Discussion in 'Industry News' started by Mac Daddy, Jun 19, 2009.
I like you less and less Andrew. And I am against piracy.
Ok , To make it justice , let's say If I downloaded about 100 Games , played 10 of them till finish 100% ,20 played till 20% story complete " that's why they put game progress in games to calculate how much money you wasted" the others never played nor planned so it's
10*50+(20*0.2)*50=700 And my seed ratio is unity, so the total "losses" =700+100*50=5700 $
Easy solution: stop reading my posts. I'm starting to think I have a fan club.
And i'm going to step in here before this gets heated. Don't let this become a thread for the close list people, please. As long as there will be the internet, there will be piracy so trying to stop it does seem like a rather pointless excercise.
I've got to admit i've seen some hilarious analogies though in this thread, keep em coming Selling files on that you've acquired for free is wrong. There's no escaping that fact even in these desperate times, however you could compare it to a drug; Do whatever you want with it, it might only be harming you, but when you start selling it on you've got yourself some major issues.
The problem is that with comments like
You actually make anti piracy "movement" look very very bad. You come out as a ruthless sob that says "fuck the world, give me money". People don't like that attitude. You are doing more bad than good and I guarantee (well...) that no one will read that comment of yours and say "hahaha, pay up bitch! Hmm, this guy is making a good point, I will stop pirating".
She's been convicted of this before and did it again. Her defense consisted of trying to blame others. She secretly swapped out her hard drive and tried to pass the new one off for evidence. Why am I so out of line in questioning the role model she's setting for her children?
An interesting thing I just learned about this case, the jury chose the dollar amount per song. A witness from Sony was asked to place a dollar amount on the songs and said that it was impossible to determine harm so they were asking the jury to award anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song. What's makes this interesting is that people are quick to smear the RIAA for thinking each song is worth $80,000 dollars but it was the jury who decided that amount based on the court proceedings, not the RIAA.
Sorry if I come off harsh, but these are the facts of the situation and if you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them, I have no chance of convincing you piracy is wrong in the first place.
Worth noting is that I haven't made any generic piracy statements in this thread. So if the topic here is really to become about questioning anyone's character, I ask people to recall who's been commenting on the original news post and who's been launching personal attacks that clearly stem from some other thread.
You are just not getting it. Facts are not so important in this war. Presentation is. Patronising hurts the anti piracy movement. Talks about how one must be a bad mother doesn't make friends and draw people to the anti piracy thinking. Don't see (or at least present) things like black or white/on/off etc.
You don't have to convince me, I am already sold, but your attitude on this matter is from rude to barbaric, no matter how right you are. Direct attack consolidates the other side. Direct attack against their parenting or in general choices about how they raise their kids, will ONLY harm your case. It's humans you are talking about/to. Not robots.
Not everyone is against you, but you talk like they are. Bad idea.
You should take your own advice about direct attacks. Do you actually have any responses to my points or just worthless critique of my character? No matter what you think, questioning my character doesn't refute my points if they are valid.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I were to really put effort into changing the world I wouldn't be doing it by making posts in forum threads that tend to get less than 1000 views. There are much better ways to get big audiences on the internet. I'm interested in intellectual debate and believe that many people here actually are intelligent and are swayed by facts and logic. Which is apparently a much higher respect than you give them, since you believe that the way to convince them is to pull the wool over their eyes and trick them into believing what you want them to.
Oh my. Ok, keep failing.
OK, now for some intellectual debate (and feel free to chime in, everyone). Sorry of the long post.
What does everyone think about this: instead of prosecuting individuals for piracy, which has done nothing to further the RIAA’s cause aside from ruining the lives of a handful of housewife’s and college students, why not try to adapt new business models to encourage people to support the music/bands they love? Why not come up with something that adds value to what is being purchased? People aren't buying tangible items anymore when it comes to music, which also makes piracy easier (think "tape dubbing", but on a much larger scale and with a network). Protecting the business model developed 50+ years ago makes very little sense. Look at what Radiohead, Trent Reznor, and the Smashing Pumpkins have done as an example of how new business models equal sales, but also encourage loyalty to a group. Also consider the growing number of "MySpace Artists" who are gaining listeners, and therefore money, by (gasp), giving their music away for free.
Does anyone agree that people having access to free music not only benefits the artists who creates it, but also the quality of music as a whole? I think of it this way, how many bands would I not have discovered had I needed to shell out $20 to purchase their album. And now that I like this particular band, am I more apt to purchase an album, shirt, concert ticket? Yes, of course. I talked to my dad about this one time when he commented that I know more about the bands he grew up with than he does (and these are really great bands). His take was simple; he didn't have access to it like I do. In his time the price was forbidding, it wasn't widely available, and there wasn't a network to really discuss the merits of the artists. People all pretty much listened to the same thing.
It could also be argued that what started with Napster is the greatest thing to happen to music, creatively, since vinyl. Having the ability to listen to, and be influenced by, so many different types of music has no doubt benefited the musicians themselves and the quality of their work. Being a musician and music lover myself, I see nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what art is about in the first place?
Very interesting perspective Viking, I agree with you on the encourage instead of ruin approach. The main reason people continue to pirate is because they can, simply that. It's a firm statement of FU to the RIAA and other governing bodies against piracy, Because of them constantly ruining lives like you said they do nothing to help the anti piracy movement the simply infuriate people and henceforth just generate support for the piracy cause themselves.
