# Going against pianofiles.com



## nikolas (Mar 8, 2013)

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/962/812/ ... sic-theft/

There are a few things that are quite noteworthy in this case:

1. The guy behind pianofiles.com is Thomas bonte and is one of the coders behind lovely musescore (freeware/open source notation software). This alone deserves some talk.

2. We are living in a world that needs at least 1000 people (!!! could be 100,000 !!!) to weight in before an obvious crime has to be reported or for something to be done about it. So if I kill somebody, in a few years, the victims family will need 1000 signatures to get me to trial? Quite an interesting point of view, don't you agree?


----------



## TGV (Mar 8, 2013)

nikolas @ Fri Mar 08 said:


> 2. We are living in a world that needs at least 1000 people (!!! could be 100,000 !!!) to weight in before an obvious crime has to be reported or for something to be done about it.


I can't read the petition site (too many scripts from different sites; my browser has pretty tight script control), but reporting a crime is as simple as going to the police station or denouncing on a web-site in most countries. No police force worth a damn should care if there are any online votes.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 8, 2013)

That's exactly the point: Piracy is a crime, right? A very specific crime. So why on earth is nobody doing anything to stop it in the end?


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 8, 2013)

Follow this reasoning:

1) someone has actually to pay a lawyer and file a suit in a court. Does anyone has the time/money to do that?

2) What is exactly the "case" if anyone wants to do that? The site does nothing illegal - it doesn't have any score in it, neither links to download scores. It just has a list of people who OWNS scores, possibly legal scores. 

IF you suspect some of those scores are illegal then you have to file a suit against each one of those individuals. But you can only do that if it's a public crime. Having an illegal pdf score is a public crime? In case it isn't, then only the actual owner of the music could do that suit, specifically to that person.


So basically it's the same issue than with youtube and a million other sites. You see evidence of the material (not just the name, but the actual material), you ask it to be removed and sue the person who uploaded it. It's not practical? It's not...

Moreover: usually those sites specifically have terms you have to agree to create an account saying that YOU CANNOT upload material that is not yours into them! so the responsible are the individuals not the site owners!...


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 8, 2013)

Musicologo @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> IF you suspect some of those scores are illegal then you have to file a suit against each one of those individuals. But you can only do that if it's a public crime. Having an illegal pdf score is a public crime?



What's the difference between a public crime and a private crime? I dont think the Berne Convention differentiates between the two.

Nikolas - what exactly is this site and Thomas Bonte doing that is illegal?


----------



## nikolas (Mar 8, 2013)

pianofiles.com is pretty much THE napster for music scores. Music scores that are not in public domain or copyright free (like what IMSLP is doing for example).

For example, and quoting this is what's available for John Williams:



> Jurassic Park	23	0
> Schindler's List	14	0
> Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban	12	0
> Star Wars Suite	10	0
> ...



The first number is the people who have the score and the second number is those who have requested it.

_________________________

As for the other thing on crime that I was talking about it just came to me while working on this post: There's something obviously illegal going on. It's a huge gathering with score addicts, who exchange all sorts of illegal material. And it's the same with everything else (youtube, etc, if you want). And nobody is bothering to say anything. Just a silly petition. (and it IS silly...). It's like if people actually DO care then something WILL happen, but if we don't prove this, then nothing will... 

Isn't it a little strange?

We're talking on what can be done and should be done, etc.

If the police suspect someone of a crime, or even worst for a terrorist act they can lock them up until the decide they're innocent or not, right? But not here. we need to check with the general public what they want: Let's petition this, right?


----------



## TGV (Mar 9, 2013)

nikolas @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> If the police suspect someone of a crime, or even worst for a terrorist act they can lock them up until the decide they're innocent or not, right?


1. No, they cannot. In almost all cases, you can only apprehend someone after he's committed the crime, and that's for damned good reasons.
2. Swapping scores is not a crime. Selling scores you don't own, that's a crime.
3. Are you seriously comparing people who might exchange scores with terrorists?


----------



## nikolas (Mar 9, 2013)

TGV @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> nikolas @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > If the police suspect someone of a crime, or even worst for a terrorist act they can lock them up until the decide they're innocent or not, right?
> ...


Laws differ from country to country, but I know very well that people can be caught on suspicion of crime (at least over here), and kept in jail, in fear of escaping... 



> 2. Swapping scores is not a crime. Selling scores you don't own, that's a crime.


Oh... ok... So any music that you make, I can share it with all my buddies, right? Or random people actually. Heck... PM me if you want any latest album by anyone. Is THIS what you're saying?



> 3. Are you seriously comparing people who might exchange scores with terrorists?


No, not really and it obviously didn't come across too well.

