Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 12

 

2009-11-03 01:16:37
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7041|Scotland

Bertster7 wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Except for the fact that a lot of the smaller ones are run by the artists themselves....
No. That's untrue. There are smaller record labels, I know of quite a few. Friend works in one of them.

I'm not talking about indie labels.
You're saying it's untrue that there are a lot of small record labels run by artists.

Which is bullshit. I could give you a big list if you want....
Do you mean record labels run by artists for other artists? Or do you mean record labels run by artists for themselves? You didn't make it very clear.

Even if artists are running a record label for other artists, they're still screwing them over with the money they get per record.

Yeah, sure, they sign a contract, so it's technically "their own damn fault". But not really. They need to sign a contract to stay afloat, so essentially, they have no choice in the matter, however shit the contract is.

I contribute more to the well being of artists and their concerts than both FEOS and Marine do, so please, get the fuck out of this thread. No need to be assholes.
2009-11-03 08:55:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:


I don't think anyone in this thread has said "It is ok to steal[pirate] because..." or anything along the lines of that.
There are several who have done exactly that.
It's okay to pirate because if you like a band or artist you end up watching them in concert and supporting them that way...
It's okay to pirate if you wear an eyepatch and a pegleg and a parrot on your shoulder...otherwise you're still violating the law.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-03 08:59:38
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6770
• Piracy creates economies of scale. Distribution by agencies and companies is history. Consumers distribute content amongst themselves—leading to almost tsunami like waves of consumption and distribution. So, in effect, the cost of digital entertainment is actually reduced, thanks to the non-hired help. Creators can price their wares very aggressively given this new economic dynamic.
• Piracy creates democracy. It’s no longer a chance meeting with a music czar or a gaze by a producer at a bar that creates stars today. Digital distribution is so ‘lowest common denominator’ that anyone with creativity gets noticed and famous. Pirates are the best advertising agents out there. And they come for free. The stars in the making need to partner with this global tide rather than fight it.
• Piracy creates innovation. The big gaming-console companies did not succeed in markets like China due to rampant piracy. Their game CDs were copied and sold in the black market. They felt cheated and held back. That created a massive vacuum in the market that was filled by the online game companies that created games that were meant only for the browser that required subscriptions and virtual goods purchases. This was the stepping-stone to games like Farmville and Mafia Wars.

How to win

It’s painful to be robbed of what’s yours. Yet if one thinks beyond the hurt, there may be a bigger opportunity out there.

• Upcoming artists now make more money from concerts and live appearances than selling CDs. Pirate marketing is the new currency of value. They tell fans about new bands without spends on ads. Pirates can be the new career launchers.

• Shouldn’t the big music companies still create a competitor to the iPod and iTunes?

• Make everyone in the eco-system win. Our secret sauce to leverage piracy was something called ‘inviziads’—we placed invisible ads in our games that went with our games when the pirates took them. These ads automatically become visible on pirate websites. The interesting concept is that the content remains pristine. The consumer wins (gets content without paying), the pirates win (become popular thanks to evergreen content) and we win (thanks to the ads in the content).

The next battle starts when the e-book readers like the Kindle begin to get high penetration. Original books, new and old, will begin getting zapped across friends and families. Authors, publishers and booksellers will be on the receiving end of the tsunami—they will not be paid in this round. Let’s see how many of them try and fight the flood and drown vs. those who swim with the tide and survive and win with innovation.
http://contentsutra.com/article/419-how … om-piracy/
2009-11-03 12:29:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6866|SE London

Zimmer wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Zimmer wrote:


No. That's untrue. There are smaller record labels, I know of quite a few. Friend works in one of them.

I'm not talking about indie labels.
You're saying it's untrue that there are a lot of small record labels run by artists.

Which is bullshit. I could give you a big list if you want....
Do you mean record labels run by artists for other artists? Or do you mean record labels run by artists for themselves? You didn't make it very clear.
I mean both.

