User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 44

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Governments should not be spending public money to enforce corporate business policies.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Governments should not be spending public money to enforce corporate business policies.
    Why? Sorry, that's not self-evident to me

  3. #13
    Junior Member Masoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Nobody is suffering as much as they claim to be. Record labels now force artists to sign 360 deals. This means the label has control over everything the artist does, such as merchandise. So yes, they lose money from album sales, but they earn it back through other means. Artists actually make most of their money from touring, not from album sales. The only time piracy damages them (significantly) is when they're unable to recoup the album expenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I do think piracy hurts the artists the most, and the producers not enough, which is a shame.
    Why should the producers take a bigger hit? They earn more money because it's their intellectual property; they created it. Artists simply perform the music others have written. They're nothing but images used to promote the product itself. Now, if the artist also writes his own music, he'll be signed to a publishing house as well, and he'll make more than a producer. An artist gets paid for his performance; a producer gets paid so people can use his copyrighted material. That's why artists don't make money from radio play.

  4. #14
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Masoch View Post


    Why should the producers take a bigger hit? They earn more money because it's their intellectual property; they created it. Artists simply perform the music others have written. They're nothing but images used to promote the product itself. Now, if the artist also writes his own music, he'll be signed to a publishing house as well, and he'll make more than a producer. An artist gets paid for his performance; a producer gets paid so people can use his copyrighted material. That's why artists don't make money from radio play.
    I meant the production companies, labels, etc, not necessarily the producers of the material. I'm not really in the business so my terminology is shaky.



  5. #15
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I meant the production companies, labels, etc, not necessarily the producers of the material. I'm not really in the business so my terminology is shaky.
    No, you were right the first time. I don't know what kind of world we live in where actual artists are considered preforming monkeys.

    And in no way, shape or form do published artists make more money than their producers.

    I think hip-pop has taken the terminology and messed it all up. In hip-pop, the producers are actually the artists. In every other genre and field across the world, the producers are the "suits".

  6. #16
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I'm for and against piracy in some ways on both sides, odd as that sounds. Probably because I use a common sense approach.

    Personally, I will download a few songs from an album or artist, or a movie, watch/listen/etc and if I decide it's high enough quality and value, I will pay for a 'real' copy of it. I spent $100 on the Red VS Blue dvd's, despite that their entirety was available ONLINE FOR FREE AT THE RvsB SITE ITSELF.

    I blew another $40 on the Animusic 1&2 dvds of which the only reason I even knew their products existed at all was because I'd watched the full contents of the dvd's on youtube before buying them; without youtube I would've never known they existed.

    Same with tubular bells; without file sharing, I wouldn't've known that Tubular Bells III, let alone II had been released, and wouldn't've bought it either.



    The point, is that downloadable 'pirated' copies can be treated like a rental and viewed just fine as trying to find whot yeu want to buy.

    Thing is, if yeu're going to load yeur music album up with TOTAL ABSOLUTE CRAP and put ONE good song into it... then charge $35+tax... uhm... yeah. Guess whot? I won't be paying $35+ for 1 song.

    In fact, I'm not going to deprive myself of listening to the song either; I've already decided yeu're not getting paid for yeur idiocy, so yeu have lost nothing, because yeu weren't going to be getting the money in the first place. My not buying yeur overpriced pile of crap won't really teach yeu, with yeur $50 million estate, honestly anything, all it will do is punish me by making it so I can't enjoy myself, but it did nothing to teach the lesson I wanted to.

    Now, that being said, if yeu can't afford stuff like movies (college, living alone, in between jobs, etc), yeu're obviously not going to be buying anything anyway. As such, for 'theft' to occur, even intellectual piracy, there *HAS* to be, by definition, something LOST. Normally, this comes in the form of profits; if yeu weren't going to make a sale off that individual in the first place though, there's nothing lost, so no theft could've occurred.

    I am against, however, people who refuse to pay for things they enjoyed just because they don't have to. Someone worked hard to make that movie or game or music or whotever. It sucks that someone who has plenty of money to encourage further creation of such awesomeness, instead decides not to pay for it even though they have the capacity to do so.

    It also annoys me to see people bootlegging by selling someone else's hard earned work, because they have zero overhead, no expences, no effort spent at all, so can sell the same thing cheaper... meaning they literally are stealing the profits of someone who actually worked for it. That *IS* theft.

    But the kid in college who has to go dumpster diving to eat, if they download a song because they're too poor to buy it? There was nothing lost, so nothing stolen.




    And sharing a copy with yeur friends has always been legal, like it or not. "gifts" to friends that are charged nothing is still legal... and always has been. If yeu want to manually share a song with a friend over a chat program with built in file transfer such as AIM, then by all means do so. Yeu just can't charge them for it, or give it away to 10,000 people yeu don't know is all.

  7. #17
    Junior Member Masoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I meant the production companies, labels, etc, not necessarily the producers of the material. I'm not really in the business so my terminology is shaky.
    My apologies. I thought you were using the colloquial term.

  8. #18

    Default

    First of all, I think a lot of people here are so insulated in the tech/online world that they don't realize a great number of people do not buy or steal their music online. I get 99% of my music from buying CDs. It's the same as people with cable thinking everyone has cable TV even though cable penetration peaked at 65% and currently hovers around 60%. CDs are a viable technology, and the physical object will remain a viable technology for the foreseeable future. Likewise, Kindle isn't going to put printers out of business anytime soon, either.