What I'm saying is that in some cases a crime can be treated with hands down force, and in other cases a crime happens to need a petition to even do something, or to discuss it. My point is that I think that we're too used to online traditing of music, movies, whatever and it feels fine. When it's not.

And just for the shake of being very clear: I do not enjoy copyrights lasting 70 years after the death of an artist, I support IMSLP, I have even given them scores of mine for a little while. If I come across as a monster publisher... well I'm not!


----------



## bryla (Mar 9, 2013)

TGV @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> 2. Swapping scores is not a crime. Selling scores you don't own, that's a crime.


It is extremely sad everytime a composer or any author is so ignorant to copyright. I think that's the main reason pianofiles exist.

And Nikolas you're right on a point that these people are score addicts. They just want scores.... from what I know, they use very little of them.


----------



## TGV (Mar 9, 2013)

nikolas @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Oh... ok... So any music that you make, I can share it with all my buddies, right? Or random people actually. Heck... PM me if you want any latest album by anyone. Is THIS what you're saying?


No, I said, or intended to say, that it's legal to swap, to exchange, to give one and receive another. It's the foundation of all economy. You only can't do it with things you don't actually own (such as an illegal copy of a score). But to prove that thousands of people are conspiring to commit crimes is quite a difficult task. And even then the site itself might be legal. You're also not demanding that e-bay be closed because some people use it to sell stolen goods, right?

@bryla: what do you mean by "It is extremely sad everytime a composer or any author is so ignorant to copyright. I think that's the main reason pianofiles exist."


----------



## bryla (Mar 9, 2013)

TGV @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> it's legal to swap, to exchange, to give one and receive another. It's the foundation of all economy. You only can't do it with things you don't actually own (such as an illegal copy of a score)


this exactly.

It IS illegal to swap scores – even if you bought a hard copy of it, it's still illegal to scan in copyrighted work, and then it's also illegal to trade it or give it away. The fact that composers don't even know this, is saddening because people who fight for copyright are fighting against ignorant authors as well.

The only thing you CAN swap without permission from anyone, is material that you own the intellectual and material copyright of.

You say it's the foundation of all economy. No.
The equivalent would be if the countries economy was founding on selling stolen goods.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 9, 2013)

TGV @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> nikolas @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh... ok... So any music that you make, I can share it with all my buddies, right? Or random people actually. Heck... PM me if you want any latest album by anyone. Is THIS what you're saying?
> ...


Actually not quite. It all depends on what you're swapping. The Tax Man takes a dim view of people using the barter system by default. :wink: 

D


----------



## TGV (Mar 9, 2013)

bryla @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> It IS illegal to swap scores – even if you bought a hard copy of it, it's still illegal to scan in copyrighted work, and then it's also illegal to trade it or give it away.


My actual phrase was "swap", as in: exchange, give and receive something in exchange. A score is just another book, so it is not forbidden, not in the EU, nor in the US, and most probably not in Russia or China either. If you scan something and sell it, you're selling something that doesn't belong to you, as the copyright (the right to actually make a new copy) does not lie with you.


----------



## bryla (Mar 9, 2013)

Please read your countries copyright law.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Mar 9, 2013)

I wonder, will the visits to pianofiles increase due to this forum topic? Who knew about this site before this topic? I didn't, and have no intention to use its services, but some readers might. I see there are already 329 views, and counting.


----------



## Krayh (Mar 9, 2013)

I use pianofiles very often. But in my opinion its not different than going to a library and borrow some score books and copy them. Where I live (the Netherlands) its NOT illegal to download books as well...


----------



## bryla (Mar 9, 2013)

Krayh @ Sat Mar 09 said:


> Where I live (the Netherlands) its NOT illegal to download books as well...


In fact: it is just as illegal in the Netherlands as it is in the rest of Europe to download copyrighted material without license. 

To restate: Please read your countries copyright laws.

I know they might be a couple of law filled A4 pages, but it is those documents that the answer to what legal and illegal is.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 9, 2013)

Bryla is mostly right...

But just to be clear: pianofiles is NOT helping users SWAP files, but COPY them. I mean come on! *COPY*rights are there for what reason again?

But the actual swapping of scores (I give you my physical copy of Ligeti etudes and you give me a Messiaen work (both copyrighted)) is not exactly illegal: Physical items can be sold (otherwise second hand shops would be extinct). If on the other hand I offer you a photocopy, then whoops that's illegal.

I find it quite easy to understand... Perhaps it's me and my doings with publishing, or perhaps because I've lived in Greece for most of my life... dunno really...

Scrianinoff: VI is not primarily focused on scores really, but on Virtual Instruments and the such. Other parts of the Internet are filled with references to pianofiles.com!

Krayh: Borrowing books and photocopying them IS illegal actually. Never mind that you can do it, and it's extremely hard to enforce any kind of law around that. 

In the Netherlands perhaps it's not illegal to download books, but what about music, or films or tv shows? and if it's not illegal to download them what about *up*loading them instead? Is that illegal? Cause the minute you go into torrentz you are at the same time uploading! 

________________________

For me, as I said in the first post there's two very interesting issues here:

1. The owner of pianofiles also created musescore, which is wonderful and free to use and open source. So he's part of that community, which I fully support! On the other hand he's lending more than a hand (and gaining quite a bit from ads as far as I know) to illegal doings.

2. We can't go and complain to anyone for what's illegal in this case. We can call a hotline for women abuse, or child abuse or other crimes, but no hotline for this. And, NO I'm not comparing them, just providing examples. We can however start a petition in case our voice can be heard?!?!?! Am I the only one who finds this strange? That I can't call and say "Hey! John Williams scores in there... That shouldn't be like that. Stop the site (or the user)"! I understand that it's next to impossible to enforce since the cases are so many, but the alternative is sluggish internet and lack of internet freedom. Does anyone think about that? Or nobody cares really?


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 9, 2013)

Nikolas,
I guess the problem is equating the intention with the act.
Just because someone reveals in a public site that is has the score doesn't mean it will actually trade it. You can't condemn someone for announcing it, neither the people that aid that act because they run a site where it is possible to have lists of names and scores, provided by the people freely. Internet is all about that, about that freedom of expression.

On the other hand you can condemn the individuals who actually DO it. But that is very difficult to proof. 

I believe the solution, and people understand this by now, is not condemning this sites or actions, but reinforcing education.

It's the same problem like drugs, alcohol and tobacco. You don't save society from forbidding them or chasing them. You save society by keeping people informed and they deciding in their own consciousness if they are going to do something harmful or not. And probably providing a reasonable LEGAL method that has the same merits.

Look at spotify example. It was already mentioned elsewhere.

In the day that people have easy access to scores in a legal way, this things will cease to exist. They only exist because it's very difficult to access scores.

You may say it's easy - it's your point of view, reality is contradicting you.

And yes - money, as usual, is highly involved in the easyness factor.

Most of the time people just want to "see" the scores or feel they have them "there". Not actually study and perform them and earn money with them.

Shouldn't this difference being bought into the equation?

Revise the laws so that "seeing and studying" a score would meant a "smaller fee" and "buying a score for performance" be another higher fee. And we all have the easiness of access to a vast repertoire with a click, pretty much like spotify.

If a site like that existed - pretty much an "add" version of IMSLP I believe pianofiles would cease to exist on its own.


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 9, 2013)

That's a pretty cool site but if I wanted any of those complete orchestral scores on there I'd never bother going through the hassle of trading - I'd just use the site as a list of what's out there and then Google my way to downloading them.


----------



## Krayh (Mar 9, 2013)

bryla @ Sat 09 Mar said:


> Krayh @ Sat Mar 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Where I live (the Netherlands) its NOT illegal to download books as well...
> ...



NO ITS NOT! http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0021180/geldigheidsdatum_11-07-2012 I dont know where you are from, but in the Netherlands there is an exception in the law. (translate with google if you have to) that you can make an copy or download for your own use! So it's not illegal!!!


----------



## Krayh (Mar 9, 2013)

choc0thrax @ Sun 10 Mar said:


> That's a pretty cool site but if I wanted any of those complete orchestral scores on there I'd never bother going through the hassle of trading - I'd just use the site as a list of what's out there and then Google my way to downloading them.



You can try, but a lot of stuff on there you cant find with google, trust me I tried


----------



## Krayh (Mar 9, 2013)

nikolas @ Sat 09 Mar said:


> Krayh: Borrowing books and photocopying them IS illegal actually. Never mind that you can do it, and it's extremely hard to enforce any kind of law around that.



No I'm sorry in the Netherlands its not, its clearly stated in the law. 



nikolas @ Sat 09 Mar said:


> In the Netherlands perhaps it's not illegal to download books, but what about music, or films or tv shows? and if it's not illegal to download them what about *up*loading them instead? Is that illegal? Cause the minute you go into torrentz you are at the same time uploading!



In the Dutch law its stated that you CAN download Books/Movies/Music for own use. But you CANT upload. I know its weird, buts the truth


----------



## nikolas (Mar 9, 2013)

Krayh: I will repeat and question (curious, not challenging you in any way): If I'm in the Netherland, can I borrow your score of Messiaen, Ligeti, Schnittke, whoever still copyrighted and photocopy it? It seems VERY weird that this should be the case

In the link you provided google translation provided this (I think this is what you're referring to):



> The Copyright Act gives the creator (or his assignee) of a work the exclusive rights to reproduce the work and public. The Articles 16b and 16c Aw contain an exception to the reproduction right for private copying.
> 
> Pursuant to Article 16b shall not be considered copyright infringement the reproduction of a work which is limited to a few copies and exclusively used for private practice, study or use of the natural person who, without commercial intent or purpose of the reproduction produces exclusively for self command. It involves photocopying, naknutselen, nabreien and other crafts.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that they are referring to this very simple case:

I have a CD and want to make mp3s of it. Or I have a book and because I want to keep it clean, I photocopy it for my own private use. This makes total sense. Making copies of the works that you've not paid for, no. At least this is my understanding, but I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2013)

Th Netherlands has signed up to the Berne Convention, and so is bound by the same terms as all the other signatories. The main discrepancies are likely to occur under the "fair use" (or similar wording) section, which every nationality has a separate, national law. I haven't read the Dutch version, but under most of them there are very strict rules about what is allowed and what is not. Simply downloading an illegal upload because you want to avoid paying for a copy of a piece of music is not legal. You have to fulfill the other criteria as well, and if it was an illegal upload I think that it is very unlikely that those criteria would have been fulfilled.

D


----------



## Krayh (Mar 10, 2013)

Its a bit difficult to exactly pinpoint where its stated, but I think its article 16b and 16c. The thing is I can only copy it for my self, I CANT give a copy to you! I know the law is strange and weird because basically there is no difference for me to give a copy to you or for you to download it from the net.

Also if you visit many public Dutch libraries online its CLEARLY stated that it is NOT illegal to download Books/Music and Videos.


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 10, 2013)

In Netherlands as in many other European countries the download for personal use is NOT illegal. 

What is illegal is the DISTRIBUTION or SALE.
So, if you UPLOAD or SHARE or GIVE A COPY you are a distributor, thus you're incentivating the crime, you are a criminal. If you SELL you are also distributing so it's illegal.

If you DOWNLOAD you are simply consuming. That's not illegal.

And I believe it's a right approach. You cannot condemn someone for taking out something someone posted as legal. Because the people who posted (uploaded, etc) to do that move, they stated it was their own material - mind that EVERY SITE - youtube etc has those agreements - you state you're uploading YOUR original material.

So, you cannot blame the consumers/downloader.

The ones that are in fault are the UPloaders/distributers. And so they are the ones to blame.

If you "stop" all the uploaders and sharers and distributors of illegal content you stop having the crime at all!


----------



## nikolas (Mar 10, 2013)

musicologo: First of all sorry for not replying to your earlier messages... I did read them but found I was mostly agreeing with you, so not much to say...

In this case I also think that I agree, but the danger and bad things about 'piracy' is there: If the consumer (the driving force of economy) is not forced to pay, but can download on will, then there's a serious problem.

I'd say that, if it was me I'd "classify" the various stages of 'piracy' like this (from less serious to serious):

1. Light downloaders
2. Heavy downloaders (you know... the kinds of people who have some TBs of music (not movies, music... discographies of 1000 of artists). I know such people.
3. Uploaders
4. Uploaders who get paid (directly or indirectly).

something like this anyhow...

In this case Thomas is around No.4 I think (even if he's not an active member in his own site).


----------



## Musicologo (Mar 10, 2013)

It's not wise to classify or persecute or whatever... That will do nothing to deal with the problem. I guess the fault is also on the industries and creators. Because their business model is failing. It's not an adequate business model to meet the demands of the audience.

Piracy exists for a reason: because people want to access content easily. And if they can, they will do it, no matter what.

So the solution must also come in the same model: give the content easily to the people, having several layers.

You have to create a massive database where all is accessible with one click, where people can get a "light version" without having to actually "pay", but they don't mind paying "passively" (announcements for instance), and more "gourmet" or "plus" plans where people actually pay and have benefits. That's why I think spotify and many online newspapers got the edge on the business - they have the right model of business now.

You just have to do the same with scores - refurbished ISMLP. Put your scores there - a version where you can visualize and scroll a non-annotated version (only the notes for instance and minor indications, no dynamics or other stuff) for free or after seeing an ad. And then a small fee or two adds for the privilege to print it. And then a full paid version with all the markings, etc...

I bet the piracy would vastly decrease.
You'd keep your actual costumers - the ones who pay would still be paying to have the full score.

And you'd earn new costumers: probably some people, amateurs, would pay a small fee for having the light versions printed, if they were really cheap - .99 cents or two ads.

