The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Ghost of V on April 29, 2014, 05:39:45 PM
-
(http://i.imgur.com/fKYXunI.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ImaK8tS.jpg)
What are your views on piracy? Is it really hurting the music/gaming/movie/etc industry? I've heard mixed things, and there's a lot of misinformation on this subject. I'm not going to turn you in, so feel free to speak candidly.
-
Dawg, believe it or don't but I don really care ab piracy that much dawg.
I make so much money off my other shit it don even matter at all.
-
I make so much money off my other shit it don even matter at all.
Like what exactly? ???
I thought bitches and STDS cost money?
-
I make so much money off my other shit it don even matter at all.
Like what exactly? ???
I thought bitches and STDS cost money?
I have no STDs except HERPES which is NO BIG DEAL I HARDLY EVEN HAVE OUTBREAKS ANYMORE.
But nah I make money off tours and merch like a real artist.
-
Like Kanye said, artists make more if their money through other means, perhaps with the exception of big independent groups, which i can think of approximately one. I think digital music sharing's value is more about publicity than monetary value.
-
Like Kanye said, artists make more if their money through other means, perhaps with the exception of big independent groups, which i can think of approximately one. I think digital music sharing's value is more about publicity than monetary value.
Thanks for the shout out but please refer to me as "Kanye West" first-and-last-name in the future.
-
Like Kanye said, artists make more if their money through other means, perhaps with the exception of big independent groups, which i can think of approximately one. I think digital music sharing's value is more about publicity than monetary value.
Yes, it makes sense in that regard.
This, however, does not really apply to the game/movie industry.
-
Like Kanye said, artists make more if their money through other means, perhaps with the exception of big independent groups, which i can think of approximately one. I think digital music sharing's value is more about publicity than monetary value.
Yes, it makes sense in that regard.
This, however, does not really apply to the game/movie industry.
ALRIGHT GAMES IS UNIQUE WE KNOW THIS BUT
DID YOU KNOW THAT ITS VERY SIMILAR?
Think about it, dawg. 99% of a developer's revenue is earned within the FIRST MONTH of a games launch, dawg. THE FIRST MONTH. After that they be losin they revenue to shit like resellers (Amazon, GameStop, eBay, Craigslist) and other shit, right, haaanh.
Any piracy done AFTER THE FIRST MONTH should in theory in no way influence a game's revenue. BUT LOGIC STILL APPLIES.
IF I WRITE GOOD MUSIC PEOPLE WILL BUY IT...OR GO TO MY CONCERT...OR BUY MY TSHIRTS AND VINYLS AND STICKERS.
IF A GAME IS GOOD...MOST PEOPLE WILL BUY IT. OR THEYLL BUY THE EXPANSIONS. OR THEYLL BUY THE SEQUEL. OR THEYLL TELL THEIR FRIENDS ABOUT IT IN TURN AND THEYLL BUY IT.
POPULAR PRODUCT PREVENTS PIRACY.
-
BETTER PRODUCT PREVENTS PRIVACY.
Not necessarily. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim, Kanye?
Also, Kanye... I've pirated all your albums. I haven't gone to any of your shows (and don't plan on it) and wouldn't dream of buying anything that said Kanye West on it. How do you feel?
Also, did you really name your child North West?
-
BETTER PRODUCT PREVENTS PRIVACY.
Not necessarily. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim, Kanye?
Also, Kanye... I've pirated all your albums. I haven't gone to any of your shows (and don't plan on it) and wouldn't dream of buying anything that said Kanye West on it. How do you feel?
Dawg, I ain't got no specific reports or nothin'. But check this out...
Grand Theft Auto San Andreas has sole 27.5 million copies worldwide as of today.
The most recent sales figure on GTAIV is 25 million (in 2012), so its arguable DAWG that GTAIV is selling more per year than its predecessor. Since San Andreas piracy has become WAY EASIER DAWG. BUT THE SALES FIGURES ARE BETTER. PEOPLE ARE BUYING MORE GAMES NIGGA.
