Are We Jsut A Bunch Of Theives?

[flyby]

a very good read..........

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

[Mystikan]

Sid:
Yes, I think I put that rather badly. It wasn't my intent to portray the artists as greedy, and in looking at what each band member gets on your bottom line I agree that sucks even using my example maths. What I was getting at was that the idea, that anyone should endlessly continue receiving money for a limited amount of work put in, sticks in my craw. That goes for everybody; if one wants to continue earning money, one should continue to work and create new material. And looking at what some of the other parties in your list get, considering a lot of them would put less work in than the artist, is simply disgusting. So I do agree with you on that point.

I suppose my main beef with Capitalism is just that; someone with "power" (ie a lot of money, a lot of property, a lot of fame, what have you) can command large amounts of money simply because of that "power", not because they actually did any real work.

Perhaps the underlying issue could be better expressed like this: A fixed-term copyright (like 120 years) is definitely milking an artistic work for more money than the work involved in creating it was worth. No copyright should subsist longer than it takes to recoup the cost of producing the work (including the worth of the time spent on it) plus a nominal profit, say 10% of that cost (Trademarks are another story though). That affords the artist and producers the means of turning a profit and recovering costs, then freeing the work to the public domain for derivation and innovation.

Example: A movie costs $150 million from go to whoa. Break down that cost as you will. It then takes, say, two months after release to gross $165 million (cost + profit). At that point, it should then go into the public domain, and can be shared and derived from - but NOT sold unmodified, except for cost of reproduction. I'd be against others selling unmodified PD works, for more than the cost of reproduction, as no other work is being added to justify the seller making money. In this scenario, if a blank disc costs $0.25, the copier's time is worth an award rate (say $20 per hour), and the time to copy the disc is 5 minutes, then the copy can wholesale for no more than $1.92 = $0.25 + ($20 * (60min / 5min)), plus shipping/distribution costs. If no work is involved (ie someone sharing it on Kazaa) then it cannot be charged for at all. Derivative works, on the other hand, should be able to be charged in accordance with the work and cost put in by the derivative artist. Of course, none of this should be done until the original makers have their money and the work has passed to the public domain.

However, if the same movie takes 10 years to recover the same amount, then it's copyrighted for 10 years, until the makers get their money first. To me, that would be fair. This mindset - fair money for fair work - is what is espoused in the principles of modern Socialism.

Then there is the issue of double-dipping and exploiting cultural artifacts. Looking over your list, particularly this bit:

Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000 gross retail revenue Royalty (13% of 90% of retail): $351,000
Less advance: $250,000
Producer's points: (3% less $50,000 advance) $40,000
Promotional budget: $25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $50,000
Net royalty: (-$14,000)

Record company income:
Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 = $1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $351,000
Deficit from royalties: $14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $550,000
Gross profit: $710,000

That is a perfect example of the exploitative greed inherent in Capitalism. As well as receiving their more than generous profit from record sales the record company gets to strip the artist's royalty as well. Like the advance; that should be a down payment to the artist for their work, not a damn loan, when the RC makes so much as it does. Not to mention deducting the royalties as a "deficit" after deducting the royalty payment when the RC turned the royalties into a deficit with its own greed in the first place! Now that is parasitic, pure and simple!

This is why I have no ethical problem with filesharing. Pretty much all of what I download ( I don't tend to look for "latest" or "0-day" stuff) will already have turned a profit for its makers. And I am prepared to pay for material that hasn't done so yet, if I actually want it now (like seeing Passion of the Christ at the cinemas instead of downloading it. When I see it's made more than it cost, then I might download it). Perhaps this explains my position better?

[b4icu]

sounds like Will_518 is having a spiritual void. try to fill up the vacuum with alcohol instead of morality judgements.

ps. great way to make a megathread

[General Admaster]

What about a truck driver ho works his ass off get up at 5am doesn't get home till late a night and hardly sees his kids and will get 1 quarter of what a artist would get in a week even with us downloading their music

[Sid Hartha]

Originally posted by Mystikan+31 March 2004 - 23:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mystikan &#064; 31 March 2004 - 23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Perhaps the underlying issue could be better expressed like this: A fixed-term copyright (like 120 years) is definitely milking an artistic work for more money than the work involved in creating it was worth...[/b]

Nailed.