And you'd also earn for visualizers who only want to sneak peek, or "test before you buy". You'd get money from ads from people who just wanted to see the score.


I believe that model would work. It just has to be implemented. All the rest is whining and will get you hatred.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Mar 10, 2013)

People will pay when things are convenient and cheap. Now you may not want your scores to be sold for cheap, but this is the reality. 

To be honest, the police do not even investigate many crimes anymore. I had my catalytic converters stolen from my SUV and they wouldn't even come out. I had to file an online report that I am sure still hasn't even been looked at. This was about $4,000 to replace so it was a considerable cost.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 10, 2013)

Hem...

guys.. This is not about my scores (just in case there's a misunderstanding there). No scores of EMF are in pianofiiles, yet. And there are previews of the scores everywhere in our site, including full works, in some cases of smaller works, plus youtube videos with the score showing, etc...  I agree with you musicologo... (And actually I've been trying to offer scores for free to pianostreet.com but they are kind enough not to reply back to me... :( )


----------



## Krayh (Mar 10, 2013)

Also let's say in the near future (for sake of argument) its absolutely impossible to download or copy. Do you think sales of music/books etc will rise drastically?

In my opinion not. You see, say that I can spend 50 euro a month for "entertainment" I'm not a bank so I can spend my money only once. So thats 3 cds or 2 movies. In my lifetime I would never ever could have bought all the cds/movies that I have downloaded till today! So there is no loss.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2013)

Krayh @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> Also let's say in the near future (for sake of argument) its absolutely impossible to download or copy. Do you think sales of music/books etc will rise drastically?
> 
> In my opinion not. You see, say that I can spend 50 euro a month for "entertainment" I'm not a bank so I can spend my money only once. So thats 3 cds or 2 movies. In my lifetime I would never ever could have bought all the cds/movies that I have downloaded till today! So there is no loss.


And how do you decide which music to purchase and which to steal? Obviously the stuff that doesn't have an illegal upload won't be stolen, so you are making the argument for even more drastic copy protection.

D


----------



## Krayh (Mar 11, 2013)

You dont get it, I might not have purchased any music at all! Because I'm not able to download it, and I can spend my money only once. I also might have spend my money on some nice diner with my girlfriend. And that would left me no money to buy anything else! Do you see my point?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 11, 2013)

Krayh @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> You dont get it, I might not have purchased any music at all! Because I'm not able to download it, and I can spend my money only once. I also might have spend my money on some nice diner with my girlfriend. And that would left me no money to buy anything else! Do you see my point?


Yes I do, but I'd rather that you didn't get the use of something that you didn't pay for. Or were you intending to leave the restaurant without paying as well, just because the waiter was looking elsewhere?

D


----------



## dedersen (Mar 11, 2013)

Krayh @ Mon Mar 11 said:


> You dont get it, I might not have purchased any music at all! Because I'm not able to download it, and I can spend my money only once. I also might have spend my money on some nice diner with my girlfriend. And that would left me no money to buy anything else! Do you see my point?


This argument pops up often in piracy discussions, and it is just fundamentally flawed and, honestly, absolutely bullshit. It rests on the assumption that you are somehow entitled to products that you cannot pay for. If you don't have the money to buy cds/movies/games/etc, well, then you'll just have to do without! Why do you somehow feel like you are entitled to these things even if you cannot afford to pay for them?


----------



## nikolas (Mar 11, 2013)

Krayh: you've opened a can of worms here... Whoopsie you! :D


----------



## Krayh (Mar 11, 2013)

dedersen @ Mon 11 Mar said:


> It rests on the assumption that you are somehow entitled to products that you cannot pay for. If you don't have the money to buy cds/movies/games/etc, well, then you'll just have to do without! Why do you somehow feel like you are entitled to these things even if you cannot afford to pay for them?



Thats a whole different discussion! Remember (it seems a lot of you have a hard time reading) in my assumption I CAN NOT download, its impossible. 

So the money spend, might go to buying a cd or I might spend it on something else. Either way someone is not going to get the money. 

Is it really that hard to understand???


----------



## bryla (Mar 12, 2013)

If you cannot afford two pizzas a week, obviously the pizza makers are gonna suffer that loss of potential income, but the doesn't give you the right to steal two pizzas and spend the money on cola...

someone is not gonna get your money until you save some money for a proper purchase! Is THAT really so hard to understand???


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 12, 2013)

The problem with this is that digital piracy has completely changed the ideals of a younger generation. In my youth it was about getting some old record player or recording songs from your parents record player to your mix tape. Later the CD came out and was my first must have equipment, that I had to spend a little money on. Apart from that, I spent at least half of my pocket money on records and video tapes, because I just had to have these!
Today, it is no wonder that kids won't spend any money on contents, as they have spent all their money on the latest iPod or iPhone. I don't like piracy and don't want to defend it, but I can see it is a general problem of todays society. In Germany, many parents struggle already to gather enough money for their kids to prevent them from being outsiders due to lack of hip equipment. That is the real problem How should they ever learn to respect property of mind, when our society obviously worships giga-concerns? Big brother is watching you ...


----------



## Krayh (Mar 12, 2013)

bryla @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> someone is not gonna get your money until you save some money for a proper purchase! Is THAT really so hard to understand???



I'm starting to believe you guys are deliberately thick. I CAN NOT STEAL, I CAN NOT COPY!!! If I save for the Cola, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY THE PIZZA!!!!!


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Mar 12, 2013)

Krayh @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> bryla @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > someone is not gonna get your money until you save some money for a proper purchase! Is THAT really so hard to understand???
> ...



Look, the simple fact is that you've admitted to not only downloading (which is considered a misdemeanour in most of the EU and yes, it's not completely looked down upon in some member states, but that's mostly because policing the situation is nearly impossible due to the sheer number of infringements) but you've also admitted to uploading or sharing, which is illegal. It's really no longer "personal use" once you start sharing the material with anyone who requests it and the same laws you quoted apply to your situation.

Now, I hope you have the good sense not to push it any further, or at least choose to do so in a more articulate and mannered way than you've done so far. You've offended many of the forum members here, for whom selling music is their main source of income. It's really clear from your statements that's not the case with you, because you don't seem to understand that just like any other line of work, we expect to get paid for the work we do. How often do you work for free?

You are of course completely free to choose which albums and DVDs to buy and therefore which artists to support. You can also choose not to support any of them and take your girlfriend out. The latter does not entitle you to later help yourself to a healthy dose of "free" stuff, because you've already spent your money. Nor is that the case when you decide to grab a copy of Transformers 3 from the specials bin in Blokker and decide to balance out your generous donation to the arts by downloading a few other films.

But now, hypothetically, if it really was completely impossible to download any movies or music, are you honestly trying to tell me you'd stop watching films and listening to music? I don't think so - we are exposed to entertainment from such an early age nowadays I think weaning a person from music and films would create some serious side-effects. But, I think that you would start to think much, much harder about your choices, because of your limited funds. That in turn would lead you to support the artists that you really care about. 

Would sales increase? In your personal case they might not. But I'd still argue that because you've probably thought harder about your choices you've actually spent your money on the product that you considered worthy of your support. 
I think this hypothetical situation is much healthier (not to mention more ethical), than the current one we're in.

In my personal opinion, the underlying problem is the attitude of our consumer society. Marketing is geared towards trying to increase our consumption of just about everything. So, you can fit more crappy quality mp3s on an iPod than you can listen to in your lifetime and you can watch films made for an IMAX screen on your pocket sized tablet. The increase in material volume leads to a decrease in price and quality - it's the same business model as a supermarket. And just because it's all cheap and readily available at bulk, you wouldn't expect to be entitled to a whole bunch of free things on top.

Bottom line: there are already products out there that insult the value of our work. A Spotify subscription costs €5 per month. NetFlix is $7.99 per month. Artists' profits from those channels are ridiculously low, the tiniest fraction of a cent per play in case of Spotify. Why don't you sign up and consume to your hearts content?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 12, 2013)

Krayh @ Tue Mar 12 said:


> bryla @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > someone is not gonna get your money until you save some money for a proper purchase! Is THAT really so hard to understand???
> ...


Don't get the pizza then. :roll: 

D


----------



## bryla (Mar 12, 2013)

exactly. If you cannot afford a car: ride a bike. When you can afford a car: get a cheap one. When you start to make more money: get a more expensive. When you are rich rich rich: Get 5 expensive ones.

bottom line: spend when you have the money to pay for the goods.


----------



## Krayh (Mar 12, 2013)

Mihkel @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> Look, the simple fact is that you've admitted to not only downloading (which is considered a misdemeanour in most of the EU and yes, it's not completely looked down upon in some member states, but that's mostly because policing the situation is nearly impossible due to the sheer number of infringements) but you've also admitted to uploading or sharing, which is illegal. It's really no longer "personal use" once you start sharing the material with anyone who requests it and the same laws you quoted apply to your situation.



Oh my freaking god, you guys really dont get it do you??? This is not about ME, this is about an assumption that IF in the near future I/We could not download anymore, how we would spend our money!!!!!!!


----------



## Krayh (Mar 12, 2013)

Mihkel @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> Now, I hope you have the good sense not to push it any further, or at least choose to do so in a more articulate and mannered way than you've done so far. You've offended many of the forum members here, for whom selling music is their main source of income. It's really clear from your statements that's not the case with you, because you don't seem to understand that just like any other line of work, we expect to get paid for the work we do. How often do you work for free?



Really are you kidding me? Where have I been rude or impolite??? If the things I said really offended you I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee!

Also the fact nowadays is that downloading/copy is here to STAY! Secondly Adapt or die, meaning if you cant live with, that people are listening to your music for free, stop and choose a different career and stop whining about it! (Yes I have been deliberately rude here!)


----------



## Krayh (Mar 12, 2013)

Mihkel @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> But now, hypothetically, if it really was completely impossible to download any movies or music, are you honestly trying to tell me you'd stop watching films and listening to music?



No probably not, BUT I have to make a choice! Thats the whole issue here. Its this or that, NOT both. And it seems this logic is very very hard to grasp for some members here...


----------



## nikolas (Mar 12, 2013)

Krayh: Thank you so much for coming in pissing on what most of us do for no good reason.

The idea that you're offering (NOT for yourself) is flawed for what we've been saying all along: If you don't have the money for a pizza you won't have a pizza. Makes sense? If you don't have the money for a score or a recording or a film or a tv license then you don't get to do these... 

That's the answer we all have been saying: If there's a way to STOP 100% piracy then those who don't have the money won't buy anything.

Now, to be honest and to have a real discussion here, here's some hard facts:

1. You can buy a fucking song for less than 1$. I guess there are some people in the world were 1$ is too much, but is that you? I doubt it.
2. You can grab ANY score published before 1923 in IMSLP for free and legally. So how many scores do you actually need? Are you so desperate to grab the latest copy from a living composer? If so pay up!
3. You should be aware that I (as a composer), and I (as a publisher) often offer discounts or free gifts to people who I think would enjoy the music that I publish, or who I think will put it to good use. Right now you are not on that list actually, I'm sorry to say.

Of course downloading/copying is here to STAY, I agree with that. And I'm surprised that someone like Thomas Bante, who created a tool to STOP piracy (why use cracked Finale and/or Sibelius when musescore is for free) would be behind pianofiles, but it appears that he is. 

When you want to offer any kind of advice, you need to be able to place yourself in the shoes of those you're offering advice to. "Adapt or die" is not even good enough for a movie title (die hard seems better). It's not your job to propose anything to those who make a living out of music (me included), but if you're offering this piece of advice, we should be able to tell you that you are rude, you are acting up. Since you have no idea what goes on in a professional musician/publisher (since this thread is primarily for music scores) then how exactly are you ready to judge and throw an idea like this to our face "Choose a different career"? You're not serious and of course you're being rude on purpose, but this is our life that we're talking about here, and your night without a pizza...


----------



## Krayh (Mar 12, 2013)

Mihkel @ Tue 12 Mar said:


> Bottom line: there are already products out there that *insult the value of our work*. A Spotify subscription costs €5 per month. NetFlix is $7.99 per month. Artists' profits from those channels are ridiculously low, the tiniest fraction of a cent per play in case of Spotify.



Here you are whining again. Let me tell you, about 15 years ago I had my own website development company, I was making a good living, until a lot of other people where doing it. At some point I had to sell my services so low, that it was not worth it anymore. And I quit and choose a different career. I never whined though, I adapted.

You see making music is a career/business. If you cant survive on it, choose something else, and see it as a hobby...


----------



## Krayh (Mar 13, 2013)

nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:


> The idea that you're offering (NOT for yourself) is flawed for what we've been saying all along: If you don't have the money for a pizza you won't have a pizza. Makes sense? *If you don't have the money for a score or a recording or a film or a tv license then you don't get to do these... *




My point exactly! You still DONT GET PAID!!!!!! Does it start to make sense now???


----------



## Krayh (Mar 13, 2013)

nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:


> 1. You can buy a fucking song for less than 1$. I guess there are some people in the world were 1$ is too much, but is that you? I doubt it.



Yes to give you an honest answer, I personally think that 1$ is to expensive, thats why I download. Also most people believe that 1$ is to expensive, thats why we have piracy.

The entertainment industry needs a new business model. Spotify and Netflix are a good start. Would you get rich by selling your music there? I dont know, probably not.

But why should you? If this is what you love doing and you can survive on it. Why should you make 100 times more than the average worker?


----------



## nikolas (Mar 13, 2013)

Oh boy... I won't get into this trolling fight now... I think that your comments are degrading and insulting, not to mention extremely uninformed (100 times the average worker?!?!? get real...).

Never mind...


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Mar 13, 2013)

Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Why should you make 100 times more than the average worker?