Recently, GTAV SOLD MORE COPIES IN THREE WEEKS THAN IV DID AT ALL. AT ALL IN THE UK.
-
BETTER PRODUCT PREVENTS PRIVACY.
Not necessarily. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this claim, Kanye?
Also, Kanye... I've pirated all your albums. I haven't gone to any of your shows (and don't plan on it) and wouldn't dream of buying anything that said Kanye West on it. How do you feel?
Also, did you really name your child North West?
Yes my child is North West.
I don't mind it at all. Do you like my music? If not then WE DONT CARE. (HAAANH, GET IT?) But if you do, it stands to reason you'd at least be INTERESTED IN MY SHOWS. MAYBE I DONT COME CLOSE ENOUGH TO YOUR HOME CITY. IM SURE YOU HAVE YOUR REASONS. MAYBE YOURE POOR AND CANT BUY ANY ALBUMS AT ALL. YOU STILL DESERVE TO BE HEARIN MY SHIT THO.
-
Recently, GTAV SOLD MORE COPIES IN THREE WEEKS THAN IV DID AT ALL. AT ALL IN THE UK.
It takes a lot more know-how and technical BS to pirate a PS3/360 game. Especially when you compare it to pirating a 10 year old game that's easily downloadable for the PC. I would be interested to see how well GTAV sold if they released a PC version of it alongside the PS3/360 versions.
MAYBE I DONT COME CLOSE ENOUGH TO YOUR HOME CITY. IM SURE YOU HAVE YOUR REASONS. MAYBE YOURE POOR AND CANT BUY ANY ALBUMS AT ALL. YOU STILL DESERVE TO BE HEARIN MY SHIT THO.
No, it's because your music sucks.
-
Recently, GTAV SOLD MORE COPIES IN THREE WEEKS THAN IV DID AT ALL. AT ALL IN THE UK.
It takes a lot more know-how and technical BS to pirate a PS3/360 game. Especially when you compare it to pirating a 10 year old game that's easily downloadable for the PC. I would be interested to see how well GTAV sold if they released a PC version of it alongside the PS3/360 versions.
MAYBE I DONT COME CLOSE ENOUGH TO YOUR HOME CITY. IM SURE YOU HAVE YOUR REASONS. MAYBE YOURE POOR AND CANT BUY ANY ALBUMS AT ALL. YOU STILL DESERVE TO BE HEARIN MY SHIT THO.
No, it's because your music sucks.
Then I really don't mind your piracy.
But I INCLUDED GTA IV IN MY ASSESSMENT WHICH IS ON PC AND IS VERY EASY TO PIRATE.
-
Oh, I read that wrong. Do you know the PC sales for GTAIV?
-
Oh, I read that wrong. Do you know the PC sales for GTAIV?
No idea. But if total sales for SA was 27 mil and for IV its 25 mil (as of 2012). Its reasonable to assume similar percentages. Quick Google search didn't yield anything.
-
Oh good, another troll with a one-dimensional personality trait.
As for piracy, I tend to download stuff for free to get an idea of what they're like, then buy the album/ boxset/ game/ whatever if it's any good.
-
Piracy is an issue but not the way you think.
The people who pirate are mostly those who wouldn't buy anyway. But the owners of the pirated material assume that 100% of all piracy is lost sales. As a result they increase the price of their goods to account for the lost sales.
-
Piracy is an issue but not the way you think.
The people who pirate are mostly those who wouldn't buy anyway. But the owners of the pirated material assume that 100% of all piracy is lost sales. As a result they increase the price of their goods to account for the lost sales.
Not quite. Piracy is particularly bad in Australia, where (for example) you need to pay $17/week just to have Foxtel to watch Game of Thrones, and even then it's not at the same time the US gets it. Hulu even blocked VPN's recently, turning more overseas 'pirates' back to torrenting. Many of us have few choices for legal methods, so we turn to torrenting sites. I torrent heaps of stuff, and if I like it I usually purchase it afterwards.
-
Oh good, another troll with a one-dimensional personality trait.
>another
As for piracy, I tend to download stuff for free to get an idea of what they're like, then buy the album/ boxset/ game/ whatever if it's any good.
I used to do that, but as I started earning more money, it eventually started feeling like it's not even worth the effort. I just find it easier to buy stuff, and I can afford it, so meh. Therefore, the only way to solve piracy is clearly and objectively to lower the prices.
Also, I would totally steal a car if I could get away with it. Sadly, I can't even drive.
-
I'm guilty of torrent almost everything that's not a this gen game title.
Sadly, I can't even drive.
Wait what?
I would steal a car if I could torrent it and print it off with a 3D printer, but alas...
-
PIZZAPLANET
Will you DERAIL this NIGGA for DERAILING this THREAD?
No, but I'll ask you to keep your crap out of the serious fora. This is your third and last warning.
Sadly, I can't even drive.
Wait what?
I never needed a car, so I never considered getting a licence a priority. I should get around to it at some point, but I keep finding better uses of my time and money.
-
No, but I'll ask you to keep your crap out of the serious fora. This is your third and last warning.
With all due respect, Kanye West was actually contributing to the conversation with real content this time around.
Who do I report you to? For not keeping this serious thread on topic?
Probably Al Gore, inventor of the internet.
-
No, but I'll ask you to keep your crap out of the serious fora. This is your third and last warning.
With all due respect, Kanye West was actually contributing to the conversation with real content this time around.
I see contributive posts and I see derailing posts (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1465.0). I am objecting to the derailing posts, and the contributive posts have no impact to that. Since we're dealing with a repeat offender here, I'm not interested in being lenient.
-
I see contributive posts and I see derailing posts (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1465.0). I am objecting to the derailing posts, and the contributive posts have no impact to that.
Fair enough.
-
You wouldn't make a seamless copy of a car thus depriving the company that originally copied that car valuable revenue because otherwise you would have bought that car.
-
People will always take the road of least resistance, subsequently they will only buy games if they can afford to and they will only buy them if it is easy to acquire. If you are purposefully making it difficult to play your game (looking at you, EA), then more people are going to pirate it more often because it is ofttimes easier to pirate the game rather than actually buy it and deal with maximum security DRM they plastered all over it.
-
I don't think the term piracy is a particularly accurate one since nothing is actually stolen. But yes, I support all kinds of data and file sharing/copying.
-
I don't think the term piracy is a particularly accurate one since nothing is actually stolen. But yes, I support all kinds of data and file sharing/copying.
To say nothing is stolen is pretty pedantic and also inaccurate.
I subscribe to netflix, a satellite TV service, a music downloading site, etc... but I will also pirate content I cannot get, usually due to time constraints surrounding release dates and my desire to wait. I prefer buying content as well, because I feel like I have a better guarantee of the quality I will receive (e.g. my pirated "Man of Steel" download has audio sync issues and japanese subtitles. My iTunes copies of "The Hobbit" series are glorious.")
-
I don't think the term piracy is a particularly accurate one since nothing is actually stolen. But yes, I support all kinds of data and file sharing/copying.
To say nothing is stolen is pretty pedantic and also inaccurate.
What exactly has been stolen? The original owner still has full use of their copy. If I stole your car, you would be deprived of its use. If I copied a file off your computer, you are not made any worse by it.
-
What exactly has been stolen?
You're stealing intellectual property in most cases.
-
Oh, for fuck's sake, the "Technically it's not stealing because the owner still has..." argument again? And twice in quick succession, too. I guess saying it just once wasn't good enough.
Stop making that stupid point already. Every single one of us has heard it a million times before. We know how downloading works. We know that the original owner still has their copy. You are saying absolutely nothing worth saying. If people are still using the word "stealing" it's because they're making an ethical judgment on piracy. You know this. Stop pretending that you don't, and stop making the most useless, nitpicky, pedantic argument in the history of the debate.
-
pedantic
The word of the month is: Pedantic.
1: of, relating to, or being a pedant (see pedant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant))
2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3: unimaginative, pedestrian
— pe·dan·ti·cal·ly adverb
-
Wasn't there a court case that determined piracy isn't stealing?
-
Wasn't there a court case that determined piracy isn't stealing?
I don't know. Google helped me find this. (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml)
Is that what you're talking about?
-
pedantic
The word of the month is: Pedantic.
1: of, relating to, or being a pedant (see pedant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant))
2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3: unimaginative, pedestrian
— pe·dan·ti·cal·ly adverb
"Pedantic" has always been a favorite word on FES. And for good reason.
-
I don't think the term piracy is a particularly accurate one since nothing is actually stolen. But yes, I support all kinds of data and file sharing/copying.
To say nothing is stolen is pretty pedantic and also inaccurate.
What exactly has been stolen? The original owner still has full use of their copy. If I stole your car, you would be deprived of its use. If I copied a file off your computer, you are not made any worse by it.
You've deprived the artist of the money they would get through a sale.
-
You've deprived the artist of the money they would get through a sale.
What if you only pirate things you were never going to buy anyway?
-
I don't think the term piracy is a particularly accurate one since nothing is actually stolen. But yes, I support all kinds of data and file sharing/copying.
To say nothing is stolen is pretty pedantic and also inaccurate.
What exactly has been stolen? The original owner still has full use of their copy. If I stole your car, you would be deprived of its use. If I copied a file off your computer, you are not made any worse by it.
You've deprived the artist of the money they would get through a sale.
Its more like "you've been entertained without compensating the people distributing the entertainment."
It would be equivalent to sneaking into a movie theater and standing in the aisle. You're not taking a seat so you aren't depriving them of a sale. And your actions don't take anything from the theater itself or the movie studio. But you are seeing a movie for free.
-
Entertainment and art should be free.
-
Entertainment and art should be free.
But shouldn't entertainers and artists have the freedom to charge what they want?
-
No. But people could pay if they want to, to support the artist.
-
But shouldn't entertainers and artists have the freedom to charge what they want?
They're not me, so fuck their freedoms.
-
Okay, they should have the freedom and right to charge what they want. But should they? It begs the question if they're in it for their love of doing what they're doing, or just for the money.
-
Okay, they should have the freedom and right to charge what they want. But should they? It begs the question if they're in it for their love of doing what they're doing, or just for the money.
Can't it be both?? I see no compelling reason why an artist or any discipline should not receive compensation for their work.
-
Okay, they should have the freedom and right to charge what they want. But should they? It begs the question if they're in it for their love of doing what they're doing, or just for the money.
You can ask that of any profession.
Simply put, you can't perform art without being alive and you can't live without food, water, and shelter. Money allows you to have what you need to perform art.
-
Entertainment and art should be free.
No it shouldn't. If someone is spending all their time trying to entertain others...then they should be compensated.
-
Okay, they should have the freedom and right to charge what they want. But should they? It begs the question if they're in it for their love of doing what they're doing, or just for the money.
People need money to live, beardo. If they can't make a living off of their art, then surely that would affect the quality of their art.
-
Piracy seems to be talked about most by the people and companies who can afford to deal with their claimed loss of sales as a result of it. Industries worth tens of billions, artists worth millions, products also worth millions, these, as far as I can tell, are not being harmed in any way that could justifiably be complained about. I don't think such superstars could realistically be put in a position of poverty by someone choosing to torrent their latest album, or movie, because regardless of piracy they still make enough money to own five houses and a dozen Italian sports cars — in their case, the question of making enough money to live is immaterial. The independent artist seems somehow less troubled by it, perhaps because they are more interested in the work itself, rather than the work as a means to acquire wealth, and also because their fans tend to be more appreciative of the work and the effort behind it, rather than treating it as product to be consumed then thrown away when then next batch of product is released. Obviously these are generalisations, we can point to a number of exceptions to both of them, but I think they are more fact than fiction overall.
I'm wondering, though, to what extent some "artists" are deserving of compensation for their work, and the gross disparity between the apparent monetary value of "pop" and "serious" art. For example: someone who writes a song that goes like "yo, uhuh, what, phat booty bitches, uh, yeah" for approximately four minutes could potentially become a millionaire on the strength of that one song, while a composer of "serious" music is very lucky if they can even get by on commissions, recordings, performances of their work, and they are usually either forced to teach or get some other job as the mainstay of their income.