Zimmer wrote:

Even if artists are running a record label for other artists, they're still screwing them over with the money they get per record.

Yeah, sure, they sign a contract, so it's technically "their own damn fault". But not really. They need to sign a contract to stay afloat, so essentially, they have no choice in the matter, however shit the contract is.

I contribute more to the well being of artists and their concerts than both FEOS and Marine do, so please, get the fuck out of this thread. No need to be assholes.
I'm sure you do and I back your stance on this issue 100%. I am certainly not of the opinion that if it's the law it has to be followed. The law is just a tool for enforcing moral behaviour that is practical for a civilised society. My concern is for the morals behind the law, not the rules that it is composed of.
2009-11-03 12:47:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Zimmer wrote:

I contribute more to the well being of artists and their concerts than both FEOS and Marine do, so please, get the fuck out of this thread. No need to be assholes.
You're making a mighty big assumption there, based on absolutely zero information about me or Marine.

Pretty self-important, aren't you?

Thus far, only one of the three of us is being an asshole. And it's not me or Marine.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-03 15:59:32
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7041|Scotland

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

I contribute more to the well being of artists and their concerts than both FEOS and Marine do, so please, get the fuck out of this thread. No need to be assholes.
You're making a mighty big assumption there, based on absolutely zero information about me or Marine.

Pretty self-important, aren't you?

Thus far, only one of the three of us is being an asshole. And it's not me or Marine.
Aaaaaaaaaaaand he bites.

You two popped in this thread with all the stealing shit again, always acting morally superior to the rest. So I thought I'd go low and make you bite. You did. You don't really have anything more to contribute to this thread, so why are you still replying?

"Violating the law". Since when has that ever been a problem with things? Everyone here violates the law one way or the other, and slates the law, and says it's ridiculous at times. But of course, once you hit large debate about piracy and music copyright - and as there are some people who are pretty touchy about the subject - you just begin flinging around the OMG IT'S ILLEGAL, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW comments.

No thanks. Breaking the law is raping someone or murdering someone or speeding or whatever. Not downloading some digital content off the internet.
2009-11-03 16:18:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.

Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.

Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-03 16:23:39
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|7024|Toronto | Canada

FEOS wrote:

Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.

Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.

Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
Speeding is breaking the law too, tell me you dont do that.

Also, there are plenty of countries without proper filesharing laws.  Its more of a gray area of the law than totally outlawed
2009-11-03 16:24:48
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5986|College Park, MD
Doing it doesn't make it right.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-11-03 16:43:45
JakAttaK
csanva<3
+492|6611|England
What a lot of people don't understand is that when buying a song, the artist only sees any of that money at all if they had a part in writing the song. A lot of the artists in the charts don't so the only way they will make their money is by live shows, and the contract they signed. With these people, which to be fair, I don't like a lot of music in the charts, I wouldn't bother buying the music. They make nothing out of it even if you do.

I'm not sure why I thought this was relevant, lol.
http://soundcloud.com/csanva
2009-11-03 17:06:55
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7006|Sydney, Australia

FEOS wrote:

Is there a law against downloading digital content off the internet? Yes.

Therefore, doing so is breaking the law.

Are you and a bunch of others here trying to rationalize/justify breaking said law? Yes.

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
Then to debate whether we are breaking the law or not is pointless.

Should we shift the discussion to the reasoning behind the laws, and arguments for and against having them?


I'm against them. (Since I need to go study some uni stuff) I'll make it short and sweet.

The music industry is holding on to these arcane CD pushing values, and is ignoring the potential of using the internet/filesharing/video websites (ie. youtube) for marketing their products. I will NEVER just walk into a CD/music shop and buy a CD from an artist I've never heard of. I'd think something to that effect would be the norm. If however, I do like an artist.. sure, I will buy their stuff if I can.