Oh now I see... You actually have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Krayh (Mar 13, 2013)

nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:


> Oh boy... I won't get into this trolling fight now... I think that your comments are degrading and insulting, not to mention extremely uninformed (100 times the average worker?!?!? get real...).
> 
> Never mind...



Just a matter of speech, but the fact is you thinking you deserve more, why? Because you are a composer?!? Get real!...

But dont worry I give up, it's impossible for you guys to think differently. And that's a shame, because you think you have a hard time now? Well things are only getting harder...


----------



## nikolas (Mar 13, 2013)

No... YOU mentioned the 100 times more than the average worker, which shows your ignorance.

but, please, don't give up! Keep trying to warn us and to change our lives forever. It's so nice of you!.


----------



## Krayh (Mar 13, 2013)

Oke I'm ignorant, I can deal with that. But please give me a real answer, what do you think you should make as an composer then? 

Or wait maybe it never has crossed your mind yet, but you are probably not good enough as an composer! And you blame it on piracy! Could that be true?

You guys deserve each other, haven fun!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2013)

Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> Mihkel @ Tue 12 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Look, the simple fact is that you've admitted to not only downloading (which is considered a misdemeanour in most of the EU and yes, it's not completely looked down upon in some member states, but that's mostly because policing the situation is nearly impossible due to the sheer number of infringements) but you've also admitted to uploading or sharing, which is illegal. It's really no longer "personal use" once you start sharing the material with anyone who requests it and the same laws you quoted apply to your situation.
> ...


No it is not; it is about not being able to download illegally. Not the same thing at all.

D


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Mar 13, 2013)

Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy... I won't get into this trolling fight now... I think that your comments are degrading and insulting, not to mention extremely uninformed (100 times the average worker?!?!? get real...).
> ...



All right, I understand you have no knowledge of either the film or the music businesses, so let me try to help you comprehend our situation.

The fact is that composers get paid so little on most projects these days (because, like you've said, times are tough, budgets are small and decreasing as we speak) that the extra bit from royalties and music sales can mean the difference between survival and starvation. And when I say they get paid little, I mean minimum wage or more likely, below. 

These days, producers expect to spend only a couple thousand euros for a low-budget feature film score. Most composers have to work 12-16 hours a day to meet the deadlines of a feature, but that's a completely different matter. If we did the "average mans'" working hours of 8 hours a day, a feature might take a composer 3-4 months. Doesn't seem very rewarding does it?

Plus in order to meet the demands of the feature, a composer needs to have invested heavily into his studio. Many have numerous years of (expensive) training. And at the end of the day we all need housing and food. All that adds up. And at the end of the day you still don't have a steady job with a contract, you just have to hope you'll have work next month. 

But most of us refuse to quit, because we love what we do. We are confident we can adapt and find a way to survive. Just like the sage advice you offered us, in your incredibly abrasive manner. Still, many have already quit, many more won't survive. That's reality! 

In that context, are you really still going to insist that we are whining? Or maybe our reaction to you admitting to both downloading and uploading illegally is quite a valid one?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 13, 2013)

Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:
> 
> 
> > 1. You can buy a [email protected]#king song for less than 1$. I guess there are some people in the world were 1$ is too much, but is that you? I doubt it.
> ...


No, you download because you are greedy and selfish and can get away with it. Personally I fail to understand why you think you are entitled to take something you haven't paid for. Were you brought up to believe that stealing is OK?



Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:


> The entertainment industry needs a new business model. Spotify and Netflix are a good start. Would you get rich by selling your music there? I dont know, probably not.
> 
> But why should you? If this is what you love doing and you can survive on it. Why should you make 100 times more than the average worker?


The average wage for a full time worker in the UK is around £26K per annum, so that would mean that I earn over £2million a year. :roll: 

D


----------



## nikolas (Mar 13, 2013)

Daryl? You don't want that extra 600,000 quid? I can help you! :D


----------



## Krayh (Mar 13, 2013)

Mihkel @ Wed 13 Mar said:


> Krayh @ Wed Mar 13 said:
> 
> 
> > nikolas @ Wed 13 Mar said:
> ...



Finally an honest answer! Look when I started this discussion I had no intention to hurt anyone, I just wanted an honest debate about this ordeal. But it seems most of you are to "emotionally" (perhaps understandable) involved and took it out on me!

Yes I had also invested more than 20.000 euros in my company, Yes I have a college degree in designing. Do I have use of that degree now? No not at all. I do something completely different now. Did I love designing? Yes I did (still do) but I had to choose something else, because like you said, I had to pay the bills. Did I gave up designing altogether? Hell no! But I do it as a hobby now...


----------