Is it at all justifiable that this is the case; that the writer of a song which could easily be thrown together in the space of an hour or two is recipient of a six or seven figure sum in recompense for doing approximately nothing, while a work which is put together over many months, perhaps even years, is performed once or twice, recorded if lucky in a very limited release, left for dead soon after, and the person responsible for its realisation receives a meagre sum for their efforts? I'm not trying to say that "pop" music is necessarily crap or that "serious" music is necessarily good, because that isn't true, any genre or tradition in any kind of art has to its name good, bad and inconsequential works, rather that works of quality in both fields are not valued equally, and that even bad works in the former are valued greater than good works in the latter.
-
If it wasn't justifiable, what sort of ridiculous restrictions would have to be put in place to make sure people don't make more than they "deserve" out of their work, and who would put those restrictions in place?
-
I see no compelling reason why an artist or any discipline should not receive compensation for their work.
Entertainment and art should be free.
No it shouldn't. If someone is spending all their time trying to entertain others...then they should be compensated.
Entertainment and art should be free.
No it shouldn't. If someone is spending all their time trying to entertain others...then they should be compensated.
An artist should create/perform their art because they love doing so, not because they want to get rich.
you can't perform art without being alive and you can't live without food, water, and shelter. Money allows you to have what you need to perform art.
People need money to live, beardo. If they can't make a living off of their art, then surely that would affect the quality of their art.
Donations, and a fucking job. Art should be a hobby.
The only compensation an artist or entertainer should require is the knowledge that their work have touched and entertained other people.
-
If it wasn't justifiable, what sort of ridiculous restrictions would have to be put in place to make sure people don't make more than they "deserve" out of their work, and who would put those restrictions in place?
I don't know, I don't believe in "ranking" art on an objective level, nor do I like the idea of placing restrictions on art. Mostly I'm lamenting the fact that so many works of quality languish in the depths of relative or near total obscurity while throwaway nothings are lauded beyond hyperbole and showered with money. Justifiable or not, I don't think a culture of wilful mediocrity is healthy for anyone.
-
Sometimes I sit at home and pirate all my own music. And I ALWAYS SEED FOR NINETY DAYS.
-
That's a good boy.
-
An artist should create/perform their art because they love doing so, not because they want to get rich.
Why?
Donations, and a fucking job. Art should be a hobby.
The only compensation an artist or entertainer should require is the knowledge that their work have touched and entertained other people.
Becoming really good at something takes a lot of time and concentration. This can be quiet a hindrance if you have to go push paper for 8 hours, commute for 2 hours, feed your family, bathe and sleep. If you had it your way, a lot of artists, of all disciplines, would never reach their potential.
-
Yay! It's back!
Take that Blanko!
-
Becoming really good at something takes a lot of time and concentration. This can be quiet a hindrance if you have to go push paper for 8 hours, commute for 2 hours, feed your family, bathe and sleep. If you had it your way, a lot of artists, of all disciplines, would never reach their potential.
Well, back when artists were piss-poor, art was actually good. Now it's... pop-culture. Talk about reaching someone's potential.
-
You've deprived the artist of the money they would get through a sale.
The industry does a pretty good job of that already.
-
Well, back when artists were piss-poor, art was actually good.
Correlation, causation, etc. Also, most poor artists never had their art recognized as good until after they were dead, but whether art is good or not is irrelevant, since it is just an opinion.
The industry does a pretty good job of that already.
Artists can choose not to sign with a company. They sign to reach a wider audience.
-
Correlation, causation, etc.
But that argument swings both ways.
-
But that argument swings both ways.
I never said otherwise.
-
I never said otherwise.
Irrelevant.
-
Irrelevant.
no u
-
The industry does a pretty good job of that already.
Artists can choose not to sign with a company. They sign to reach a wider audience.
Most artists are not savvy enough to know how badly they're getting screwed by the company until its too late.
-
Record companies are the literal devil. You can make professional sounding music in your bedroom with a laptop and some speakers these days, which you only have to pay for once. No need to waste money on a record studio every time you record an album. And Internet makes distributing your music simple.
-
I see no compelling reason why an artist or any discipline should not receive compensation for their work.
Entertainment and art should be free.
No it shouldn't. If someone is spending all their time trying to entertain others...then they should be compensated.
Entertainment and art should be free.
No it shouldn't. If someone is spending all their time trying to entertain others...then they should be compensated.
An artist should create/perform their art because they love doing so, not because they want to get rich.
you can't perform art without being alive and you can't live without food, water, and shelter. Money allows you to have what you need to perform art.
People need money to live, beardo. If they can't make a living off of their art, then surely that would affect the quality of their art.
Donations, and a fucking job. Art should be a hobby.
The only compensation an artist or entertainer should require is the knowledge that their work have touched and entertained other people.
Why? If you want to enjoy a sofa, you pay someone for the time and materials it took to make your sofa. If you want to enjoy a song/ film/ book you should pay someone for the time and resources it took to make them. This whole 'artists should do stuff for free' attitude is bullshit. Why don't we aply this to whatever your job happens to be? "teachers should require only the knowledge that they've enlightened a child's life."
I'm currently trying to get a novel published, it took me months of my time to create. If someone gets enjoyment from it, why should that enjoyment be free? I'm not saying I want to be fabulously wealthy, but I would like to be compensated for providing you with entertainment.
Pay the people who make your life richer, you stingy bastard.
-
Why? If you want to enjoy a sofa, you pay someone for the time and materials it took to make your sofa.
A sofa is not art.
I'm currently trying to get a novel published, it took me months of my time to create. If someone gets enjoyment from it, why should that enjoyment be free?
Did you enjoy writing it? If yes, then is that not enough? If no, why did you write it?
I make music because I like making music, and I would never dream of charging people to listen to it. I'm just happy that there are people who like and appreciate it.
-
A sofa is not art.
So? You enjoy it.
Did you enjoy writing it? If yes, then is that not enough? If no, why did you write it?
Mostly, but because I work full-time (despite what my TFES login details might suggest) it took thrice as liong as it needed to, days of my free time were absorbed by it and line-editing isn't enjoyable. I'm not asking to be the next J.K.Rowling, but if you like my work, it would be nice for you to chip a little something in. If it's a print book then I'd expect the price of the materials at the very least and if it was electronic then a small donation would be enough.
That said, I think piracy has its place. when record companies charge as much as they do for their product, you should definitely be able to try the stuff out before you buy it.
-
I'm not asking to be the next J.K.Rowling, but if you like my work, it would be nice for you to chip a little something in.
Absolutely. It would be nice. But it shouldn't be a requirement. What if someone buys the book and then think it sucks?
If it's a print book then I'd expect the price of the materials at the very least and if it was electronic then a small donation would be enough.
This sounds fair. I support the usage of donations.
-
Why? If you want to enjoy a sofa, you pay someone for the time and materials it took to make your sofa.
A sofa is not art.
I'm currently trying to get a novel published, it took me months of my time to create. If someone gets enjoyment from it, why should that enjoyment be free?
Did you enjoy writing it? If yes, then is that not enough? If no, why did you write it?
I make music because I like making music, and I would never dream of charging people to listen to it. I'm just happy that there are people who like and appreciate it.
Why is art and artists a special case? Do you think that artists get a feeling that no other person gets when doing their work that is a priviledge? Do you think is more essential to culture? Do you think everyone should have access to art freely?
I really can't understand what your narrow perception of artists is, please help.
-
Art is a special case because it's non-physical, unless it's a painting, or a sculpture or such, in which case I understand that it can be very expensive to obtain, because the artist has to spend their money on the material needed for such form of art. But in cases with music, films, novels and such things, the art itself is not a physical object unlike a sculpture. The disc or book you hold in your hand is cheap material, which you probably should pay a small sum for in order to compensate the companies who created the physical medium. But since the arts contained within these are non-physical, and simply being copies of the original work, I see no reason why anyone would HAVE to pay for it.
If I decided to make physical copies of my albums, I would probably charge the 1 euro or whatever the CD cost me. But that would be for the disc only. Not for the music.
And this is why I think piracy is OK, because you don't get the physical medium (the only part which should be paid for) when you download a film, album, or even a digital copy of a novel.
-
ITT: We tell other people their opinions are wrong.
Regardless of what should or should not be the case, the freely available global network that makes copying digital media trivial makes it impractical to charge unreasonable sums of money for art. Artists can feel free to try, but the reality is that it's becoming less and less feasible to do so, especially if they try to impose artificial restrictions (be they legal or technical) on the people buying from them, since they then make their product even more inconvenient compared to obtaining it some other way.
However, it's not wrong for them to do that, only stupid. It would be far more reasonable to charge a modest fee and hand over the work in the least cumbersome way possible. For example, I don't want to jump through hoops to watch video encoded with DRM onto a plastic disc just because I run Linux; I'll grab an MKV from a torrent site instead. If the filmmakers charged me $5 for a direct download of that same unencumbered video file, I'd probably pay it.
This isn't philosophy, it's just practicality. For me, the philosophy comes in when the government takes a side. There is no reason, in the context of modern media, for the government to protect antiquated copyright conventions. That is what I object to.
-
The content distribution business has to get in to line with modern realities so that copyright contravention is a non-issue. Big media companies are dinosaurs on these issues and try to slowly modify their business models. It's total stagnation. Once distribution companies figure put their model they can pay the artists their share.
Artists in a physical medium should charge whatever the fuck they can get because why not? Saying they should do it for the love if it and not take money is naive, idealistic, patronizing BS.
-
Art is a special case because it's non-physical, unless it's a painting, or a sculpture or such, in which case I understand that it can be very expensive to obtain, because the artist has to spend their money on the material needed for such form of art. But in cases with music, films, novels and such things, the art itself is not a physical object unlike a sculpture. The disc or book you hold in your hand is cheap material, which you probably should pay a small sum for in order to compensate the companies who created the physical medium. But since the arts contained within these are non-physical, and simply being copies of the original work, I see no reason why anyone would HAVE to pay for it.
If I decided to make physical copies of my albums, I would probably charge the 1 euro or whatever the CD cost me. But that would be for the disc only. Not for the music.
And this is why I think piracy is OK, because you don't get the physical medium (the only part which should be paid for) when you download a film, album, or even a digital copy of a novel.
You might not get hold of he actual physical things but in most art, there is expenditure which has gone into making it beyond the artist's time. In films this is the cameras, the sound equipment, the studio hiring costs, the hiring of he army of men and women who don't consider what they do 'art' but contribute to it, props, sets, special effects, etc etc.
Further, would you object to people making money from your art? If a Hollywood studio downloaded your music to use in their soundtrack without paying you, would you not feel in the least bit miffed?
-
Art is a special case because it's non-physical, unless it's a painting, or a sculpture or such, in which case I understand that it can be very expensive to obtain, because the artist has to spend their money on the material needed for such form of art. But in cases with music, films, novels and such things, the art itself is not a physical object unlike a sculpture. The disc or book you hold in your hand is cheap material, which you probably should pay a small sum for in order to compensate the companies who created the physical medium. But since the arts contained within these are non-physical, and simply being copies of the original work, I see no reason why anyone would HAVE to pay for it.
If I decided to make physical copies of my albums, I would probably charge the 1 euro or whatever the CD cost me. But that would be for the disc only. Not for the music.
And this is why I think piracy is OK, because you don't get the physical medium (the only part which should be paid for) when you download a film, album, or even a digital copy of a novel.
You might not get hold of he actual physical things but in most art, there is expenditure which has gone into making it beyond the artist's time. In films this is the cameras, the sound equipment, the studio hiring costs, the hiring of he army of men and women who don't consider what they do 'art' but contribute to it, props, sets, special effects, etc etc.
Further, would you object to people making money from your art? If a Hollywood studio downloaded your music to use in their soundtrack without paying you, would you not feel in the least bit miffed?
Exactly. The CEO of Pandora just received 32M in bonuses while Eminem -only- received $210,000 for his song's streams. It is out of balance.
-
But Eminem shouldn't moan because he should be doing it for the love of rap so anything he gets he should be grateful for. Since art should be free to take and use, the CEO is perfectly within his rights to take the music provided onlline for free, then make a buttload of money, right?
-
You might not get hold of he actual physical things but in most art, there is expenditure which has gone into making it beyond the artist's time. In films this is the cameras, the sound equipment, the studio hiring costs, the hiring of he army of men and women who don't consider what they do 'art' but contribute to it, props, sets, special effects, etc etc.
Indeed, but you don't get these cameras, sound equipment, the men and women, props, sets, etc etc when you buy a movie. You just get a piece of plastic with a digital movie stored on it.
Further, would you object to people making money from your art? If a Hollywood studio downloaded your music to use in their soundtrack without paying you, would you not feel in the least bit miffed?
I would object to this. Not because I myself wouldn't get any of the money, but because these people make money by using music that isn't supposed to be used for profit. My music is free, and no one should have to pay to listen to it. Not even in a movie. I wouldn't press charges or sue them, that would take too much effort. And besides, it would bring my music to a wider audience, so that would be good at least.
I would have no problem with it if it was a non-profit film.
Also, if Eminem self-released his music online with a "pay what you want" model, he would probably get a shit-ton more money than $210,000.
-
Indeed, but you don't get these cameras, sound equipment, the men and women, props, sets, etc etc when you buy a movie. You just get a piece of plastic with a digital movie stored on it.
Now you're being childish. No, you don't get the paraphenalia but you do get the product of the cameras etc.
It's interesting to note that Radiohead did this with 'In Rainbows.' I wonder why they went back to a traditional model for their next album?
Basically, if you want to give your music away, that's fine. You don't get to decide unilaterally that all artists must have your model.
-
Maybe they were under contract or some bullshit
I obviously don't get to decide, and I'm not trying to. I'm just having an opinion.
-
Maybe they were under contract or some bullshit
I obviously don't get to decide, and I'm not trying to. I'm just having an opinion.
No, because if you pirate then you are deciding. You have decided that you don't like their business model and that you shouldn't have to pay for this piece of art. That isn't for you to decide.
-
I always buy an album I like if I find one in a record store. And I rarely pirate games anymore either, because steam sales.
-
Well good.
-
They could always display their art in such a way that digital copies are not really possible with such high fidelity, then there would be no concern.
-
A month or two ago, I bought a pay-what-you-like model album on the Internet for about the same price I'd expect to pay in a record store, and got a personal e-mail thanking me for my generosity. That, to me, is very telling; it indicates that without threats of retribution and propaganda reinforcing the idea that people who don't pay for music are bad, the commonly agreed value of an album drops drastically, even in the view of the artist.
-
A month or two ago, I bought a pay-what-you-like model album on the Internet for about the same price I'd expect to pay in a record store, and got a personal e-mail thanking me for my generosity. That, to me, is very telling; it indicates that without threats of retribution and propaganda reinforcing the idea that people who don't pay for music are bad, the commonly agreed value of an album drops drastically, even in the view of the artist.
Or his e-mail server is setup to send that e-mail to everyone regardless of payment amount. You'd have to have someone else buy it for the minimum amount above $0 and see if they get the same e-mail.
-
Jonathan Coulton (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/) does the same thing. Doesn't mind if you pirate his music, he even gives some away for free. Everything is easily accessible in FLAC and MP3 format in his store, if you want to pay. I wish more artists used this model to distribute their music.
-
I always buy.
Saying that I think I would probably download pirated media if I couldn't afford it.
-
Is it really stealing if you download it but never listen to it?
-
Is it really stealing if you download it but never listen to it?
If we argue that piracy in general is stealing, then I see no reason why this case wouldn't be. It could be seen as "equivalent" to stealing an album from a store and never listening to it.