on a train using your DAP or on the toilet or everywhere else you could have taken a paper booklet with you. ePaper may still be impractical today, but I wouldn't count on it that it will stay that way, so that this will apply to real books, too, sooner or later.

Of course, it's a matter of taste. But it's getting less and less impractical, and you can't deny that. You can also not deny that the reading quality of pre-printing digital artwork seen on a decent screen is superior to a CD booklet.

And last but not least, to draw the attention back to my main statement: if the whole "official" music distribution has finally dumped the Audio CD, how else will you get your album artwork if not as digital files, be it PDF, JPG or some other format? Is having the artwork and liner notes in your hands as paper really that important in the end that you would rather buy a CD because of that? Not to me. Music comes before artwork, and I want to get the music directly on my PC and not via an antique plastic coaster. Better today than tomorrow. Get a decent printer and you'll have your hardcopy...

DAP displays are even smaller than CD booklets... like, what, 4 times smaller?


I doubt video and music servers have integrated large screens. And I usually use a laptop while sitting at table, and don't get it out of my backpack in the subway.


Like I said, DAP displays are ridiculously small, because, well, they're supposed to be portable. Now I wouldn't mind watching a TV show on such displays, but I wouldn't read anything other than song titles on those things.


You can't deny some people prefer objects, some people have different eye sights, some people have, indeed, different tastes. Please don't kill the booklet just yet, mmm-kay?


I sure hope it won't, and don't believe it will. Not everyone is a technonut, some people still prefer LPs if only because of the larger artwork (you can frame the damn thing, for crying out loud), etc... I doubt people will start burning books and recycling CDs anytime soon. Physical and virtual media will probably co-exist for a long while - and that's the way it should be: let people decide what they want to buy.

I reacted to your completely out of line comment about getting a life and growing up.

People are going to do want they want to do, this thread is not going to change anyone's mind about IP,
copyright infringement, stealing, etc. So what's the sense arguing about it?

Welcome to the Internet!

I have no idea why you linked to this 2002 National Review article. The article was about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and why, in the author's opinion, the Supreme Court should not uphold it. But that was in 2002 and on January 15 2003 the Supremes DID uphold it, and by a 7-2 margin!

The bottom line is that music pirates are breaking the law and appropriating the work of others that they have no right (legally or morally) to.



What is this question a reference to? (it's a basic aspect of netiquette, not to mention common sense, to quote the thing you're referring to)

People who are interested in logic, truth and reason may change their mind because of a discussion. But since THIS discussion isn't really new and just a copy of a recent one (except of some interesting people not bothering to contribute this time), most people have already made up their mind. So yes, there isn't really much point in argueing - which is why i haven't contributed much to this thread: Its pointless to educate believers, and reasonable people already got their education in a recent thread.

If you have a strong case you should have no trouble getting an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis, and get his legal fees from the defendant when you win.



I know plenty of working artists - musicians, painters, and photographers - for whom the money DOES matter - it's how they keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, and send their kids to college. The idea that artists are people who slave away for free just to satisfy their spiritual muse is a lot of idealistic nonsense promulgated by people whose art is not good enough to make a living from, so they rationize their day jobs as sales clerks and waitstaff as a blow for artistic purity.

If you want to put your music up for free on the web, that's your choice. But music piracy takes that decision away from other artists who might not make the same choice.



A breath of fresh air and intellectual honesty!

Are you a barrister now? Obviously not. You have a frightfully naïve notion concerning the financial realities involved with regard to taking on a multi-national corporation in the EU. Your statements conclusively prove that you know nothing about which you speak, so your "advice" is as worthless as it is ignorable.




So you have some artiste friends. Bully for you. Your little verbal detour is entirely beside the point. I happen to have a secure academic faculty position, so I feel no need to "rationize" [sic] being a shop assistant. Cute attempt at a classist dig, but highly inaccurate. Thanks, however, for the hostile projection.

As for the amount of money one can extract from a given piece of art as the measure of said art's quality, the kindest response I can give to you is this: you are a very silly man.

When Pigs Fly...

I found this to be a very interesting and well written article. I agree with a lot that is written in it.

I personally shall miss OiNK. I have managed to hear a lot of artists and groups that I would never of heard without the pink palace. Some I've liked, and went out and purchased their recording, and some I haven't liked and thus not purchased the music.

My musical tastes have been vastly expanded and I'm thankful for that.

I don't think it's just a case of "well, the site is there and so I'll take advantage just because I can". I think there is a whole new approach that many many people are taking towards obtaining music. And as the article wrote I think the music industry should adapt accordingly; of course they should have done that a long time ago though.

Anyway, I shall waffle on no more, but end with:
This is only the beginning; for where the original Napster started things, and OiNK recently pushed the boundaries further, other such sites will carry on from where the bacon was burnt.

Well just because you are happy to give away copies of your original content doesn't mean that everybody should have to give up all rights to IP as many people in this thread seem to be advocating.

For me this whole thing has got nothing to do with major label record companies, I couldn’t care less if they go out of business. For me it's about the simple matter of whether or not you believe that (at least in theory) an artist or inventor etc has the right to own their IP and thereby to control it's distribution as they see fit. In my opinion they do, and in my opinion all of those who say they don't believe it do so purely to justify their desire to leach.

BTW. Can you stick to the topic and stop straying off into personal attacks on those who hold a contrary opinion!

I find it amusing to no end that people rationalize copyright infringement using the digitalization of signals as a case.

Analog audio is a wave. Can you own a wave in the ocean? If you support the RIAA you are supporting owning ocean waves. Clearly ownership of analog content is an absurd and dated concept that was created by the capitalist corporate interests of our government.

Just to show you how absurd your argument is. If you want to toss out the bathwater of digital ownership, you have to throw the baby out as well, because that's the logical conclusion of your argument. The fact of the matter that digital, like analog, is purely a means of representing things to our consciousness. There's no difference in the mind between a signal represented digitally and one represented in analog. You're essentially spreading propaganda in your misrepresentation of the reality. It's not owning a number, it's owning the product of that number when processed and displayed to the human consciousness in the correct way. I really doubt the RIAA is going to take issue with the spreading of plaintext files containing the bytecode of an mp3. Furthermore, every encode is different. So it's obvious to anyone with half a mind that the intent is not to own a number, but rather a product. Which is exactly the point.

The idea of differentiating between infringing and stealing is similarly fallacious. Sure, on a material level, they differ in that ownership is not transferred. This requires only abiding by the narrow "material" view, which is similarly the kind of perspective it would take to proclaim that music = numbers so it should be free. On a conceptual level, stealing is the illicit acquisition of content. If content is owned, but replicable, it's no less of a theft to deprive the owner of his right to profit from this ownership. Sorry guys, but we don't live in a socialistic society. Humanity doesn't operate like that. This should be obvious by now – there've been enough failed attempts.

As for the list of digital content that is progressing towards freedom, it was worth a quick guffaw. Most, if not all, of the services/content listed are never going to be predominantly free or open source, and one could very easily make the case that the existence of the freed content here is intricately tied to and dependent upon the proprietary likenesses. And if we were to reach a point where all art (music, photography, and software) were free, well, I'd hate to be around to see the abysmal drop in quality. There's no getting around the fact that people create for profit just as much as they do for recognition. Maybe someday we'll live in a society where capitalism doesn't work the way it does today, but we don't and until then profit will continue to be a huge source of inspiration for artists of all kinds. It may be an ugly reality to accept for all you Stallman lapdogs, but it's the truth and I suggest you accept it until you can do something more significant to change it than whining on an internet forum full of nerds.

Nerdrage shitstorm incoming.

The Recording Monopoly (if you wish to talk about things illegal a corporation being a monopoly is one *cough* microsoft *cough* . Yeah , yeah separate corps and whatever. Your a dee-dee-dee if you think they all are not privately owned by one head cheese) is going to lose this fight no matter what. It started with Napster and many other file sharing resources before that such as Mirc. As soon as the RIAA's world police shut down one site 5 more pop up. Usually started by some nerd wanting to stick it to the man and ends up becoming the man when he cashes in on all the ads his site is running for millions of users per day. On the whole legal issues: I give the flying bird. But I have a moral case, as a musician myself.

Evidence A) Musicians make practically nothing from CD sales.
Musicians make somewhere on average 1-10% of all sales on all media. Now if your Britney or Justin Timberlake, that could be a lot. But pop trash multi-millionaires are not the norm musicians. Average musicians might sell if they are lucky 1k to 10k copies of an album. So lets say the CD costs 20 bucks just to make math easier. 20,000 $ to 200,000 $ made in total. But lets say you get a good contract from a label. You make 10%! So the past year you worked with your band, lets say you have 3 members only in said band. So lets take 10% of 200,000 which is 20,000. Lets divide that 3 ways .... 6,666.66 $ is what you made for a years work! where did the other 193,333.34 $ go? Well probably 10% of that went to your agent (your agent made more than you) , then the rest goes to your label. Lets see here who did the most work? You spent a year of metal agony making an album. Your agent spent about an hour total introducing you and your album to a recording label. And the label spent about 5 minuets meeting you to see if you are marketable, and another 10 minuets skipping through your album to see if you at least sound like your making music. They make a 2 minuet phone call and start processing your album for distribution which may take 3 days for them to finish, and an hour to devise a marketing campaign for you.

Sub-Evidence A section 001 ) How do musicians make money then?
Answer: Shows. After you spend a year working with your best friends they now become your enemies. You kiss your wife goodbye and say hello sally palm and her 5 sisters, and you prepare yourself to suffer living out of a van with two other men for the next 9 months. Finally you bring home some real bacon. Kosher turkey bacon for me. =D

Conclusion of Evidence A) Wouldn't it be nice if you could skip the agent and the label and just rely on p2p as a musician to get your fan base up for shows? That's what a lot of musicians are counting on by not signing labels and putting their stuff on myspace and keeping a computer running with limewire/bearshare/torrents with a folder choc-full of their songs. Besides not wanting a major band to "steal their songs" they do a poor mans copyright and e-mail to themselves with all songs on their album and never open it. Other than that let the fans go hog wild. Wonder why RIAA is trying to sue music fans? The musicians are tired of getting ripped off and they won't sign up with a label.

Evidence B) Supply and Demand with the music industry does not add up.
I can see why gas is 3 bucks a gallon. Huge , almost unquenchable demand meets a mid level supply.
Music, lets see here. Mid level demand and a huge, almost never ending supply. Why is a CD 25 $?
It takes pennies on the dollar to get cd's, if you have a system that can burn multiple cd's at one time pennies to create hundreds of albums. You paid off the band that can jack up the price a bit but not much if you marketed them. Again I ask, is that CD worth 25$. Answer: absolutely not. I sell full length albums of my brother's band at 7 dollars a pop. I take a dollar each sale and I give them the rest. Even at a dollar I make a small wad of change just selling a couple of hundred (easily pays for the cd's and the work involved).

Conclusion of Evidence A&B) If I can charge 7 dollars giving the band 86% of the profits and I can still make a good amount of money. How come the music industry has to charge 25 dollars giving the band 10% of the profits, and how can they claim they are getting ripped off or are losing income? Their system is set up to rip off both the musician and the fan. The fans have been telling the system to have sexual intercourse with off, and finally some musicians are catching up.