    As for piracy, everyone assumes the only victims are rich artists and faceless corporations. There are other victims. What about all the people who work for those companies and work for those artists that AREN'T rich enough to make you feel good about ripping them off? The rich guys don't work in a vacuum. And the rest of us feel the pinch, trust me.

    That said, I think it's abhorrent to justify piracy because the victim is rich, and that such thinking is the height of relative ethics and selfish entitlement. How is it any different than shoplifting a book or a DVD? If you don't respect intellectual property law for artists, why? How is it different than a patent for an invention? The whole argument is based on the fact that there is technology available to pull off the crime and it's easy to do in the privacy of your own home where you can't get caught. If your neighbor leaves his car running, is it okay to steal it? If a supermarket has a loading dock door open and you can sneak out with a bag of groceries, is that okay? Then why is this okay? I'll tell you why. It's because you don't have to face your victim.

    Now, people aren't going to stop doing this. Which is why Amazon and iTunes have posted 30 second samples of every song, and frequently offer entire songs for free to promote artists. Now, if the purpose of illegally downloading music was really just to "evaluate it" and decide if you want to buy it, as everyone screams, then this would be enough. But it's not, clearly. Because for all the good intentions, hardly anyone buys something after they've ripped it off for free. The "evaluation" argument just reminds me of the way crusaders for the legalization of marijuana propose any number of alternative uses for hemp. Smokescreens, both.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  9. #19
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    First of all, I think a lot of people here are so insulated in the tech/online world that they don't realize a great number of people do not buy or steal their music online. I get 99% of my music from buying CDs. It's the same as people with cable thinking everyone has cable TV even though cable penetration peaked at 65% and currently hovers around 60%. CDs are a viable technology, and the physical object will remain a viable technology for the foreseeable future. Likewise, Kindle isn't going to put printers out of business anytime soon, either.
    It seems to be a rapidly growing trend, though. It effectively makes older means obsolete. We are looking at a genuine technologically spurred cultural reform here.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    As for piracy, everyone assumes the only victims are rich artists and faceless corporations. There are other victims. What about all the people who work for those companies and work for those artists that AREN'T rich enough to make you feel good about ripping them off? The rich guys don't work in a vacuum. And the rest of us feel the pinch, trust me.
    I remember seeing a public awareness advert like that. It backfired. It made me feel like I was being asked to pay a ransom. You never pay a ransom.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    That said, I think it's abhorrent to justify piracy because the victim is rich, and that such thinking is the height of relative ethics and selfish entitlement. How is it any different than shoplifting a book or a DVD? If you don't respect intellectual property law for artists, why? How is it different than a patent for an invention? The whole argument is based on the fact that there is technology available to pull off the crime and it's easy to do in the privacy of your own home where you can't get caught. If your neighbor leaves his car running, is it okay to steal it? If a supermarket has a loading dock door open and you can sneak out with a bag of groceries, is that okay? Then why is this okay? I'll tell you why. It's because you don't have to face your victim.
    There's one factor you left out that's vital. It's not just technologically easier to do, it's also way better than the old way. Stealing someone's car causes a whole bunch of problems for both people that piracy of software or music does not. One of the most obvious reasons being that these concepts are intangible and for all intents and purposes infinitely duplicatable. The car is not.

    And truthfully, I am against patent laws. I almost completely disavow all intellectual property laws. Free information is progressive, and in my opinion, actually more fair than having someone make money off of hording an idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Now, people aren't going to stop doing this. Which is why Amazon and iTunes have posted 30 second samples of every song, and frequently offer entire songs for free to promote artists. Now, if the purpose of illegally downloading music was really just to "evaluate it" and decide if you want to buy it, as everyone screams, then this would be enough. But it's not, clearly. Because for all the good intentions, hardly anyone buys something after they've ripped it off for free. The "evaluation" argument just reminds me of the way crusaders for the legalization of marijuana propose any number of alternative uses for hemp. Smokescreens, both.
    Well, I don't make that argument. I never intend to pay. I pirate it to keep, and I have no guilt.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, I don't make that argument. I never intend to pay. I pirate it to keep, and I have no guilt.
    Well, this brings us to the heart of the issue. Do you believe that musician, filmmaker, author, etc. are endeavors that are worthy of compensation? Do you believe that these are endeavors that people should be able to do as their job? Or do you believe that these should merely be passions that people do for their own enrichment? If you hold the position you state above, I don't see how you can answer anything but the latter. And I think that's a shame, because the freedom to spend the majority of your time on art makes it better. This has been true ever since the patronage of the arts during the Renaissance, and probably before that.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Market socialism and popular share holding?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 07:50 PM
  2. File sharing penalties too harsh?
    By Tallulah in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 11:02 PM
  3. Share your favourite slang and dialect words here!
    By Geoff in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 05:28 PM
  4. Career Changers! Share your stories and advice!
    By CzeCze in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-16-2008, 02:50 AM
  5. So I just told off an Evangelical Neoconservative and thought I'd share.
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 11:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO