Y'know, this is the most level-headed I've seen this issue discussed here yet.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

What about artists that don't sell tshirts or have concerts?
Do you have a tshirt for every album you've downloaded?
What about shifty event promoters... sometimes worse than major record labels (so the artists don't get paid much for the festival or concert you so generously attended legally)?

Your argument falls apart very quickly.

How and where do you draw the line between "hostile, old fashioned" based music and forward thinking, net aware and non-DRMed music?

The thing is, the channels and technology exist, but aren't used. People have been given the experience and understanding of iTunes Store, Amazon Music etc but don't understand why they can't buy everything on there.

I can either preview and buy/watch immediately or find the DVD from an online retailer or shops, which may be out of stock or takes a week or two to arrive.

So condoning or disapproving illegal downloading aside, I don't understand why it's so hard to make things available through easy channels?

really? I'd actually argue its easier and more pleasurable to find content on ITMS, MSN, Amazon than trawling through bit torrent and P2P sites full of pop ups, ads, dodgy links, hidden porn files, viruses, blank files...

Reason why the paid sites aren't used is pretty simple - free Vs pay, and people know there is a very very low chance of being caught and prosecuted.

I am not justifying illegal file sharing, legally it is a form of property theft, and creative people are entitled to their income. But...

The claim by the publishing industry that 1 illegal file swap = 1 lost sale is complete bollocks. Many, perhaps even most, of those downloading the material would not be able to afford to buy more than a tiny fraction of it.

This ridiculous claim by the industry only encourages people to view their overall claim with much more skepticism and hostility.

I also agree that this problem is as much due to the failure of the industry to provide a relevant workable model for the 21st century technology.

i wonder how many who take the high moral ground on this issue are completely innocent of breaching copyright?

i certainly dont argue that its legal to breach copyright laws, but i do reject the illogical contention that it is somehow theft or stealing, its just bad law and bad laws get broken by good people.

i dont believe that the industry will be able to continue to protect its profiteering and price gouging, they will have to adapt because the technology will continue to stay one step ahead of the legislators and law enforcers.

they really face a simple choice, make content easily available at a reasonable price or have otherwise law abiding people in their billions continue their civil disobedience!

the TV/ movie industry also really needs to analyse its delivery of content, i now prefer to download content not because it costs less, but because its available when released overseas, and free of any advertising.

this is particularly relevant in the case of advertising on pay TV, its simply evil that PayTV is allowed to charge a massive monthly charge and then still fill the content with advertising.

this industry needs to release content worldwide at the same time and without advertising if it wants to reduce the amount of sharing.

I'm not trying to justify the behaviour, because morally, it's questionable. I'm more interested in explaining it. Because any discussion of the morality of copyright infringement leads to a bigger discussion about the nature of copyright law, which simply does not allow for digital reproduction in any substantive way.

Any argument by unqualified people like me is inherently biased by personal experience. And my experience has been that as I accumulated more burnt CDs and illegally downloaded music, my interest in music skyrocketed. In the last two years I have spent thousands of dollars on legitimate music CDs and downloads, and hundreds and hundreds more on tickets and other paraphernalia. Would I have spent even a fraction of that amount had I not been introduced by breaking the law? No fucking way.

So what, I hear you say. I'm not a typical example. That is, many people have simply stopped buying music outright. Why? Again, I point to the experience of obtaining it.

Music has value. We are prepared to put in time, money and effort to make it and many more people are prepared to do the same to obtain it and listen to it. It used to be quite simple; you spent time and money making, then people had to pay you to obtain a copy, which for a long time could not be easily reproduced. So recordings had real value.

Now, with costless digital reproduction, the balance has changed. But instead of reducing the price, lowering the barrier to purchase and distributing more copies to make up for the drop in retail value, the labels did the opposite; hide behind the copyright laws, and make it harder and more expensive to get the music.

Labels have not only failed to optimise the buying experience, they have put up extra barriers. (I am using your words, but it was never about optimisation, it was an entirely new paradigm which they understandably missed first time around i.e. Napster, but given the opportunity to co-opt it for themselves, they failed miserably. And nor was it an experience. The days of buying from knowledgeable record store employees - value added by retailers, not the labels, I might add -were long gone by the time of P2P. It has been purely a straightforward transaction for a while now.)

Which brings me to experience. Music used to be a shared experience. I'm showing my age, but the days of watching Countdown, or listening to an album together have passed. Now it's a headphones on, block out the world experience. I'm generalising here, but my point is that there is still value (for both the consumer and the creator) in unique experiences i.e. the sense of community and shared experience at concerts etc. that cannot be reproduced, and therefore has real value. The smart players have recognised that and are milking it for all it's worth e.g. the Madonna 'sale'.

Right, this all reads like a first year university student diatribe that is easily torn apart by anyone who really knows their stuff (if only because I haven't provided any real support, let alone evidence. Oh, and my writing oozes bad grammar.) But if you're still reading, here are a couple of links to keep your brain turning.

Kevin Kelly and 'Free'
Cory Doctorow's Guardian column series (this one is a good start.)

Then the artist isn't really going anywhere fast. Sorry, but if a band creates music and never exhibits it, at all, then they have much bigger problems that music piracy.

Ha.

Paying obscene, yes $40 for a cd of music is obscene prices and expected to go along with that is objectionable to me. I have purchased music from iTunes, and am a huge supporter of what Radiohead and NIN have done. I endorse the forward thinking bands that also believe their-own-fans are being screwed for pricing.

Trent Reznor publically announced on one of his Australian tours that he'd rather his die hard fans torrented his music than line the pockets of his label, a year after he argued with them over Australian pricing.

I realize there are individual factors at play, but this is the reality of where we're at.

An industry clinging to a very old business model that is not suited for today's consumer, and is failing.

one word..... SONY

I missed this comment first time around.

My approach is to purchase directly from the artist wherever possible, particularly Australian artists attached to small labels.

Copyright law is not a bad law, there is nothing unjust with the law.

How the record companies choose to distribute their copyright may be archaic. How the record companies choose to defend their copyright may be wrong and the excuse they use for enforcing their copyright may be illogical. That said, this does not make the copyright law a bad law. It just means that the record companies are stupid.

I guess I'm probably mostly in that camp. I think most of us will have breached copyright at least once. It's not really about that though. There's a big difference between doing something wrong and knowing it's bad, and thinking for some reason you're helping society by doing the wrong thing.

That's such a massive assumption. It's not the 80s anymore.

I agree with this, and it's the reality of the situation.

Still... iTunes is here for music. What's not good enough about it? $1.69 per song is cheap if you ask me. Doesn't get any more convenient either.

This will happen, but it'll take time. The entire music industry has been based on region based contracts in the past, so it'll take a few years to catch up.

Eh????? Why should iTunes have every song ever recorded on it?

I spose there is one other thing many people are missing here too.

Artists need labels in order to tour, so you can buy their T-shirts etc. Without the label they dont tour, dont make CDs etc.

I prolly shouldnt have used Reznor as an example. He can do what he does but as an individual he has money from his family, and he also has money from the labels.

If he was a new artist, how could you expect him to tour on sales online from $5USD for the album?

That's insane! Why should artists have to perform outside the studio? Why should you dictate the terms of their artform?

They make a product and they sell it. No different to a software company. Do you want software companies to have to busk for money too?

Good example... he's lived through the good ol' days and has already earned millions. What if he was starting now?

Ok. So I'm an artist and I publicly say "$40 is too much for a CD!!!!". Are you going to buy my songs or pirate them?