Perhaps assigning them to marketing roles with incentives such as big discounts of legit download services, Or maybe trying to find them employment in a record store/movie store/game store ect. could help the cause.
With employment being in a massive slump at the minute every penny is a commodity that must be preserved, so employment or discounts could really be a good incentive during the recession.
unfortunately that's not the case, they're really just hurting the artists, themselves and anyone who actually wants to buy the music....
Hurting the artists my ass in most cases considering that the artists are already gang raped by the record labels, the only thing getting hurt here is the multi billion dollar record labels ... and really they aren't hurt..
the only real possibility of a artist getting hurt, is if they publish it themselves or have setup a contract in which screws them out of money far more then before through sales percentages.
There are SEVERAL artists that presented with the option... would freely distribute their work.
Don't quit your day job...
I think that is what DJ was saying; that the RIAA is hurting the artists. I'm not quite sure what you are saying Judas.
That would require for the companies to greatly reduce profits with their own initiative. Self preservation won't let them do it.
I agree that your approach would be nice, but I question whether it's actually doable in the real world. My main issue with artists giving away their albums for free and just asking you to donate what you think it's worth is that it's a system that is doomed to fail as it becomes more widespread. In other words, the approach is a novelty. There's some commercial value to the approach itself, because it generates publicity. As more and more people adopt the approach, it will become less newsworthy and therefore lose value. The end state is that all music becomes a charity. Bands produce music, give it away for free, and wait for donations. Or at least, that's how the public will perceive it; the money becomes optional and an act of good will. What a far shot from the existing system. This isn't asking the music industry to change, this is asking them to give up on capitalism.
I think there are already lots of services available to help discover music in a legal way that doesn't require buying a CD just to give a listen. I feel your argument may have held water a decade ago but seems strawman now. There's pandora, which is free music discovery. If you want to have more direct control you can go to a subscription service such as Rhapsody. iTunes has genius now, which gives you recommendations on your existing library. Amazon can give you a similar style of recommendations.
The music industry has been inching closer to what people are expecting in this digital age, but because it isn't the sanctioned legal equivalent of piracy, their efforts are largely unnoticed or dismissed.
there are numerous systems that give stuff away freely and rely on donations only that are making a good living.... being able to feed their families and continue to produce better music/video down the road..
the system isn't doomed to fail if the product is good.... actually quite the opposite.... the very thought that it will puts you into that frame of mind and therefore will MAKE it fail..
It's kinda like driving and stareing at the ditch.... you have a high tendency to drive into it even though you'd like to avoid it, but it's going to happen.
If it's a good product/service.... people will pay for it...
I can attest to it simply because i've done work for free and have had customers FORCE feed me the money due to being extremely happy with the work done. I've gotten bonuses due to it... this clearly demonstrates that provided with honest work.... good work, a good product... and people that aren't lowlifes will pay for it if they honestly think it's worth something even when the product is given free.
There will always be the tightasses and the cheapscates, scapegoats and the like, the ones with money to pay but take it simply because it's free... the scrouges and the scoundrals. If doesn't matter if the product is terrible or not.... these people will take anything they can for free.
I listen to a wide variety of music.... watch a wide variety of movies..... so on and so forth.... most of it i listen for free.. but the REAL good stuff i've willlingly donated or purchased...
But the way the current alligations go.... blanket statements across the board about the bad and never anything about anything REALLY good.... If you can win over the people in your favor through lies... do it... and they are doing it.. and have always done it
Nice post and I agree especially on the part I quoted here. Being a musician for 28 years and a recording artist I have been saying pretty much the same thing for the 7 years or so I have been posting on forums. Album royalties don't make the artist money promotion and concerts do. If in doubt ask Willie Nelson or Chuck Berry.
Actually there were several bands(I think, think that NIN was one of them and Radiohead) where it was HUGELY successful. The numbers were way above expectations. I think people pirate not only because they can, but because they aren't supposed to and are also unable to afford most things.
Take for instance Photoshop. It's the premiere photo manipulation and creation app on the planet, retails for 599, Office 2007 Suite, 499-599. Games are 50-60 bucks, CD's are typically 17-20 for a cd that 90% of the time has 2 tracks that are worthwhile on it.
For music, the content is hit or miss, there are good tracks and bad tracks, but you pay for it all. A game fully is hit or miss, 50-60 bucks for a stud or a dud.
Piracy is wrong, but I do believe there are ways the good guys can minimize the impact it causes and even sway some pirates to pay for a cost of goods using a pay what you think approach or another means. I think to me, the biggest FU from the RIAA was "If I bought a CD, I paid $20 dollars, its my disc. If i want to, i should be able to poop on the CD, lend the CD out)." The RIAA says "Lending the CD to a friend is a violation". The CD itself is only being used in 1 instance, now if a COPY is made thats another thing, but the act of "lending". The content on the disc, even though the disc is fully paid for is not yours and never will be yours, its theirs. You are paying for the privilege of listening to it.
Hell for a short time even RIPPING YOUR CD's onto your MP3 player for your own use was considered illegal. So not only after buying a "hard copy" you need to re-purchase a digital copy(at the time).
I don't think anyone likes being told what they can and cannot due and that in turn will push people towards the dark side.
Separate names with a comma.