Without filesharing, I would have never heard of any of these bands (just to name a few)..

https://i38.tinypic.com/2q2l1za.jpg

I've got 30-40 CD's or music DVD's because I've seen a track on youtube or torrented and album of the band. On the topic of youtube - when they remove the soundtrack for "copyright violations" that really shits me. They are just shooting themselves in the foot marketing wise. As a flash video.. the average user isn't going to download the video, rip the audio track and put it onto their mp3 player. Byebye free marketing.

Then of course come live shows and tours. For any of them, I will gladly go. I would sell a kidney to see Sonata Arctica (if they weren't coming here when I am overseas ><).

-

Putting the economics into question. Lets take the Scottish rock band Biffy Clyro as an example. I heard their single "Mountains" on the radio a bit last year. Fucking loved it. With but a handful of lyrics, I managed to google the name of the song and eventually the band. At the local CD stores I was met with "... who?". No one had ever heard of them.

Wanting more, I torrented their album "Puzzle". Again, I fucking loved it.. so I went out of my way to find a place in Sydney that sold the album. While I was there, I got another of their albums.

Then they came to Sydney in march. I dragged a friend along. I also got a lot of my other friends into the band.


Now lets see.. the cost of me torrenting the album was:
- the price I didn't pay for it = $20

The benefit of me torrenting the album was:
- the price I bought it for = $20
- the price I bought the other album for = $20
- the price of the two tickets for their gig = $80
- and the price of the tickets to their future gigs here, which I will always try to see.

Net benefit to the band/industry is $100 (+whatever I pay for gigs in the future)

--

Edit: I've added a link to Biffy Clyro's youtube page, as an example of a band that has embraced the use of the internet for marketing itself..
2009-11-03 17:11:44
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6770

FEOS wrote:

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So?  Just cause we're breaking the law doesn't make it wrong.
2009-11-03 17:29:41
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7006|Sydney, Australia

mcminty wrote:

Net benefit to the band/industry is $100 (+whatever I pay for gigs in the future)
Lol, I just ordered a limited edition boxed set for their new album. You can add $90 (50 pounds) to that total now.


God I'm really sinking the industry by torrenting. I better stop.
2009-11-03 17:30:31
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|7024|Toronto | Canada

mcminty wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Net benefit to the band/industry is $100 (+whatever I pay for gigs in the future)
Lol, I just ordered a limited edition boxed set for their new album. You can add $90 (50 pounds) to that total now.


God I'm really sinking the industry by torrenting. I better stop.
You big jerk
2009-11-03 18:27:43
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Wreckognize wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So?  Just cause we're breaking the law doesn't make it wrong.
Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.

Have I done it? Of course. Usually to try out new music to decide if I want to spend the cash on the music legitimately.

Do I try to rationalize it as some kind of moral crusade, fighting "the man" who keeps the poor artists down?

Absolutely not. Because that would be stupid and totally contradictory of reality.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-04 01:10:36
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7041|Scotland

FEOS wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So?  Just cause we're breaking the law doesn't make it wrong.
Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.

Have I done it? Of course. Usually to try out new music to decide if I want to spend the cash on the music legitimately.

Do I try to rationalize it as some kind of moral crusade, fighting "the man" who keeps the poor artists down?

Absolutely not. Because that would be stupid and totally contradictory of reality.
0.o

Since when do laws represent what is morally right and wrong in this world?

Laws are never the definition of wrong, and never have been. I can't believe you just said that. It's like saying the Bible is all true. That's utterly ridiculous. There is no definition of wrong, and many laws are just there to make money or to prevent retards from doing something stupid, not because said action is wrong. So you're telling me that a small set of small minded people that make the laws are the ones defining wrong and right in our society?



Contradictory of reality? The people who aren't in the real world are precisely those record companies, the RIAA and the UK equivalent trying to shut this down entirely.

This is all down to greed. The fact that the whole music industry is about to collapse because the RIAA and the sort are being cunts shows how it has nothing to do with morals. It's just pure greed. Artists can survive perfectly well on their own, shown by the massive profit margin of In Rainbows by Radiohead, which was released for free on the internet - yet they made more money than most bands as people decided to donate to them.
2009-11-04 04:39:02
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Zimmer wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.

Have I done it? Of course. Usually to try out new music to decide if I want to spend the cash on the music legitimately.

Do I try to rationalize it as some kind of moral crusade, fighting "the man" who keeps the poor artists down?

Absolutely not. Because that would be stupid and totally contradictory of reality.
0.o

Since when do laws represent what is morally right and wrong in this world?

Laws are never the definition of wrong, and never have been. I can't believe you just said that.
Where did I say either of those things?

Zimmer wrote:

It's like saying the Bible is all true.
Where did I say that?

Zimmer wrote:

That's utterly ridiculous. There is no definition of wrong, and many laws are just there to make money or to prevent retards from doing something stupid, not because said action is wrong. So you're telling me that a small set of small minded people that make the laws are the ones defining wrong and right in our society?
Laws define what is legal and illegal in our society. What society will accept and what society will not accept, behavior-wise. It is not a matter of morality, per se.

Zimmer wrote:

Contradictory of reality? The people who aren't in the real world are precisely those record companies, the RIAA and the UK equivalent trying to shut this down entirely.

This is all down to greed. The fact that the whole music industry is about to collapse because the RIAA and the sort are being cunts shows how it has nothing to do with morals. It's just pure greed. Artists can survive perfectly well on their own, shown by the massive profit margin of In Rainbows by Radiohead, which was released for free on the internet - yet they made more money than most bands as people decided to donate to them.
And there you go...trying to justify your illegal activity again, as if you're some kind of moral crusader, fighting "the man". You're not. You're just some kid who wants free music and you're trying to justify knowingly breaking the law to get it. Quit trying to justify it. Just do it and be done with it. It's not like you're morally superior because you're breaking the law.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-04 05:00:37
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7041|Scotland

Where am I trying to justify it? I am merely stating what is going on. I know what I am doing is illegal, but I'm not doing anything morally wrong.

No. You did not say it was ILLEGAL. You said it was WRONG. There is really big difference between those two words.

You're just some kid
lol. Always have to put in shit like that when you have nothing else to your argument, right? Always makes you feel better. How pathetic.
2009-11-04 05:24:39
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6608|Graz, Austria
Here in Austria copies for private, non-commercial use are perfectly legal, regardless of the source.
So, actually I don't pirate, but just share with all my friends on the internets.

Paying for concert tickets and spending money for t-shirts and other stuff at the merchandise booth supports artists much, much more than even the best record sales.
I bet that even the most popular artists make more money with concert tours.
2009-11-04 06:01:41
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|7024|Toronto | Canada

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.

Have I done it? Of course. Usually to try out new music to decide if I want to spend the cash on the music legitimately.

Do I try to rationalize it as some kind of moral crusade, fighting "the man" who keeps the poor artists down?

Absolutely not. Because that would be stupid and totally contradictory of reality.
0.o

Since when do laws represent what is morally right and wrong in this world?

Laws are never the definition of wrong, and never have been. I can't believe you just said that.
Where did I say either of those things?
... You just said it was "the definition of wrong"

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

It's like saying the Bible is all true.
Where did I say that?
This is called an analogy

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

That's utterly ridiculous. There is no definition of wrong, and many laws are just there to make money or to prevent retards from doing something stupid, not because said action is wrong. So you're telling me that a small set of small minded people that make the laws are the ones defining wrong and right in our society?
Laws define what is legal and illegal in our society. What society will accept and what society will not accept, behavior-wise. It is not a matter of morality, per se.
Thats not quite true.  There are laws against jaywalking, its socially accepted.  There are laws against speeding, its socially accepted.  There are laws against some of the stupidest, most unrealistic things in the world like walking your horse down a specific street between 11am and 12pm on a Sunday ffs.  Laws aren't perfect; theyre forever needing change

FEOS wrote:

Zimmer wrote:

Contradictory of reality? The people who aren't in the real world are precisely those record companies, the RIAA and the UK equivalent trying to shut this down entirely.

