|
Piracy: Are you for or against it? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| freemind |
Downloading music does not equal theft. This is a common **AA talking point has absolutely no legal backing whatsoever.
That said, I do believe in compensating the artists. Make music reasonable (and good) enough that people don't bother going through the trouble of hunting down obscure tracks on P2P/BitTorrent. iTunes' 99c is what I'd call reasonable, but its DRM is unacceptable. All DRM does is piss off the legit customers. |
|
|
| Blue. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
What does software have to do with music? |
So what you're saying is that internet piracy is only stealing software and doesn't relate to music :rolleyes: Fine I'll find you a new definition.
Main Entry: pi·ra·cy
Pronunciation: 'pI-r&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratEs pirate
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals
Ah there we go. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Blue.
So what you're saying is that internet piracy is only stealing software and doesn't relate to music :rolleyes: Fine I'll find you a new definition. |
Uhh, no - this thread was about pirating music specifically, you were the one that came up with anything software related.
Also, I don't really care about any of your definitions as I was expressing mine. |
|
|
| Futureshock |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jarvmeister
Whilst I won't deny I have ever downloaded something which was technically illegal, I do feel that the situation needs careful monitoring.
We, the consumer, will loose out. Why? Those artists that are on the borderline, struggling to make a fraction as much as the massive music corporations, will be the ones to suffer. And ironically these artists are the ones that produce the better material. The upshot is that piracy will harm these artists more than any other.
Jarv |
I don't think so, lesser known artists on small/independent labels are the ones who make tracks available to download for free off their websites; whose music gains popularity via mp3 blogs and filesharing.
I do like to download some music for free before making my mind up so I'm not completely against piracy, but if I like a track then I'll always buy it. |
|
|
| Jarvmeister |
Maybe. Maybe not.
As I said, the piracy will hit the less well off artist harder than it will hit the massive corporations.
It's plain old economics.
Jarv |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
| you know what. the government and corporations you over every chance they can get...so them. sure there is a whole supply and demand thing going on, but i don't think that or illegal software, music, movies or whatever is the reason prices are raised. it's not like if a company has $1,000,000 in costs & 10,000,000 sales at $5.00 and can have 20,000,000 sales if they sell it at $2.55 for costs of $2,000,000 that they are going to. what drives a company is profit. they don't care about the supply at all if it doesn't make them more money. they are going to adjust their markup to whatever they think is going to make them the most money. the only reason they would ever consider a move like that is to widen their customer base so that future price increases will yield a larger return. They can raise $.10 and make an extra $2,000,000...because no one complains about $.10. Even if their isn't any pirating...they are gonna charge you $5.99...if they think you are willing to pay that instead of $4.99. it's not like if pirating went away they are going to pass on that extra money to the consumer in the form of a reduced price... |
|
|
| Loignite |
I suppose there are still a number of people who think, "Well, just because I download the album instead of buy it... doesn't mean it hurts them. I wasn't going to spend that $15 anyway on it, so it doesn't hurt them."
Oh, okay, that makes it alright then. Well, you know what, I'm going to try that elsewhere. I think I'll head to the supermarket and pick up some food and walk out with it, and when they stop me, I'll just tell them they weren't going to get my money anyway, so it's not really hurting them.
They'll say to me, "But you're still eating our food."
Just like you're still listening to their music.
You really get bent out of shape about $15 for an album that will result in countless hours of entertainment? And you think, "Why should I pay anything when I can get it for free?" Hrm, maybe because if everyone thought like that, there'd be no reason to sell it, and it wouldn't even be made, because there'd be no profit in it.
I agree though that a lot of albums seem like some corporate executive threw together a bunch of tracks and put it out there on the shelf. You can even find an album with the song "[b]When the Rush Comes[b]" by apparently the Evil Twin of Motorcycle. I laughed to myself when I read that -- they can't even get the names of the songs right. But I'm not talking about those albums, and I don't think you are either.
The albums I buy... much more than just tracks put on there in a random order. Albums like "A Voyage into Trance" and "Tranceport," "Northern Exposure" and Markus Schulz Miami '05 -- these were all great to listen to and the money I spent on them -- I would never want that back in exchange for a tracklist and some downloads.
I say you're no fan at all if you aren't willing to support an artist that you claim to be a fan of. |
|
|
| sleepydragon |
| quote: | Originally posted by freemind
Downloading music does not equal theft. |
of course it is you wouldnt expect to walk into a record store and grab a few tracks then walk out and get away with it. When you download a track you are taking something that isnt yours |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Loignite
Oh, okay, that makes it alright then. Well, you know what, I'm going to try that elsewhere. I think I'll head to the supermarket and pick up some food and walk out with it, and when they stop me, I'll just tell them they weren't going to get my money anyway, so it's not really hurting them.
They'll say to me, "But you're still eating our food."
Just like you're still listening to their music.
|
That analogy doesn't really work though, does it? You're comparing listening to music to physically stealing something, which just isn't the same thing at all. That would be valid if you actually went out and stole the CD, but that's not what you're doing.
Edit:
I'm not really taking sides here, I just hate that analogy you used. |
|
|
| Loignite |
...
Would it really make a difference if I changed it to "intellectual property"? You know what I meant, damn.
Yes, the analogy really does work. When I said "listening to their music," I was clearly referring to someone having downloaded songs that they did not pay for. They have now create "copies" of something that isn't theirs. We're not talking about one person doing this. We're talking about millions. And obviously it does have an effect on the economy, because that's money not being spent.
A large number of those individuals probably would not rush out and buy the CD if they could not download it, that is true. But a large number also won't buy the CD because they can download it. And as far as movies go -- I have no idea why someone would trade some poor quality movie download for seeing it at a theater, or at least at DVD quality in a few months. That's just silly. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
There's no real moral argument for piracy. Even if the record label doesn't deserve your money, the artist does. And frankly, the "I only like one track from the album" argument isn't much good these days, when you can download individual MP3s for money and hear samples prior to purchase.
If the artists stopped making money from record sales they either pack in making music, or they resort to making commercially viable tracks that they know will sell.
Personally, I only pirate what I can't legally obtain. I'd rather pay for the actual record or, at last resort, the MP3 from somewhere like Beatport. You know you're getting the real thing- the full track, in good quality sound with no mislabelling. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Loignite
...
Would it really make a difference if I changed it to "intellectual property"? You know what I meant, damn.
Yes, the analogy really does work. When I said "listening to their music," I was clearly referring to someone having downloaded songs that they did not pay for. They have now create "copies" of something that isn't theirs. We're not talking about one person doing this. We're talking about millions. And obviously it does have an effect on the economy, because that's money not being spent.
A large number of those individuals probably would not rush out and buy the CD if they could not download it, that is true. But a large number also won't buy the CD because they can download it. And as far as movies go -- I have no idea why someone would trade some poor quality movie download for seeing it at a theater, or at least at DVD quality in a few months. That's just silly. |
I know what you're trying to say, just leave out that analogy. It just makes the whole argument seem dumbed down. |
|
|
|
|