BTW: the ridiculously long statutes for recording copyrights (at least in the US) are the handiwork of lobbying by - you guessed it - the RIAA.


<!--QuoteBegin-General Admaster@1 April 2004 - 15:08
What about a truck driver ho works his ass off get up at 5am doesn&#39;t get home till late a night and hardly sees his kids and will get 1 quarter of what a artist would get in a week even with us downloading their music[/quote]

Most recording artists I&#39;ve known and worked with would LOVE to make as much money as truck drivers.

[Will_518]

WOW&#33; This has turned into a MEGA thread&#33; Thanks to you all for your opinions.

firstly, sorry i don&#39;t have time to read wvery reply (damn GCSE coursework&#33.

I got to say, it sounds to me like a lot of you have a problem with the foundatals of the system in which we and most of the richest countries on earth live in -- "democratic" capitalist system.

So, what do you think would be a better alternative? A communist system like the one Mystikan describes? no, because, sorry to ruin your dream mystikan,: Communism does not work, because every men/woman is selfish, and greedy. that leads on the the next thing, you think companies and artists would be satisfied with just a 10% profit? no way, think about it this way:
how much money does Bill Gates earn each year? How much work does he do each year?
How much money does the top managers (including your boss) earn each year? how much work do they do each year?
the world simply doesn&#39;t work perfectly, if you were Bill gates, would you stop earning the money you earn, and live in a semi detached house outside bristol and be happy eating economic bread everyday just because it&#39;s wrong to earn money without working?

{off topic: i got broadband a month again, and now downloads much more. this is in relation to some of my early posts}

[Will_518]

To the guy with a flashing "home" sign in chinese as his avatar, yeah, i like alcohol, but i ain&#39;t a drunk (not counting that saturday... but that&#39; another story).

About getting robbed by big companies, yes we do if you think about the world as a fair world; but remember it&#39;s not. the big companies rob us? well, only because we want to get robbed, &#39;cos there ain&#39;t no body forcing you to go and see the movies, or watch the Tv or even buy that pack of crisps you buy every week; I could, if I want to, just go off to some mountain somewhere in India and live off the land, then i&#39;m only getting what i worked for, and there&#39;s no body to get my money unfairly, but no, i&#39;d rather stay where i am and get robbed by them big corprotions everyday. it seems to be just the way things are, i don&#39;t like it, only because i ain&#39;t the robber, i ain&#39;t the owner of some multimillion dollar corprotion.

Does that justify filesharing though? I don&#39;t know, but i&#39;ll say what i once heard on radio 4: "We citizens can&#39;t take matters into our own hands, there are laws which we must live by, if we don&#39;t like it, don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair, it doesn&#39;t justify us breaking the laws." (i think this guy was talking about an incident involving a bunch of nudists and a stolen bus... but it&#39;s a long time ago, i can&#39;t remember the details)

[B.Helto]

Originally posted by Will_518@1 April 2004 - 19:14
Communism does not work, because every men/woman is selfish, and greedy.

Who said anything about communism?

[Switeck]

Alot of the problem is (government-sponsored) protectionist, monopolist &#39;capitalism&#39;. Laws are almost always altered in FURTHER favor of corporations due to &#39;hard times&#39; and &#39;high unemployment&#39;... not more in favor of employees and consumers. And this process seems to happen FASTER in socialist countries.

Free-market economies are nearly a myth that is only slightly reflected in black and gray markets.

[Will_518]

Communism? no, nobody said it before. but the point is communism doesn&#39;t work because everyone&#39;s greedy, so expecting people to just get what they worked for and not more is also not going to work.

Hey, so it this more or less the only justification we have to download copyrighted material? Our dissatisfaction at the capitalist system? that&#39;s a pretty lame excuse, for a start doesn&#39;t that make us all commis?