This is all down to greed. The fact that the whole music industry is about to collapse because the RIAA and the sort are being cunts shows how it has nothing to do with morals. It's just pure greed. Artists can survive perfectly well on their own, shown by the massive profit margin of In Rainbows by Radiohead, which was released for free on the internet - yet they made more money than most bands as people decided to donate to them.
And there you go...trying to justify your illegal activity again, as if you're some kind of moral crusader, fighting "the man". You're not. You're just some kid who wants free music and you're trying to justify knowingly breaking the law to get it. Quit trying to justify it. Just do it and be done with it. It's not like you're morally superior because you're breaking the law.
Heres my best analogy:

Remember last century when there was this little issue about racism and black people being treated poorly.  Well guess what, there were LAWS against them.  But since they were laws we were just supposed to follow them, right? 
No, what it took was people breaking the laws and forcing the people who made the laws and the overall public to realize that the laws were wrong and outdated.

Thats similar to whats happening here, the laws are outdated for this day and age.  The RIAA is a big lumbering beast of the 20th century that refuses to conform to the 21st century.  The music system needs a rehaul.

Plus:  Maybe I'm crazy, but doesnt it seem like a lot of smaller bands are doing well now, theres a lot more content out there.  Its almost like a Robin Hood effect, take from the rich and give to the poor.  And isnt Robin Hood morally superior
2009-11-04 12:38:07
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6866|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There's no biting here. You're violating the law, plain and simple. Regardless of what you or I think of the law, it's still the law. And you broke it. And then you get all high and mighty in trying to justify/rationalize your breaking of the law, like you're actually doing a good thing.

You're not. You're just breaking the law.
So?  Just cause we're breaking the law doesn't make it wrong.
Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.
No it isn't.

That's a stupid thing to say.
2009-11-04 17:44:56
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:


So?  Just cause we're breaking the law doesn't make it wrong.
Yes, it does. That is the definition of wrong, outside of in extremis circumstances.
No it isn't.

That's a stupid thing to say.
No it's not.

Doing something you know is illegal without some justification other than "I wanted to" or "it was convenient" is pretty much one of the many definitions of wrong. Not at all a stupid thing to say. Merely a stupid thing to do.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-04 17:57:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6696|'Murka

Zimmer wrote:

Where am I trying to justify it? I am merely stating what is going on. I know what I am doing is illegal, but I'm not doing anything morally wrong.

No. You did not say it was ILLEGAL. You said it was WRONG. There is really big difference between those two words.

You're just some kid
lol. Always have to put in shit like that when you have nothing else to your argument, right? Always makes you feel better. How pathetic.
If that's the best you've got...

Just keep on justifying what you're doing. Whatever makes you feel better.

The difference between you and I is that I accept what I've done is illegal. I don't try to justify it as some kind of statement against a corrupt system, because it's not. It's just me taking advantage of a system that allows it. That's it. There's no moral high ground here. No more than there's moral high ground for smoking pot, speeding, or jaywalking. So stop fucking acting like there is. It's juvenile.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-11-05 01:04:51
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|7041|Scotland

Where did I say that what I was doing, I think not to be illegal?

I never said that.

I know what I do is illegal. I don't care that it is, for the reasons I have constantly listed.
2010-09-09 13:31:18
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5870

My favorite band released a new album. So I went to bestbuy and bought their CD. Bestbuy was having a sale and the CD came out to a grand total of $8. Without the sale the CD would have came out to $14.

$8 isn't a lot of money, I spent that same amount on breakfast. So since music is pretty damn cheap what excuse is there to pirating music aside from just not wanting to pay for it?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard