# Internet Piracy, and why you should pay for things



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Just some things to think about.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

"Why should you pay for things?"

- because its not supposed to be available to you for free.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> "Why should you pay for things?"
> 
> - because its not supposed to be available to you for free.



Yep, that's a large part of it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

It's the only reason that there needs to be. Every other reason is a matter of perspective.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> It's the only reason that there needs to be. Every other reason is a matter of perspective.



And understanding another person's perspective is vital for communication.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm not at all digging on your perspective, man - I agree with you entirely. I'm just saying that this matter comes up all the time and I think its almost a little sad that most people don't see the price tag as enough reason to justify actually paying for music/media. The same people would take legal action if they went to work and didn't get paid.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

I agree with your conclusions. There's one or two points that I might... less than agree on or at least feel necessary to expand on. 

Piracy, to the degree of acceptance you're talking about, is mostly prevalent in high school kids. Most adults I know purchase their music/software/movies legally these days. It's a necessary distinction because an adult is more likely to carry out the crime out of convenience or conscious justification of doing it, but a kid is more likely to do it out of desperation (I have no money, I want it and I don't understand the implications to people trying to live off that which I'm pirating). In that sense, short of giving everything away for free, you can't really convince that segment to stop pirating through reasoning.

I don't think 'pirating' is a term thrown out there to "make it sound cool or acceptable". It's also not 'stealing'.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Randy said:


> I agree with your conclusions. There's one or two points that I might... less than agree on or at least feel necessary to expand on.
> 
> Piracy, to the degree of acceptance you're talking about, is mostly prevalent in high school kids. Most adults I know purchase their music/software/movies legally these days. It's a necessary distinction because an adult is more likely to carry out the crime out of convenience or conscious justification of doing it, but a kid is more likely to do it out of desperation (I have no money, I want it and I don't understand the implications to people trying to live off that which I'm pirating). In that sense, short of giving everything away for free, you can't really convince that segment to stop pirating through reasoning.
> 
> I don't think 'pirating' is a term thrown out there to "make it sound cool or acceptable". It's also not 'stealing'.



You make some good points, though mostly from a regional perspective. Here in Canada, where we've fought off anti-piracy laws, I'd say middle aged people pirate as much or more than their kids, and teach them that it's ok. There's no transition as they get older, they just get too used to not paying for things. 

And it is stealing. Period.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not at all digging on your perspective, man - I agree with you entirely. I'm just saying that this matter comes up all the time and I think its almost a little sad that most people don't see the price tag as enough reason to justify actually paying for music/media. The same people would take legal action if they went to work and didn't get paid.



I agree, their attitude sucks, but I don't think new laws will fix it as well as a change in cultural attitude. 

I've personally witnessed someone look down on someone for not bringing reusable bags to the grocery store, and then talk about how stealing music and movies over the Internet isn't a big deal because everybody does it. Again, not a young person.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> And it is stealing. Period.



I consider stealing to be when you take something from somebody else and they no longer to that item. Physical property. Taking something that can be replicated infinitely at zero cost is still dishonest but does not fit my definition of stealing. 

That's probably somewhere we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

Randy said:


> I consider stealing to be when you take something from somebody else and they no longer to that item. Physical property. Taking something that can be replicated infinitely at zero cost is still dishonest but does not fit my definition of stealing.
> 
> That's probably somewhere we'll have to agree to disagree.



If the item is intended to put a certain amount of money in the seller's/artist's hands each and every time that item finds its way into a new owner's hands, then it is effectively stolen when a new owner has acquired said item without the seller/artist receiving the money for it. That is, assuming that it isn't just handed over to somebody as a gift... there's a strict difference between ONE disc being bought and then given as a gift, and one disc being bought, then copied and given as a gift.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

I totally get where people are coming from when they take up that argument but I just disagree with that being stealing. 

I have a company doing consulting, website design and marketing. We offer free initial consultations and sometimes (not that often, now) offer free proposals. I can't count the number of times people took what they got from that initial meeting or proposal, and did the project on their own/in-house. That sucks and it's dishonest but that's not stealing, only because those people were not going to buy my service/product, regardless.

If you were so inclined you can _argue_ that every pirated copy of your CD is somebody stealing $15-$20 from you but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

Apples can be grown and duplicated almost infinitely, as far as any of us are concerned. That doesn't mean we can go into the store and take as many as we want. That's stealing.


----------



## wespaul (Feb 23, 2012)

Growing and duplicating are two different things.

If I can duplicate apples at home then I'm not stealing them from the store.

I agree with Randy. Just because we don't consider it the definition of stealing doesn't make it in any better. It just requires different wording - like _piracy_.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 23, 2012)

Does changing the definition make piracy any better, though?


----------



## somniumaeternum (Feb 23, 2012)

I don't advocate piracy. To play devil's advocate here though:

Something that's missing here that factors into a lot of people's perspective is the immoral value of inflated prices. I believe that if albums were resonably priced, any kid could be able to fork over the money instead of resort to piracy. 

I've heard many artists express that they don't care about piracy because it gets them more exposure. A lot of anti-piracy is pushed by upper managers at publishing companies because it drops their bottom line, NOT the artist. 

Music nowdays is traded as a commodity instead of for intrinsic artistic value. This whole sale whoring of the industry is highly pushed by publishers to increase sales, but it's a fabricated demand to a large extent and it's forcing bands to pop out albums every 3-4 months that, in a lot of cases, have only a handful of quality tracks. All this while the price goes up. 

The roles of piracy aren't defined, because, in a lot of ways, they're not definable. What if you "backup" a CD? What if you rip it? What if you put it online? You own a license for it so you can do this. Trying to intimidate someone into not doing something that they have legal right to is pretty fucked but it's one of the more easily identified control points. 

If you buy "imported" cds, you can easily pay 30 bucks for something that could be purchased for half that in country. Sure there are taxes, duties, etc. But, realistically, they're only "imported" because of a company decision. And if they were just imported you'd pay more for shipping, instead of paying twice for shipping AND price.

Signed musicians don't usually make that much money off albums, it's mostly from touring & merch. So if you wanted to support them (which is the argument a lot of people pull), you could pirate all their albums and with the money you saved go to a couple of their shows and buy a T-shirt. They'd (usually) get a much bigger cut. So it's not even really a question of supporting the artist. 

I feel that this is all for the sake of some exec somewhere making 10 mil instead of 20 mil a year. That's why most people don't care I think. 

I don't pirate stuff because I like having the tangible album in hand (I know, old school right? ), and because overall I think it's unethical (due to the clear point that Adam mentioned). But do I understand it? Oh yeah.

Why do consumers have to be ethical while producers are free to ram it up the consumers ass over and over?


----------



## Splinterhead (Feb 23, 2012)

Ok, I'll bite. Hopefully this'll make sense. 

Doesn't duplicating something decrease its value? Say I wrote a paper, a long one, for physics. Everybody in class had to do it. Somehow somebody got a hold of my paper and copied it and made copies for everybody in the class. I didn't lose my paper but now all my hard work has been freely given to anybody who desired it... for free. The market (class) was saturated so now my time and effort has been deprecated 'cause everybody has my work and I feel like shit 'cause I wasn't compensated. (not that I would've sold my paper in first place, but you get the idea.) I dunno man, I always thought that if you take something that wasn't yours it was stealing. Maybe I'm old school.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

I dunno. Does an album selling millions of copies diminish it's value? I suppose from a perspective of rarity = value, maybe... but that's a stretch.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

I understand all points being made here. However, if an artist doesn't mind their music being spread around for free, they shouldn't sign contracts that give record companies the right to put a price on the music.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

I don't think anybody's really been arguing to the contrary. Piracy is unethical and, if the artist doesn't want the music to be available for free, then it shouldn't be. I think we're pretty much all on the same page there.

The only reason I saw fit to chime in here is:

1.) I disagree with the term "stealing" being used to describe piracy.

2.) Not to say all artists should be forced to release their material for free but there are a LOT of artists (and record companies) who have learned to make money without piracy effecting their business model at all. Again, not trying to say EVERYONE needs to take this same path but I don't necessarily favor aggressive laws/regulations that overstep that issue, just to protect those who are stubborn and refuse to retool.

Food for thought. Leaks? Not to let people "behind the curtain" too much but, as a moderator here, I've had more than one time that I've banned people for posting links to "leaked albums", only to find out they were authorized by the bands/companies. We're talking major artists on big labels.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 23, 2012)

That's some weird astroturfing stuff right there. 

Just to be clear, did the record company in these cases authorize people to pass on the links to "leaked" releases because they actually wanted people to download and listen to it? Or were they doing so in order to catch people in the act? Because if it's the latter, even though I'm wholeheartedly against piracy, that's entrapment.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2012)

The former.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 23, 2012)

Ah. Interesting. Sounds like some of the labels have gotten wise and are starting to use pirates' sense of anti-corporatism and general "screw the man" attitude to their benefit. How wonderfully subversive.


----------



## Splinterhead (Feb 23, 2012)

Randy said:


> I dunno. Does an album selling millions of copies diminish it's value? I suppose from a perspective of rarity = value, maybe... but that's a stretch.



You have a great point. 
I'm not necessarily thinking about rarity. Its more about demand. My silly example regarding the physics paper is more about the effort to write it. The info that is in it can be readily gathered anywhere.

Also I guess I'm thinking about my own situation and others like me who don't deal with a record company. Independent artists count on whatever income they can get. Unfortunately we get included under that mindset of it being "ok" to download the music we put huge amounts of effort in to make. 

I kind of understand that copying something isn't necessarily stealing it per se, but it took the musician a lot longer to create it than for someone to spend 45seconds copying it.


----------



## Fiction (Feb 23, 2012)

UnderTheSign said:


> Does changing the definition make piracy any better, though?



I'll just point out, no one said that changing the definition makes it any better. It's still unethical, just some things can be labelled differently. I do agree with randy on the point of no physical loss, they may lose a sale, but the buyer may never even planned on buying/downloading the album, so they lose the chance at a sale.. It's still wrong though.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

Some excellent points raised in this thread! Exactly the kind of discussion I was looking for.

I agree with a lot of this (both sides of the argument), but didn't go into it in this video because:

1) I wanted to keep this one short.

2) That's what my follow-up video is for  So, that'll either be my next rant, or I'll cover the format wars or "box office hit/failures" next, both of which can tie into this subject, since the idea of rarity is a non-issue in an all-digital world, and the idea of leaking something to raise awareness on release can dramatically effect opening-day sales.

Also, to whomever neg-repped my comment about piracy being stealing: Thank you  That's what I was hoping for. I could have gone for the soft approach, but I prefer to tell it like it is, at least, in my opinion. 

Piracy is a kind of theft, the fact that we "need" various terms to classify different kinds of theft is purely on the lawyers and anyone else trying to justify one crime as being not as bad as another crime. You took something that belongs to someone else, which you should have paid for, taking money out of someone's pockets. Theft.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

See also: this article on piracy and video games which can be translated to music, movies, or anything else really.

Gamasutra: Lars Doucet's Blog - Piracy and the four currencies


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 23, 2012)

Eh, I've spent far more money on music with piracy than I ever would without it. CD's and concert tickets are just way too expensive to buy without knowing what you're getting first.

Piracy is only taking money from an artist if you would have bought the album in the first place but choose only to pirate it instead. Most people I know who pirate things either buy them or delete them afterward, taking no money from the artists.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 23, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Eh, I've spent far more money on music with piracy than I ever would without it. CD's and concert tickets are just way too expensive to buy without knowing what you're getting first.
> 
> Piracy is only taking money from an artist if you would have bought the album in the first place but choose only to pirate it instead. Most people I know who pirate things either buy them or delete them afterward, taking no money from the artists.



Yep, I know a lot of people like that, I used to be the same way. Now I can't be bothered with pirating, when it's too easy to find the songs on youtube and preview them there, then buy immediately on iTunes if I like them. And then I'll usually buy concert tickets, t-shirts, and CDs (from the artist directly usually) if I really like them.

_However_, most non-musicians I know don't see the point in paying for music, movies, etc. when they can get it for free, especially up here in Canada where anti-piracy laws were weak at best for a long time. Hell, most guys I know in bands _never_ pay for movies, software, tv shows, etc. if they can get away with it, even though most of them will pay for music or games. 

Also, buying used is not the same thing as supporting the creators (this mainly applies to games, but I know people who buy a lot of CDs and DVDs used as well).


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 24, 2012)

Random question I just thought of... Could listening to non-band uploaded songs on YouTube be labeled piracy too?


----------



## Randy (Feb 24, 2012)

It is, in my opinion.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 24, 2012)

The Youtube issue is little murkier, for a few reasons:

1) While you are hearing the song, you're hearing it in the same context as if you were listening to it on the radio. The only difference is it's on demand instead of being part of a playlist.

2) You don't end up with a copy of the music file that you can use anywhere you want or distribute further. Also, Youtube features has the ability to link the song in the video to another service on the internet where the song can be purchased. Not only that, but if the copyright owner of the song that it's linked to decides it wants to region-lock or completely lock the song from being played on Youtube, they have that option. Granted, that system can be circumvented by simply not linking the song, but copyright holders are fairly vigilant and will often simply have the song removed if that's the case.

3) You also have to take into account the various formats in which a song might appear. It might be the studio recording of a song, or it might be a cover. It also might be a live version, which can then be further split into the categories of professional and amateur recordings. How do you treat them individually?


----------



## squid-boy (Feb 24, 2012)

I've always been on the fence with piracy; at times, I like it and at times, I dislike it. I rarely pirated as a teenager because I lived in such a rural community that didn't have an excess of internet bandwidth without being charged in over-usage. (We were allotted 5 gigabytes of download and 2 gigabytes of upload!) 

I'm still on the fence about it, that's for sure. Currently, I don't have the expendable money to spend on merchandise or the music itself, let alone food sometimes, since I left my old job due to personal reasons. But I don't feel as if I have an entitlement to the product/music, either. I think potentially harmful pirating (by that, I mean, rampant pirating of every and all things) is when people feel as if they are entitled to the product, whether it be music, movies or even software. 

With that being said, we can also skew the whole issue to how we treat Open-Source software. When I was a Math/CompSci major, and even now, I felt that Open-Source was, in many ways, superior. The programmers and developers, business executives and CEO's of companies such as Oracle and Sun, Redhat and so on work tirelessly to provide free and open software to the masses - relying on other business ventures, which are often physical, to fund their companies. Should we view music and piracy in a similar light? I don't know, because it remains to be illegal in much of the world to copy and distribute. Now, should businesses and companies make things free that are available digitally? 

I honestly don't know.


----------



## Randy (Feb 24, 2012)

Speaking of Open Source, Joomla is one that comes to mind. 

While Joomla is free, I know one of the principal programmers behind it runs RocketTheme which _build_ templates and add-ons for Joomla, as well as provide support forums. At a cost. And they've done pretty well.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 24, 2012)

Good point about supporting bands. Although I really think a simple donate option might be better, I'm not really into wearing band shirts or buying physical CD's and would rather just give a band money...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 24, 2012)

Xaios said:


> The Youtube issue is little murkier, for a few reasons:
> 
> 1) While you are hearing the song, you're hearing it in the same context as if you were listening to it on the radio. The only difference is it's on demand instead of being part of a playlist.
> 
> ...


1. Then again, while playing it on your computer using Media Player or w/e, you can get the song on demand too. Radio stations, as far as I know, have to pay fees to play music. They pick their music and broadcast it, whereas when you're on YouTube, you have just as much choice of music as when browsing your CD/LP/MP3 collection (not taking in account all the super kvlt stuff that isn't on the tube, of course!)

2. You still get a link which you can distribute though. I'm with ya on the YouTube link feature, but then again, a Torrent can also come with a file attached including links to the bands website/label, etc. I'm not sure what the YouTube policy regarding region/complete locks is so can't comment on that one.

3. Same way as downloads, I suppose?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 24, 2012)

UnderTheSign said:


> 1. Then again, while playing it on your computer using Media Player or w/e, you can get the song on demand too. Radio stations, as far as I know, have to pay fees to play music. They pick their music and broadcast it, whereas when you're on YouTube, you have just as much choice of music as when browsing your CD/LP/MP3 collection (not taking in account all the super kvlt stuff that isn't on the tube, of course!)
> 
> 2. You still get a link which you can distribute though. I'm with ya on the YouTube link feature, but then again, a Torrent can also come with a file attached including links to the bands website/label, etc. I'm not sure what the YouTube policy regarding region/complete locks is so can't comment on that one.
> 
> 3. Same way as downloads, I suppose?



Typically only big corporate companies region lock their stuff on youtube or other places. It least that's the case when I'm browsing online.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 24, 2012)

Just to note, the legal definition of piracy vis a vis electronic media is "theft of intellectual property." 

One might not agree with the law defining it that way, but at the moment one cannot argue that piracy is not legally theft.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 24, 2012)

"Piracy" as it's called is not in any way stealing. 

It's infringing. And since the punishment for Infringing is actually worse I have no idea why everybody whom is anti-piracy is so pro to push the Infringing thing. Infringement laws are also a lot easier to enforce on a global level.

And I'm really split on the Piracy issue. 

Obviously it's bad, you're breaking the law and depriving other people of their earned income. 

But if it wasn't for piracy I wouldn't be the person I am today. There is a good chance I never would have gotten into metal at all if it wasn't for piracy. 

So...torn. It's bad...but good at the same time?


----------



## Osiris (Feb 24, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> Yep, I know a lot of people like that, I used to be the same way. Now I can't be bothered with pirating, when it's too easy to find the songs on youtube and preview them there, then buy immediately on iTunes if I like them. And then I'll usually buy concert tickets, t-shirts, and CDs (from the artist directly usually) if I really like them.



So you're saying downloading a song and listening to it is pirating when listening to it on youtube is not? Is downloading an album so different from listening to it in its entirety on youtube? The only reason I download albums (pirating I guess) instead of youtube'ing it is because it's a little more convenient for future listens if I'm deciding if it sucks or not. I think you should have the right to listen to music before buying it.

It just seems kind of silly how bent out of shape people get over the concept of downloading an album when they'd just turn around and listen to the whole thing on youtube.


----------



## Genome (Feb 24, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Good point about supporting bands. Although I really think a simple donate option might be better, I'm not really into wearing band shirts or buying physical CD's and would rather just give a band money...



Pledgemusic is good for that, if the artist is on there.


----------



## ilyti (Feb 24, 2012)

Here's a few thoughts: back in the 70s DJs would play entire albums over the radio as a regular thing, to give artists exposure. Now, would it be considered "pirating" it if someone had recorded the radio-play of that album for their own personal use? They had to know people would do that. Then nowadays you have bands streaming their entire albums on bandcamp or Myspace or something. So is it wrong for me to rip the audio of that recording? Likewise, don't they know someone will do that? 

Also, is it "piracy" if I tape (yes, I still use VHS) a whole season of my favourite TV show to watch again later? I paid for that cable subscription, so I paid to watch that show. Furthermore, is it more wrong to record it to my computer to watch later? To collect an entire series of a show as it has been played on TV seems to me completely fine and ethical. However, grey area exists once you start downloading the episodes you missed. 

I dunno, I just thought it might be relevant to this discussion.


----------



## renzoip (Feb 24, 2012)

So just out of curiosity:


If I purchase an album from Itunes, legally, and then pay a little extra (Itunes plus) to make them DRM free, would it be considered "piracy" if I send a copies of such album to my bandmates or friends?


----------



## Fiction (Feb 24, 2012)

ilyti said:


> Nowadays you have bands streaming their entire albums on bandcamp or Myspace or something. So is it wrong for me to rip the audio of that recording? Likewise, don't they know someone will do that?



Yes, they're streaming it so you can preview it and buy it.. instead of downloading a copy.


----------



## wespaul (Feb 24, 2012)

While a lot of people will complain about how piracy has affected the music business, I like how it's forced some distributors to be more creative with their releases. I'm not one to walk in and pay $15 for a regular CD anymore, but when a band is releasing a new album, I'll usually opt in for the autographed cd/poster with the dvd making-of and/or t-shirt bundle which is usually priced very, very well (I think I preordered Soilwork's "The Panic Broadcast" CD and got a DVD making-of, signed poster, and t-shirt for $25). This is a huge leap forward from standing in line in the 90s just to get a plain-jane CD for $15+, imo.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 24, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Just to note, the legal definition of piracy vis a vis electronic media is "theft of intellectual property."
> 
> One might not agree with the law defining it that way, but at the moment one cannot argue that piracy is not legally theft.





AxeHappy said:


> "Piracy" as it's called is not in any way stealing.



I like that immediately after I brought up the inconvenient fact that the law defines piracy as a form of theft, AxeHappy immediately said, "No it isn't!" *laugh* Who says life doesn't imitate art?



+1 to your rep for making me laugh, friend.

----

Edit: Dang it, i've apparently repped you too recently to rep you again. I don't know if you were serious or being satirical, but hopefully a like will do until I remember to come back to rep you for the parody.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2012)

Well, the law is different all around the world, so I categorically reject your statement that the law defines piracy as the theft of intellectual property. 

Of course, I also reject the term and usage of intellectual property. Patent, Copyright and Trademark are separate things and need separate laws to govern them. Since I live in a democracy laws are supposed to represent the will of the majority so if people want them to change they should change so saying, "You can't argue with the law," is not only just plain wrong but just plain silly. (I'll avoid making civil rights references to black people here...)

Anyways, up here in Canada the Supreme Court said that piracy is not stealing. Period. Highest court in the land. So...yeah...Piracy isn't stealing. Maybe it is in your country but in my country the law say it isn't. 

And again...infringement has worse punishments attached to it so why not push that instead? 

I don't really feel like going all out with the rants and the stats and whatnot, as I'm split on the issue, but Hell...even Sony music came out in favour of fucking off with the whole censoring the internet thing. Maybe all the labels will catch up eventually.


I'd neg-rep you for the ridiculously condescending post, but apparently I've given you positive rep too recently to do so. Hopefully this post will serve as a reminder until I can.


----------



## MrGignac (Feb 25, 2012)

I find it absurd that all of these huge companies that are bitching about net piracy, beta-tested all of the P2P software years ago i.e kazaa made by nbc, Go network developed by Disney, Kazaa & BitTorrent distributed by AOL time warner. All of the fat CEO's aren't getting their skim. 
I think the idea of music distribution is heading in a good direction though. I find that all of the new bands I check out have bandcamp pages and Sell their merch and digital copys either by donation, a very low price, and usually for free. I've signed my band up for it. Id rather more people hear my music and enjoy it than pay already ridiculous price for iTunes or CD's that never fuckin last. New and better music comes so fast who gives a shit anyways.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2012)

I do find it odd that the penalties for piracy can actually have more financial consequences for the accused than say going to a CD store and jacking a CD. If I'm not mistaken taking something under $50 keeps it at a misdemeanor yet piracy if caught under similar circumstances would get you raped in fines and potentially severe jail time, and I think its a felony charge if I'm not mistaken (could be). Does not compute for me. 

I think we all understand ethically what's going on, but the laws in place for many things are just unacceptably bizarre. For instance until a few years ago it was a worse crime to abuse animals then children...It's just stupid congress in the US is just filled with morons. Sad part is as long as we do state by state majority and county by county and what not each vote does "not" count equally. 

We need a popular vote system in place for EVERYTHING because my voice isn't heard in Texas voting or not.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 25, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Anyways, up here in Canada the Supreme Court said that piracy is not stealing. Period. Highest court in the land. So...yeah...Piracy isn't stealing. Maybe it is in your country but in my country the law say it isn't.
> 
> I'd neg-rep you for the ridiculously condescending post, but apparently I've given you positive rep too recently to do so. Hopefully this post will serve as a reminder until I can.



I thought that normal Canadian citizens can upload, download and make copies, and that it doesn't count as piracy... but that piracy, the word in question, is still theft of intellectual property, and is still illegal. Clearly you're right, though. 

Wow... it must suck to be a software developer in Canada. The thought that a company could just make a million discs of a competitor's product and give them away is just horrifying. I can't imagine how that would work if an engineer in a recording studio decided to sell CDs of a band's upcoming recording before it was released, but that's life in Canada, apparently. 

One of us was clearly wrong. Thanks for letting me know that it was me.

Also, I'm a pretty happy guy, and giving positive rep (or a like, in the current case) is easy, even if I disagree with someone. I hope that you derive the same happiness in your life whether you decide to take the negative or positive road, friend. At least you'll know you're right. 

Cheers!


----------



## DrunkyMunky (Feb 25, 2012)

"Intellectual Property" is something that can not be stolen. I am not denying the rights of the creator of a piece of art by downloading and listening to it. I am not taking it from anyone and holding it for my own unless I somehow change the original and distribute/sell it as my own creation. That's still has nothing to do with "piracy" which is really pirates pillaging villages and boarding ships. 

It's just stupid not to separate those who download/copy the whole package and sell it on the street for profit (without paying any rights) with someone who downloads for personal use. Also, theft implies the subtraction of the original.

Just my opinion.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Wow... it must suck to be a software developer in Canada. The thought that a company could just make a million discs of a competitor's product and give them away is just horrifying. I can't imagine how that would work if an engineer in a recording studio decided to sell CDs of a band's upcoming recording before it was released, but that's life in Canada, apparently.



God damn it man. They can't. It would be criminal copyright infringement. WHICH ISN'T STEALING AND ACTUALLY HAS WORSE PUNISHMENTS ATTACHED TO IT THAN STEALING.

But you keep beating that horse.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 25, 2012)

Yes, I should clarify, in Canada, it's still just as illegal as in the States, they just don't go suing kids downloading music in their parents basements, they go after the uploaders (as it should be, IMHO). 

As I said, I don't think piracy is all bad, sharing music to give it more exposure is awesome. 

However, you _should_ pay for the things you like, support the band in some way. YouTube and other streams are an excellent way to sample things for free without having to worry about viruses or anything, and it's like "piracy lite" because you're not taking the copy with you. It's sort of a way of making it easier to preview, while not making it so easy that you have a hard time justifying paying for it. I know in the past I have frequently downloaded something "just to check it out", and then had a hard time buying a legal copy because I already have the music and could spend that money on something else.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 25, 2012)

Re the definition of piracy (theft vs whatever):
piracy - Legal Definition
infringement - Legal Definition
Piracy | Define Piracy at Dictionary.com
This website called it theft but nowhere else on the page could I find an actual source of the statement - piracy legal definition of piracy. piracy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
As I'm already posting Google'd links and have no idea of their accuracy, here's some Wiki for ya. Copyright infringement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2012)

I think we can all agree that the law varies widely country to country now can we move on. Definition or not doesn't really change anything the act itself is the same and the laws of "your" land still apply to "you". This conversation is going nowhere.

More on topic I agree they should go after the original uploaders, however, if they aren't located in the country that would be an impossible task, but shutting down websites is not a good alternative either. Technically though the downloader is also an uploader because when your leaching you are also seeding. It's all moot because morality and law aside this is the world we live in and the original creators of their software or music or whatever should do a better job at either protecting their property or go with the flow and find a way to maximize profit in the current environment. There is a give and take to things you just have to find the balance. 

For those who don't understand what I'm talking about lets say 20 will pay $50 for something and 50 will pay $20 generally the maximum is somewhere in the middle and from another point what would be the harm and doing the 50 for $20 if it gives you the same profit margin as the 20 for $50. After all if you're going to make the same amount of money it seems like spreading the word/joy would be better from a society point of view.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> Yes, I should clarify, in Canada, it's still just as illegal as in the States, they just don't go suing kids downloading music in their parents basements, they go after the uploaders (as it should be, IMHO).
> 
> As I said, I don't think piracy is all bad, sharing music to give it more exposure is awesome.
> 
> However, you _should_ pay for the things you like, support the band in some way. YouTube and other streams are an excellent way to sample things for free without having to worry about viruses or anything, and it's like "piracy lite" because you're not taking the copy with you. It's sort of a way of making it easier to preview, while not making it so easy that you have a hard time justifying paying for it. I know in the past I have frequently downloaded something "just to check it out", and then had a hard time buying a legal copy because I already have the music and could spend that money on something else.



Yeah, nowadays, I largely use it as a try before you buy thing. If we were still able to return music/movies/video games for no other reason then they sucked I likely wouldn't pirate at all. But we can't. And since I tend to hate a lot of the above list that comes out today there is no way in hell I'm dropping money (whether it's $5 or $500) on something without knowing it's worth it first.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 25, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Yeah, nowadays, I largely use it as a try before you buy thing. If we were still able to return music/movies/video games for no other reason then they sucked I likely wouldn't pirate at all. But we can't. And since I tend to hate a lot of the above list that comes out today there is no way in hell I'm dropping money (whether it's $5 or $500) on something without knowing it's worth it first.



I absolutely agree, as long as you end up paying for the stuff you really like. I don't think people should waste their money, or support things that aren't worth their money, but I'm sick of people complaining about bands/shows/movies failing when they never gave them a penny.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 25, 2012)

I Try and support, as best I can, stuff I like. I pay for shit that I enjoy. But I'll fully watch/listen/play a game before deciding if it is worth paying money for.

For Example:
Deus Ex: Human Revolution had me hooked for quite a while. Then I managed to find enough time to actually finish the game. And now there is no way I'm paying money for it. If they had managed to keep the awesomenssity of the 1st two chapters for the whole game...hell yeah I would have paid full price for some sort of special edition, but they didn't so I'm glad I didn't pay out for it or I would have felt ripped off.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> I Try and support, as best I can, stuff I like. I pay for shit that I enjoy. But I'll fully watch/listen/play a game before deciding if it is worth paying money for.
> 
> For Example:
> Deus Ex: Human Revolution had me hooked for quite a while. Then I managed to find enough time to actually finish the game. And now there is no way I'm paying money for it. If they had managed to keep the awesomenssity of the 1st two chapters for the whole game...hell yeah I would have paid full price for some sort of special edition, but they didn't so I'm glad I didn't pay out for it or I would have felt ripped off.



TBH that will become a moot point eventually though. Redboxes in the US now have video game rentals and there are still some Blockbusters left too. if you want to try before you buy technically that should be your route. I have no opinion either way though.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

I have no idea what Redbox is but very few places have ever let you rent Computer Games.

Also, given how long it takes me to finish games these day, I'd likely have to pay more in rental fees than I would if I had have just the game in the first place!


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> I have no idea what Redbox is but very few places have ever let you rent Computer Games.
> 
> Also, given how long it takes me to finish games these day, I'd likely have to pay more in rental fees than I would if I had have just the game in the first place!



Ya I have no idea what comparable services there are in Canada, but my only point was that you can play a game for a couple day and if you like it then you can buy it. I have friends who do what you do and they always buy the games afterward so I don't have a problem witht that approach just playing devils advocate by saying there are alternatives.


----------



## eleven59 (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> I Try and support, as best I can, stuff I like. I pay for shit that I enjoy. But I'll fully watch/listen/play a game before deciding if it is worth paying money for.
> 
> For Example:
> Deus Ex: Human Revolution had me hooked for quite a while. Then I managed to find enough time to actually finish the game. And now there is no way I'm paying money for it. If they had managed to keep the awesomenssity of the 1st two chapters for the whole game...hell yeah I would have paid full price for some sort of special edition, but they didn't so I'm glad I didn't pay out for it or I would have felt ripped off.



But how many hours of entertainment did you get from it? Is that time worth nothing?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 26, 2012)

ZOMG a Bag Religion tee, he must be all about supporting the artist.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

If the company was okay with me paying after I had played the game and let me choose the price I paid based of how much my time is worth and how much entertainment I got your statement would have relevance. 

If I don't feel something is worth the price, I will not pay for it. That's supposed to be the way capitalism works but consumers have had almost all our ability to do that stripped away from us. How many stores have no Return policies for examples. 

To answer your question specifically:
The time was worth less than the price the game asked for.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> I Try and support, as best I can, stuff I like. I pay for shit that I enjoy. But I'll fully watch/listen/play a game before deciding if it is worth paying money for.
> 
> For Example:
> Deus Ex: Human Revolution had me hooked for quite a while. Then I managed to find enough time to actually finish the game. And now there is no way I'm paying money for it. If they had managed to keep the awesomenssity of the 1st two chapters for the whole game...hell yeah I would have paid full price for some sort of special edition, but they didn't so I'm glad I didn't pay out for it or I would have felt ripped off.



Software piracy is the single-most cited reason that traditionally active PC game developers have shifted development focus to consoles. In fact, game developers are really the hardest hit by piracy (and really the only group where sales metrics can back this up). 

Being able to to play a game to completion before you give a company money seems like a pretty piss poor excuse to me. Download the demo, play it; if you like it, buy it.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> If the company was okay with me paying after I had played the game and let me choose the price I paid based of how much my time is worth and how much entertainment I got your statement would have relevance.
> 
> If I don't feel something is worth the price, I will not pay for it. That's supposed to be the way capitalism works but consumers have had almost all our ability to do that stripped away from us. How many stores have no Return policies for examples.
> 
> ...



You're making it hard for me to even kind of agree with you. That statement is illogical. Even if it sucked and you feel like you wasted your time that is still partly your fault. You can feel it is worth less than the value given, but that doesn't change the fact that it has a set value. 

I'd set my price for everything to $5 by your theory just because I can. A system like that would never work. 

Moral of the story if you don't think you will enjoy it wait till it is discounted, maybe rent it or do some research before hand and NEVER pre-order a videogame. Capitalism is based on supply and demand, if the game sucks no one will buy it and the price will shift. The reason it "fails" is because consumers buy it anyways. Not companies fault for profiting, it's our fault for inability to properly boycott.

[EDIT]

I also feel that pirating to try games out doesn't work because once you have it unless it is incredibly buggy(a trick they've started using) you will never buy it. Why because you already have it. Some people might sure, but most wouldn't.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 26, 2012)

Research goes a long way. If you don't do your research, you have only yourself to blame.


----------



## Fiction (Feb 26, 2012)

The fact that you downloaded a game, finished it and decided you didn't like it so you won't pay, is the exact reason piracy has its bad side. It seems to be good for exposure in some cases, but then if you're going to finish the whole game and not buy it, that's the reason game developers are upset about piracy.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

My first paragraph was in direct response to the, "Wasn't your time worth something," comment. Not a line of thought of how games should be sold. It'd be a completely ridiculous system. That said...it's really not that different from listening to an entire album on Youtube before buying it. But I really don't want to defend that silly method of game distribution. I personally wouldn't set my price to $5 for every game (that's what I pay for old Dos Games on GoG not brand new games).

I do tend to wait for discounts. I'm waiting for Skyrim to have a GoTY edition with DLC added in. Since making that decision I haven't played it either, but that's more because I got distracted by better game than a conscious moral choice on my part! 

Most people are fucking jerks. No doubt. I personally (and that's all I can account for) do buy games after pirating them, if I feel they are worth the value the company assigned to them. I even pre-order games/cd/etc if I'm 100% sure I'll like them. 

You can't rent PC games. I do not own any consoles so renting is not an answer.

Demos are so hit or miss...I don't trust them. The Mass Effect 3 demo would have sold me on the game if I hadn't already Pre-Ordered the Collectors edition. 

But! The Kingdoms of Amalur demo was 45 minutes. 45 minutes!!!! I was like level 3. The Game Makes Skyrim look tiny, like a Call of Duty game. It literally game me no impression of what the whole game will actually be like. 


Research is king. Piracy is how I do my research. That said, I recognise that I am quite likely a unique person in that I will 100% pay for a game I like *even* *if I have absolutely no intention of playing it again*, provided I enjoyed at least as much as the price tag.

There is a good chance that when DX:RH goes on for $20-$30 I'll pay for it by example. Might even play it again. I certainly won't be playing it again until I've payed for it though. 



I should mention that many...*most* games I don't even bother pirating as (by doing some research/being in touch with my tastes) I know they aren't worth my time. So I completely agree with you there on the boycott thingy. 

For me pirating is simply a way of trying out a game I think I'll like but I'm just not sure. If I couldn't pirate it there would be 0 chance of me buying the game. 

Again, I realise I'm likely unique. I don't however, think I'm as unique as the Record Labels would like people to think.



I'm also a bit tipsy so this post may be pretty rambling and jump all over the place. I think I defended my mindset whilst at the same time not trying to justify piracy as a whole. I completely agree that people should pay for shit they use.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> My first paragraph was in direct response to the, "Wasn't your time worth something," comment. Not a line of thought of how games should be sold. It'd be a completely ridiculous system. That said...it's really not that different from listening to an entire album on Youtube before buying it. But I really don't want to defend that silly method of game distribution. I personally wouldn't set my price to $5 for every game (that's what I pay for old Dos Games on GoG not brand new games).
> 
> I do tend to wait for discounts. I'm waiting for Skyrim to have a GoTY edition with DLC added in. Since making that decision I haven't played it either, but that's more because I got distracted by better game than a conscious moral choice on my part!
> 
> ...



You responded quite appropriately to the point's I had made. 

Yeah they will never allow PC games to be rented because they are too open source and it would be easy to rip it and unlock thus increasing piracy. Consoles are DRM'd which for video games I don't really mind that much. Your perspective is fairly unique I'd say, but I know people with certain similar inclinations. 

It is a shame the way PC is handled because my oldish computer setup (in computer years) is faster than my PS3 and there isn't exactly a way to improve them. That and I love the mouse and keyboard over a game controller. PC games are cheaper though. New usually $10 less here in the states and then companies like Steam have discounts on crap all the time especially after the first couple of months. 

Not sure what point I'm trying to make on the last part, but I said it anyways.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

Mouse+Keyboard>Controller in every possible way. And if anybody brings up racing games I'll neg-rep the hell out of them. Racing games got on just fine with the keyboard for a long time. The problem is that they are current being designed for the ridiculously limited movement of an analog control stick which just doesn't translate well.

Things like Steam/Impulse/Origin/GOG are great way of combating piracy. I (aside from GoG) prefer to actually own a physical copy but the crazy sales that Steam puts on are brilliant.


----------



## wespaul (Feb 26, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Mouse+Keyboard>Controller in every possible way.



Not fighting games


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

ESPECIALLY FIGHTING GAMES! BUT ESPECIALLY FIRST/3RD PERSON SHOOTERS.


----------



## wespaul (Feb 26, 2012)

I'll give you shooters, but never fighters.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 26, 2012)

Meh, I find it far more convenient to be able to use all my fingers to enter exact commands on a keyboard compared to using my thumbs to enter context sensitive shit on a controller.

To each their own of course.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 27, 2012)

Well the nice thing about Steam honestly is that it functions as a cloud. I'm only concerned about having physical copies in the instance I could lose it, but no worries there (unless they deem you a cheater, then they rob you basically). All games can be good for PC if they were designed for PC like prototype was pretty bad (control wise), but it was just touched up to work for PC whereas dragon age was "made" for both, kind of thing.

[EDIT]
Mortal Kombat works pretty well on my PS3 though


----------



## wlfers (Feb 29, 2012)

Steam is great and functions much better than origin. The thing about Steam that I hate though is, for example, how in 07 or 08 the storms that knocked out their authentication servers made it so one could not play for around week on games they had purchased.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 29, 2012)

athawulf said:


> Steam is great and functions much better than origin. The thing about Steam that I hate though is, for example, how in 07 or 08 the storms that knocked out their authentication servers made it so one could not play for around week on games they had purchased.



Always make sure you are signed in offline. I have made that mistake before. haha

I don't think it's fair they can seize your games if you cheat. I get it I guess, but they could just ban you from online play and not the games itself since they are essentially stealing from you that way. Of course when you click agree your saying that's okay, but it isn't like Itune's, steam and the like really give you a choice.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 29, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Always make sure you are signed in offline. I have made that mistake before. haha
> 
> I don't think it's fair they can seize your games if you cheat. I get it I guess, but they could just ban you from online play and not the games itself since they are essentially stealing from you that way. Of course when you click agree your saying that's okay, but it isn't like Itune's, steam and the like really give you a choice.



I think its really great, hackers piss me the fuck off. Seriously, its really out of control for older games like Counter Strike especially.


----------



## Mordacain (Feb 29, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I think its really great, hackers piss me the fuck off. Seriously, its really out of control for older games like Counter Strike especially.



 Cheaters were actually the main reason I stopped playing FPS' online years ago. The hacking made the game completely un-fun for me. Personally I'm glad Steam takes steps to punish assholes that ruin the experience for other people.

Seriously, it bothered me enough to be one of the reasons I started playing online games primarily on closed platforms (consoles).


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 29, 2012)

Yup same here, I only play console based fps's now. I was always wondering why I found CAL level matches EASIER to win at than some pubs then I realized everyone is just a fucking hacker.


----------



## Randy (Feb 29, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Just to note, the legal definition of piracy vis a vis electronic media is "theft of intellectual property."
> 
> One might not agree with the law defining it that way, but at the moment one cannot argue that piracy is not legally theft.





> 2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.



Still sounds like there's quite a bit of daylight between "pirating" and "stealing"


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Feb 29, 2012)

Agreed, I think its time for the music industry to quit whining and come up with a whole new business model. Its too bad but trying to get people to pay for music is like pulling teeth from a toddler...not happening.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 29, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I think its really great, hackers piss me the fuck off. Seriously, its really out of control for older games like Counter Strike especially.



I hate it on a truly fundamental level. I have played freeware games with sniper apps and what not, it sucks no doubt about it. Most games can be played offline though so my only point is that it just seems harsh to jack your account and the countless dollars in it. Never been a victim of it mainly because I don't see the sport in cheating in anything even school, but still.


----------



## Fiction (Feb 29, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Agreed, I think its time for the music industry to quit whining and come up with a whole new business model. Its too bad but trying to get people to pay for music is like pulling teeth from a toddler...not happening.





Tell it guuurl!


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 1, 2012)

I'll just leave this here:





Scar Symmetry said:


> ZOMG a Bag Religion tee, he must be all about supporting the artist.



Yep, and a band that knows about respecting their fans. $10 shirt (2 colours, front and back, high quality), bought at a show where tickets were $30 for 3 bands (Off With Their Heads and Bouncing Souls opening), and parking was $20 and water was $8. Paying less for a high-quality t-shirt than parking? Awesome. Also, they played a 30 song set. Gouging the fans is the only thing I don't like about Tool (well, that and some of the fans, but that's not their fault).


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 2, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Agreed, I think its time for the music industry to quit whining and come up with a whole new business model. Its too bad but trying to get people to pay for music is like pulling teeth from a toddler...not happening.



Initially, I supported something like that, but after the Megaupload thing, I started thinking...

...Who the fuck is going to pay for music? Labels _already are_ adjusting the way they do business, but there's literally no winning in this situation. Any music made available through any sort of distribution method, even if insanely cheap, is not as attractive to a consumer as something that is free. People have mentioned the DVD and shirt combos that have come out in the past few years, yet even a great deal like that doesn't beat $0.00 for an album. 

As far as I can tell, labels will have to quit being labels. The 360 deal is the future; labels as a sort of bank, giving artists loans to record and tour with, and in some cases acting as management and promoters. It's the only way to profit off music now, and it's a very risky (read: financially unwise) strategy in regards to maximizing profits. I can't say that I even support record labels, as I'm a big believer in professional-caliber DIY-bands, but I don't think the abolition of the major label will do music as a whole much good.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 2, 2012)

Dr. Gamble, a member here, has already posted about how piracy killed his sales dead, and he's not a big record label.

I suppose he was foolish for thinking that he should have been able to earn anything from his music, neh?

For those who think that he should have taken a different approach to making money from his recordings, rather than having it taken from him (not stolen, of course, even though his earnings disappeared *laugh*)... what should he have done in the face of the non-stealing piracy?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 2, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Dr. Gamble, a member here, has already posted about how piracy killed his sales dead, and he's not a big record label.
> 
> *I suppose he was foolish for thinking that he should have been able to earn anything from his music, neh?
> *
> For those who think that he should have taken a different approach to making money from his recordings, rather than having it taken from him (not stolen, of course, even though his earnings disappeared *laugh*)... what should he have done in the face of the non-stealing piracy?



As harsh as it seems, I think it's rather naive to think you can support yourself easily with the sale of your music. It sucks, but its just a reality which is why I have a ton of respect for people trying to support themselves and have a career in the industry.

You put a lot less money, effort and time into pursuing a regular career for a lot more reward so it takes a big ass set of balls to do music fulltime, or try to.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> As harsh as it seems, I think it's rather naive to think you can support yourself easily with the sale of your music. It sucks, but its just a reality which is why I have a ton of respect for people trying to support themselves and have a career in the industry.
> 
> You put a lot less money, effort and time into pursuing a regular career for a lot more reward so it takes a big ass set of balls to do music fulltime, or try to.



Agreed

There was a point in time I considered dropping a dime on a studio and going that route. Upon realizing the fact that not only most people create and distribute for themselves these days AND the lack of people willing to drop a lot of money on music it would be an uphill battle. I chose a more fruitful path and I would just do it for fun on the side probably losing money.

Anyone who thinks differently about the industry is delusional and anyone who goes into it knowing this is just asking to go bankrupt. Exceptions obviously put aside. It isn't even a question of right and wrong, legal or illegal anymore it just is. That being the case adapt or die applies. Is it right? No Is it going to change? Probably not after all even if it stops say in the US it won't necessarily stop in say the UK. 

The other legitimate truth is that things are easier changed when they are localized this problem is global. As a good example some people don't speed, but most do. Talking on a cell and driving i many states in the US is illegal, but a lot of people still do. I'm sure there is more I can think of, but I'm tired.

Main point is to reiterate first. What it is, is irrelevant because it just is. Hell driving economical cars is considered good on the wallet and environment and yet in many places people still drive gas guzzlers and have no functional need for it. I know a guy who owned a hummer and an F-250, never went camping, never hauled anything just drove it to work. (This example is maybe more on the minimal side, but it still makes a decent point)


----------



## petereanima (Mar 2, 2012)

Its very easy to say "They need to come up with a new business model", while its actually clear that almost no one from generation download is willing to do anything, let alone to pay a dime.

I see bands giving away their music for free download, for example that the download option is enabled as soon as you liked the facebook page..and still people are btiching about it "mimimimimi why am I forced to like the facebook page mimimi, it is my ultimate right to own every music ever made without giving a single fuck in return mimimimi". Seriously, how does that hurt anyone? Its a single mouseclick for fucks sake..

"business" is the exchange of service against compensation, and I really would like to know what people would consider an appropriate "compensation" they could give, for receiveing everything free? Again, I am not talking about money by any manner of means...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 2, 2012)

petereanima said:


> Its very easy to say "They need to come up with a new business model", while its actually clear that almost no one from generation download is willing to do anything, let alone to pay a dime.
> 
> I see bands giving away their music for free download, for example that the download option is enabled as soon as you liked the facebook page..and still people are btiching about it "mimimimimi why am I forced to like the facebook page mimimi, it is my ultimate right to own every music ever made without giving a single fuck in return mimimimi". Seriously, how does that hurt anyone? Its a single mouseclick for fucks sake..
> 
> "business" is the exchange of service against compensation, and I really would like to know what people would consider an appropriate "compensation" they could give, for receiveing everything free? Again, I am not talking about money by any manner of means...



I'm not sure either, I feel you though. I have no clue what a band could do to make money but trying to convince people to do something they dont have to do is impossible.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I'm not sure either, I feel you though. I have no clue what a band could do to make money but trying to convince people to do something they dont have to do is impossible.



Ya honestly me neither. I don;t know what they can do, but if you reference my previous post my point even wasn't that it was justified just that it isn't changing your 1 against millions in that game. Which means the person "selling" has to make the change to not become completely irrelevant. That being said again I have no proper universal idea what anyone could do.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 2, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Which means the person "selling" has to make the change to not become completely irrelevant.



My point was more, that, no matter which "changes" would be done, people would not accept it, as it would simply have to include some form of compensation (be it a "like" on facebook or money or soemthing else), and people are not willing to give that. Facebook-like for example - if people aren't even willing to do a single mouseclick, there is actually nothing left one could ask for, there is nothing "below" a fucking mouseclick. People should stop canting "bring up new business models, come up wiht new ideas" if there in reality is no intend for it - grow some balls and admit that you want everything for free without giving something in return.

Don't get me wrong, I for myself have not intended to make any money with music - as one can see in my signature, we give away our music for free (mp3/wav/flac/..), and are not demanding anything in return. 

We also made physical copies until now, which for the next record we are not going to do anymore as the costs are too high. But we can afford it, we all have good jobs, and we see it as an "expensive hobby" - we spend 2/3 of our holidays with playing gigs/touring, just for fun. But is this what I would want for my favourite band? Hell no.


----------



## Soubi7string (Mar 2, 2012)

Sharing and Piracy are two completely different things.
I SHARE my music with friends that want it.
I don't steal it, duplicate, and then sell it for my own profit.
when theres a profit and it isn't YOUR PRODUCT then its wrong.


----------



## Soubi7string (Mar 2, 2012)

also I say give this option
free or pay.
I know some friends in a band that put their album up for free and some people BOUGHT it with the Bandcamp feature where the fan can choose to pay for it or not.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 2, 2012)

Soubi7string said:


> also I say give this option
> free or pay.
> I know some friends in a band that put their album up for free and some people BOUGHT it with the Bandcamp feature where the fan can choose to pay for it or not.



Thats acutally the option everyone has nowadays (tough, the "free" mostly without permission), and why the endless debatte about it exists.


----------



## Randy (Mar 2, 2012)

Considering Periphery (and "djent", deathcore and sumeriancore) grew into existence and have been flourishing solely in the "generation download", I think claiming it's impossible to be successful in this climate is totally off base. 30 years ago, some acts were very successful and some acts were a colossal failure. 2012, some acts will be successful and some acts will be a colossal failure. How well you market yourself is, was and always will be the determining factor of how likely you are to make a success in the music industry. The only difference is that how and who you market yourself to has changed, just like every industry does, every decade.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 2, 2012)

Of course! The second difference would be in what is considered "successful" - while in the 80s with beeing successful musicians became millionaires (overstatement, but you know what i mean), nowadays it means bands can tour but go bankrupt and have to beg for money on facebook. 



(disclaimer: I do not think that it is the right of a musician to be able to live from making music)


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

petereanima said:


> Of course! The second difference would be in what is considered "successful" - while in the 80s with beeing successful musicians became millionaires (overstatement, but you know what i mean), nowadays it means bands can tour but go bankrupt and have to beg for money on facebook.
> 
> 
> 
> (disclaimer: I do not think that it is the right of a musician to be able to live from making music)



Ya I don't know dude it could also be that metal and rock just aren't as prominent anymore. Back then Metallica was almost everyone's world and Aerosmith and AC/DC etc. Now the rich in the music biz is hip hop and pop artists. Sounds more like a regime shift than the fault of pirating. Don't get me wrong it made a dent and everyone's profit in the music industry especially the little guy, but those hip hop and pop artist are doing just as well financially as acts of the past. I should note that there are very few careers where anyone deserves to be millionaires or billionaires IMO. Entertainers are not one of them. AAlthough, neither are CEO's of a lot of companies. 

To answer another question I'd rather pay than give a facebook click. I hate getting billions of notices from a bunch of different places that just clutter the front page.


----------



## wlfers (Mar 2, 2012)

Also that the market today is so saturated with bands that are able to produce their own albums and distribute/promote through social networks, that it becomes less of a probability to break into that "tier" where music can pay for itself.

The limited availability of music relative to today made it so the names in a given musical niche were able to enjoy a larger portion of the market. There are more variables to musicians not making off as well than just filesharing/piracy.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 2, 2012)

Soubi7string said:


> Sharing and Piracy are two completely different things.
> I SHARE my music with friends that want it.
> I don't steal it, duplicate, and then sell it for my own profit.
> when theres a profit and it isn't YOUR PRODUCT then its wrong.



When you gain access to something that was meant to be paid for, you're doing something wrong. Don't justify your actions. If you couldn't look that artist in the eye and say you downloaded their stuff without feeling uneasy, you're either a sociopath, or right.



petereanima said:


> (disclaimer: I do not think that it is the right of a musician to be able to live from making music)



This mindset is utter pig-fucking bullshit. Go up to a farmer, steal his harvest, then make copies of it to distribute to your friends. Tell the farmer that even though he put hard work into creating that harvest, it's just a copy that's being shared, and that he didn't have the right, furthermore, to expect to be paid for that.

You guys.... You wouldn't go up to a tradesman and tell them to you don't feel they should be able to live off their trade. It's incredibly weird to opine something like that. It's the equivalent of your boss expecting to work without pay, and then saying it's YOUR responsibility to find other methods of surviving.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 2, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> When you gain access to something that was meant to be paid for, you're doing something wrong. Don't justify your actions. If you couldn't look that artist in the eye and say you downloaded their stuff without feeling uneasy, you're either a sociopath, or right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, but better examples would have made your point more clear. The copy debate doesn't work. 

Something that is fair game IMO is say you got a blue print that someone made then built it yourself. It isn't stealing IMO because you did all the work for your copy and have no intentions of selling it. 

Music and movie copies don't fall into that camp unless you get their sheet music and make your own rendition to listen to I'd say that is okay. Just copying something to use personally or for sale is stealing. 

why? because all the work was done by someone else and they put a price tag on it. Price is for the effort not necessarily the product. That's my view on technology and patents it least.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I agree, but better examples would have made your point more clear. The copy debate doesn't work.
> 
> Something that is fair game IMO is say you got a blue print that someone made then built it yourself. It isn't stealing IMO because you did all the work for your copy and have no intentions of selling it.
> 
> ...



Well, that's just the thing. Musicians, recording engineers, producers, they all bust their ass (at least the good ones do) to create an album. A graphic designer sometimes creates the cover, and the liner artwork, yet none of these people are usually doing it for fun. It's a labor of love, certainly, but when they release it with a price tag, and people say "It's not like I stole the CD, I just got a _copy_" it pisses me off. It's not blueprints in that it's an _idea_, it's literally encoded information sold as an intangible product. 

Furthermore, if you got a hold of blueprints without someone's permission, and then made something with them, you're still stealing an idea. The basic understanding of theft is coming into possession of something without permission. Whether that's 12-notes played in varying patterns, a short story idea, or a copy of something, you didn't go through the proper avenues, and it's wrong. The fact that it's intangible seems to trip people up a lot.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Well, that's just the thing. Musicians, recording engineers, producers, they all bust their ass (at least the good ones do) to create an album. A graphic designer sometimes creates the cover, and the liner artwork, yet none of these people are usually doing it for fun. It's a labor of love, certainly, but when they release it with a price tag, and people say "It's not like I stole the CD, I just got a _copy_" it pisses me off. It's not blueprints in that it's an _idea_, it's literally encoded information sold as an intangible product.
> 
> Furthermore, if you got a hold of blueprints without someone's permission, and then made something with them, you're still stealing an idea. The basic understanding of theft is coming into possession of something without permission. Whether that's 12-notes played in varying patterns, a short story idea, or a copy of something, you didn't go through the proper avenues, and it's wrong. The fact that it's intangible seems to trip people up a lot.



I agree with you to an extent and the law is in line with that. My point is you can't justify how people do things today, but if you did do it the way I referred to it, it least is cemented in the grey area. People don't usually pay to do covers especially if they aren't selling it so the law doesn't even consider that stealing. I do realize that patent laws deem certain things as stealing, but if you take someone's original idea then modify it it actually no longer breaks patent laws. You buy an engine however your buying the labor because the patent is old. If you could build one yourself that is not an issue. 

All I was doing in the first place was finding a different perspective, but no one does what I described they do it the way I don't condone so...


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 3, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I agree with you to an extent and the law is in line with that. My point is you can't justify how people do things today, but if you did do it the way I referred to it, it least is cemented in the grey area. People don't usually pay to do covers especially if they aren't selling it so the law doesn't even consider that stealing. I do realize that patent laws deem certain things as stealing, but if you take someone's original idea then modify it it actually no longer breaks patent laws. You buy an engine however your buying the labor because the patent is old. If you could build one yourself that is not an issue.
> 
> All I was doing in the first place was finding a different perspective, but no one does what I described they do it the way I don't condone so...



Yeah, I get you. I just wanted to clarify what I meant for posterity's sake.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 3, 2012)

Randy said:


> Considering Periphery (and "djent", deathcore and sumeriancore) grew into existence and have been flourishing solely in the "generation download", I think claiming it's impossible to be successful in this climate is totally off base. 30 years ago, some acts were very successful and some acts were a colossal failure. 2012, some acts will be successful and some acts will be a colossal failure. How well you market yourself is, was and always will be the determining factor of how likely you are to make a success in the music industry. The only difference is that how and who you market yourself to has changed, just like every industry does, every decade.



This. So much of this. Randy, I love you.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 3, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> Yep, and a band that knows about respecting their fans. $10 shirt (2 colours, front and back, high quality), bought at a show where tickets were $30 for 3 bands (Off With Their Heads and Bouncing Souls opening), and parking was $20 and water was $8. Paying less for a high-quality t-shirt than parking? Awesome. Also, they played a 30 song set. Gouging the fans is the only thing I don't like about Tool (well, that and some of the fans, but that's not their fault).



My apologies man, my sarcasm was unwarranted. Good for you for speaking up on something you feel strongly about.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 3, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> My apologies man, my sarcasm was unwarranted. Good for you for speaking up on something you feel strongly about.



No problem dude, it's why I'm here  And in reality, you were just pointing out something that I hinted at, but didn't go into detail in my video: there's more ways to support a band than just buying CDs.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> I would still love thoughts on this concept, or is there a double standard haha?



I touched on that in this thread I think. I don't think tabs and cover count unless you put it on "your" Cd and sell it. If it is just for yourself why would you pay for it. I've always felt you pay for the labor not just the idea. ie the recording, post production, packaging, mastering and execution from the band. if I listened to their song and in my free time for myself practiced and recorded it I wouldn't pay them.

The fact that a band can lose the rights to their music though is ridiculous.


----------



## Fiction (Mar 4, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> so how do you guys feel about the fact that at least 98% of us learned a Metallica (insert any major band) song. But did so without buying an official tab book?



It's Metallica and Megadeth... who cares, they both contain guys who would sue a grape for having seeds.

I have problems with people copying tab books and uploading as their own tabs, but if someone works it out by ear and does their own tab, then we have no problem, they haven't stole anything and their not selling them working out someone elses song.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 4, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> so how do you guys feel about the fact that at least 98% of us learned a Metallica (insert any major band) song. But did so without buying an official tab book?
> 
> copying or creating tabs for songs that a company owns the notation for is the same infringement, is it not?
> 
> I have an issue of guitarworld were dave mustaine is unable to print a riff from a megadeth song, because he sold off the rights to the notation as he explains and shows a similar riff.



Personally, I think there's a difference between sharing something you've worked out on your own, and sharing an official tab. To me, if you tab it yourself and share it, it's the same thing as showing someone how to play it face to face, which shouldn't be considered infringement. If you are distributing scans of a book or magazine, it's infringement. Print media's in a much worse state than the music industry, though, so it's harder to think of ways to solve that situation.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> Personally, I think there's a difference between sharing something you've worked out on your own, and sharing an official tab. To me, if you tab it yourself and share it, it's the same thing as showing someone how to play it face to face, which shouldn't be considered infringement. If you are distributing scans of a book or magazine, it's infringement. Print media's in a much worse state than the music industry, though, so it's harder to think of ways to solve that situation.



It isn't fixable because even if they stopped making tab books we would still tab them out ourselves and most people wouldn't even notice. I use user made tab website for my tabs. I haven't bought a tab book in probably a decade


----------



## wlfers (Mar 4, 2012)

Damn.. remember about 7-9 years ago when the tab sites were under threat of being shutdown? The latest direction of the thread reminded me of it.

edit:


----------



## flint757 (Mar 4, 2012)

athawulf said:


> Damn.. remember about 7-9 years ago when the tab sites were under threat of being shutdown? The latest direction of the thread reminded me of it.
> 
> edit:



SOPA could do it too since the only reason they couldn't was because the websites aren't located int he US.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 5, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> This mindset is utter pig-fucking bullshit. Go up to a farmer, steal his harvest, then make copies of it to distribute to your friends. Tell the farmer that even though he put hard work into creating that harvest, it's just a copy that's being shared, and that he didn't have the right, furthermore, to expect to be paid for that.
> 
> You guys.... You wouldn't go up to a tradesman and tell them to you don't feel they should be able to live off their trade. It's incredibly weird to opine something like that. It's the equivalent of your boss expecting to work without pay, and then saying it's YOUR responsibility to find other methods of surviving.



Dude, have you actually read anything I wrote besides that disclaimer(!)-sentence? I don't think so, or if so - you clearly misunderstood me.

I said that I do not think that making music automatically includes the RIGHT to be able to live from it. To stay with your farmer example - the farmer can put all of his work and effort into it, if his potatoes taste like shit and are overpriced, I also won't buy his potatoes.

I though I made it clear that i am all FOR compensation for the artists.  However, there is a difference between "if everythings o.k., artist should be able to" and a RIGHT. I am sorry if that wasn't clear enough. I just stated this sentence as a disclaimer (as noted), as usually whenI throw an arguemnt like this, the common return is "trololo, u jelly cause u didnt make it?"

and as always this "with the quality of homerecording nowadays, studios go obsolete" argument comes...I wonder when was the last time people listened to a professional produced record, I really havent heard yet a single "awesome" homeproduced record...well, besides the last Foo Fighters record, but thats a different kind of "homerecording".


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 5, 2012)

petereanima said:


> Dude, have you actually read anything I wrote besides that disclaimer(!)-sentence? I don't think so, or if so - you clearly misunderstood me.
> 
> I said that I do not think that making music automatically includes the RIGHT to be able to live from it. To stay with your farmer example - the farmer can put all of his work and effort into it, if his potatoes taste like shit and are overpriced, I also won't buy his potatoes.
> 
> ...



I fully support this. Making music doesn't automatically buy the right to be renumerated for it, it just doesn't work that way anymore. Things work in a certain way now and you have to play the game and work hard, not expect your balance to go up. 

Being a respected artist is a right earned, but it's not all fun and games either. This video goes into a lot more detail that I'm able to convey at this time in the morning:


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 5, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I fully support this. Making music doesn't automatically buy the right to be renumerated for it, it just doesn't work that way anymore. Things work in a certain way now and you have to play the game and work hard, not expect your balance to go up.
> 
> Being a respected artist is a right earned, but it's not all fun and games either. This video goes into a lot more detail that I'm able to convey at this time in the morning:




The quality of music doesn't give you license to refuse to pay for it. The potato statement is nice and quotable, but doesn't hold weight in this argument. Neither does being a respectable artist. The issue is black and white: Do people deserve to paid for their work? If you don't like it, don't buy it, this is true, but not liking it and stealing it anyways? That makes sense?


----------



## petereanima (Mar 5, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> but not liking it and stealing it anyways? That makes sense?



My point was that I never said anything like that, and therefor am pretty sure you misunderstood me.

For the record: The only mp3 files on my harddrive, are ripped form the original CDs I own, are not "upped", and I only ripped them to make mp3-CDs for my car, as I dont want to get scratches on the originals. I buy everything. I listen to a few songs on youtube in advance, and if I like what I hear, I buy it.


----------



## AxeHappy (Mar 5, 2012)

I've heard arguments made that when you rip you technically owe the artists mechanical royalties but not even the labels are trying to beat that horse anymore.


----------



## petereanima (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't know about USA and Canada, in Europe this is considered a "backup copy for personal use only" and 100% law-conform.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 5, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> The quality of music doesn't give you license to refuse to pay for it. The potato statement is nice and quotable, but doesn't hold weight in this argument. Neither does being a respectable artist. The issue is black and white: Do people deserve to paid for their work? If you don't like it, don't buy it, this is true, but not liking it and stealing it anyways? That makes sense?



The issue ISN'T black and white and that's the problem. It's very intricate and has been covered been many times on this forum... at least progress on the discussion appears to have been made!

I personally believe (note, I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth nor attempting to remove their right to say what they think) that it is just a simple truth (to me anyway, this is me being diplomatic twice in the same sentence so it's absolutely clear ) that being a musician isn't about getting paid. It's not the same as any other job. The perks of the job are so great that you forfeit money for the sake of doing what you love and being remembered as great. Did you watch the video? The vocalist from Gojira describes the contridiction in his situation, he states "who needs glory?" but then proceeds to state that despite being poor as fuck he still does it because it's what he feels inside.

I have been in semi-pro bands (one of them very well paid) and I can honestly say that it's not ever about the money. You do it because you love it. Why do you think so many artists stay on the road for long despite getting ripped off at every turn? If you look at what is given to these artists and what is taken, I think you'll find it evens out in most cases. Could I do it? Perhaps, you get extreme comfort and extreme discomfort and it could be argued that's how you truly live life to it's fullest.


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 5, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The issue ISN'T black and white and that's the problem. It's very intricate and has been covered been many times on this forum... at least progress on the discussion appears to have been made!
> 
> ... it is just a simple truth that being a musician isn't about getting paid. It's not the same as any other job. The perks of the job are so great that you forfeit money for the sake of doing what you love and being remembered as great. Did you watch the video? The vocalist from Gojira describes the contridiction in his situation, he states "who needs glory?" but then proceeds to state that despite being poor as fuck he still does it because it's what he feels inside.
> 
> I have been in semi-pro bands (one of them very well paid) and I can honestly say that it's not ever about the money. You do it because you love it. Why do you think so many artists stay on the road for long despite getting ripped off at every turn? If you look at what is given to these artists and what is taken, I think you'll find it evens out in most cases. Could I do it? Perhaps, you get extreme comfort and extreme discomfort and it could be argued that's how you truly live life to it's fullest.



I agree with this sentiment... partially. I am a working artist. I make my living in the theatre and film industry. I teach as well. I haven't had a "normal" job since the 90's. There are times when I make a lot of money and times when I don't. I wouldn't trade my life for anything... I do what I love, have an awesome fiancée (who is an opera/classical singer - if she ever did rock, she'd make early Pat Benetar jealous!) and a dog and a killer apartment in a great city and I've got great gear and work with awesome people on a regular basis either doing theatre or making music.

With that being said, I think it's a dangerous assumption that to make good art, that it is _expected_ that we are not compensated well. There's not a damn thing wrong with asking for and getting what you are worth. Understanding that our industry (the arts) has the potential to make TONS (movie stars, pop stars, etc) or little to none is just like any other industry: it's difficult to carve out a living. In any industry. Period.

And then there are folks like Pete Thorn who is THE hired gun working all the time. I'm not privy to how much money he makes, but he's never not working and he's frakkin' good (might be off the beaten path for this crowd, but check out his solo record).

I always hate it when young artists are taught that it's expected that money isn't important. It is quite possible to be honest with yourself and desires and artistry and make gobs of money... I have a few colleagues that do just that!

As far as "piracy?" Tangled web of law and technology...


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

mcleanab said:


> I agree with this sentiment... partially. I am a working artist. I make my living in the theatre and film industry. I teach as well. I haven't had a "normal" job since the 90's. There are times when I make a lot of money and times when I don't. I wouldn't trade my life for anything... I do what I love, have an awesome fiancée (who is an opera/classical singer - if she ever did rock, she'd make early Pat Benetar jealous!) and a dog and a killer apartment in a great city and I've got great gear and work with awesome people on a regular basis either doing theatre or making music.
> 
> With that being said, I think it's a dangerous assumption that to make good art, that it is _expected_ that we are not compensated well. There's not a damn thing wrong with asking for and getting what you are worth. Understanding that our industry (the arts) has the potential to make TONS (movie stars, pop stars, etc) or little to none is just like any other industry: it's difficult to carve out a living. In any industry. Period.
> 
> ...



It really disturbs me to see people with that sort of mindset. Apparently there's this notion that "because things are now unfair, you must soldier on, dealing with this anyways because it's not going to change." This is the kind of progression that isn't healthy, much like cancer. Rather than accept it, shouldn't we be trying to ensure that we don't let our hyper-consumerism consume our artists entirely? 

Scar, I disagree with you that making music isn't like any other job. Why should people not expect to be compensated for their work? Because of the perks? If a luthier loves his craft, should that be payment enough? If so, I'll be right back, there's a few guys I'd like to hit up.  Seriously, though, I can't seem to work out the logic that dictates people should not expect to be paid for work they enjoy. Keep in mind that Gojira tickets cost money. They want money, artistry be damned, but the fact that they're willing to do what they do for very little cash at all does not imply in any way that we should not pay what they ask for.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 6, 2012)

Well what are you going to do? Nag people until they stop downloading? Thats pretty naive to even think of as a legitimate strategy. 

I agree its too bad but really what can you do but adapt?


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Well what are you going to do? Nag people until they stop downloading? Thats pretty naive to even think of as a legitimate strategy.
> 
> I agree its too bad but really what can you do but adapt?



If my mom did it long enough to finally get me to put my dishes in the dishwasher instinctively, so can I! 

I don't have a solution, unfortunately. Talking about it is the first step, but the next would have to be a sort of general consensus about the issue, which is something that clearly won't happen. I think telling people to just deal with it is the worst possible outcome in this situation, though.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Mar 6, 2012)

Yeah it is but thats the way all businesses function. Hard to sell a product when supply might as well be infinite :/


----------



## Fiction (Mar 6, 2012)

I don't think there is a fix to piracy, it will always happen, as long as there are computers, there will be a way.

It sucks for the industry, but what is there we can do to stop it, nothing?


----------



## 74n4LL0 (Mar 6, 2012)

Regarding the question "Is pirating stealing?"


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Scar, I disagree with you that making music isn't like any other job. Why should people not expect to be compensated for their work? Because of the perks? If a luthier loves his craft, should that be payment enough? If so, I'll be right back, there's a few guys I'd like to hit up.  Seriously, though, I can't seem to work out the logic that dictates people should not expect to be paid for work they enjoy. Keep in mind that Gojira tickets cost money. They want money, artistry be damned, but the fact that they're willing to do what they do for very little cash at all does not imply in any way that we should not pay what they ask for.



Did you watch the video I posted? If not, go back and watch it.


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> It really disturbs me to see people with that sort of mindset. Apparently there's this notion that "because things are now unfair, you must soldier on, dealing with this anyways because it's not going to change." This is the kind of progression that isn't healthy, much like cancer. Rather than accept it, shouldn't we be trying to ensure that we don't let our hyper-consumerism consume our artists entirely?
> 
> Scar, I disagree with you that making music isn't like any other job. Why should people not expect to be compensated for their work? Because of the perks? If a luthier loves his craft, should that be payment enough? If so, I'll be right back, there's a few guys I'd like to hit up.  Seriously, though, I can't seem to work out the logic that dictates people should not expect to be paid for work they enjoy. Keep in mind that Gojira tickets cost money. They want money, artistry be damned, but the fact that they're willing to do what they do for very little cash at all does not imply in any way that we should not pay what they ask for.



I think we are saying the same thing, Reverend...


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Did you watch the video I posted? If not, go back and watch it.



I watched it when it first popped up a while ago.

Mcleanab, we are saying the same thing.


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I watched it when it first popped up a while ago.
> 
> Mcleanab, we are saying the same thing.



I thought so... but my morning coffee had not yet reached my brain...

(I've not yet seen the vid... I'll do that now...)


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I watched it when it first popped up a while ago.
> 
> Mcleanab, we are saying the same thing.



What did you make of it, just out of interest?


----------



## Pooluke41 (Mar 6, 2012)

74n4LL0 said:


> Regarding the question "Is pirating stealing?"



Piracy steals the artists profit....


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> What did you make of it, just out of interest?



Pay musicians you like.

It's no harder to be a successful musician than it is to be successful at anything that requires talent. It follows, then, that when you release, make, or perform something for a predetermined amount of money, you should expect to get it, provided there's someone who wants to buy it. I don't see what relevance that documentary has to the issue of piracy, anyway.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> Pay musicians you like.
> 
> It's no harder to be a successful musician than it is to be successful at anything that requires talent. It follows, then, that when you release, make, or perform something for a predetermined amount of money, you should expect to get it, provided there's someone who wants to buy it. I don't see what relevance that documentary has to the issue of piracy, anyway.



That's a very broad statement. For starters I'd ask you to define talent. From that point on I'd question why you don't seem to be connecting the dots that I have here explaining why so many artists do this job for such little return, whether their material is downloaded or not.

I think Randy summed it up best. Market yourself in the right way instead of complaining about circumstancial issues and you should be able to make at least a modest living from doing what you love. It boils down to balance IMO.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

My first point wasn't too complex. If your career depends on you having skill, and more skill than average, expect it to be tough becoming successful, whether you're an author, filmmaker, painter, chef, business owner, whatever. People try and fail constantly, even with 'boring' office jobs. I'm not saying that success should be given in some communistic way, I'm saying that just because we love doing what we do doesn't mean doing it comfortably should be seen as abnormal or somehow a pipe dream.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> My first point wasn't too complex. If your career depends on you having skill, and more skill than average, expect it to be tough becoming successful, whether you're an author, filmmaker, painter, chef, business owner, whatever. People try and fail constantly, even with 'boring' office jobs. I'm not saying that success should be given in some communistic way, I'm saying that just because we love doing what we do doesn't mean doing it comfortably should be seen as abnormal or somehow a pipe dream.



Now there's something we can agree on. For example, I work in a coffee shop and I love what I do. I also love music, it's what I've always been best at and admittedly I love music more than I do coffee. However, there's more security in working in a coffee shop (it's not great pay, but again people do things they love for low pay) and therefore I choose to put more effort into that. I'm not going to lie, I'd like to be able to make money out of music some day as auxiliary income but I don't see it as something I want to put all of my time into because I would be very, very poor for a long time and would not be able to live the life that I currently enjoy very much.

The band Ion Dissonance have a great balance I think, they work their normal jobs for 3 months, see their wives and families and live the "normal" life then go on tour for 3 months and see the world. Sounds like a great life to me!


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

I didn't mean to omit your point about balance, by the way. I agree that it takes more than pirating albums to sink a band, and that labels can't blame their issues wholly on it. I actually have a theory about the decline of serious love of music in my generation that I think is to blame, but I won't get into that now. 

On a different note, what ways should the industry evolve to deal with this? Do you think DIY bands are the wave of the future, or Capitol Records Artist Loans?


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 6, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ...However, there's more security in working in a coffee shop (it's not great pay, but again people do things they love for low pay) and therefore I choose to put more effort into that...



Security? No there isn't. IF you show up when you are supposed to, IF you do your job consistently, IF your boss doesn't have a personal vendetta against you (oh, I don't know, he hates it that you are a musician so you are "not focused" on your "real" job for an example), IF your boss isn't about to go belly up due to bad management or IF your giant corporation didn't just get bought out and they are downsizing, IF a car doesn't smash through the store front, IF a thousand other things that can go wrong at any given moment... in a coffee shop or a record deal. (ask Aimee Mann or Cheap Trick).

There's no security ever. It's an illusion. Yes your paycheck is consistent as long as everything doesn't change. A life as a "full time" artist, the paycheck_ may _not be consistent. Juliana Moore came to speak at a local university and told all the young artists that she too did not know where her next paycheck was coming from (as did Geena Davis and the guy who played the Thing in the FF movies). Inconsistent? Yes. Secure? No... no such thing... not even at a coffee shop. Not even Kelsey Grammer with 20 years playing the same character. Not even for a CEO of a company that goes under after investing his whole life there and all the pensions, savings, insurance, etc are gone. Happens to all of us... 

I certainly wouldn't not presume to tell anyone how to live, and I hope I don't sound as if I am implying that here. I just hate the word "security" especially when it's in conjunction with the arts. Especially as a teacher of artists I think the ethic of hard work is the important part... not this idea of security if you aren't in the arts, and that if you choose a life in the arts that it's somehow less secure... hogwash!

I should preface, that, _FOR ME_, when I discovered that there's no security anywhere, to just make a decision to do what I wanted regardless of what security that may or may not be...

I'm way off topic... my apologies! I should say that I am loving the information and opinions on this thread and offer my own with respect and courtesy to the folks that have been on this forum longer than I.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I didn't mean to omit your point about balance, by the way. I agree that it takes more than pirating albums to sink a band, and that labels can't blame their issues wholly on it. I actually have a theory about the decline of serious love of music in my generation that I think is to blame, but I won't get into that now.
> 
> On a different note, what ways should the industry evolve to deal with this? Do you think DIY bands are the wave of the future, or Capitol Records Artist Loans?



I know it won't disappear because despite the asshole behavior of music listeners they still enjoy listening to music. The trick I guess is profiting elsewhere. DIY bands may be the future and then you have the pop world floating on cloud 9 up above.


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 6, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I actually have a theory about the decline of serious love of music in my generation that I think is to blame, but I won't get into that now.



Do tell!


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 6, 2012)

Well I suspect that the growing sense of entitlement, coupled with internet access and hyper-effective consumer marketing has made listening to music as a hobby (think phonographs, sitting rooms, and cigars) into something more akin to playing music in elevators just to pass the time, or for background noise. I'll use myself as an example: I love music. I listen to it on the bus, on my back, and it's always on when I'm at home. I also rarely listen to it actively, anymore. I've got college homework, movies, TV shows, guitar playing, band practice, video games, dog walking, writing, and Facebooking to do. A lot of those things I would never rate as important to me as music, yet I spend more time on them then music.

This focus on things outside of music may be to blame, in part, for lackluster album sales and concert attendance. People used to define themselves through the bands and concerts they were into or had attended, instead you now have Twitter and Youtube channels. Music isn't something you do; it's been relegated to the status of keeping up the buzzing sound in our ears.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Mar 6, 2012)

One thing to think about is: If it wasnt for piracy, most of us wouldnt be fans of a ton of the bands we are fans of. Let alone even knowing about them. Piracy has made a career for some people.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 6, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> One thing to think about is: If it wasnt for piracy, most of us wouldnt be fans of a ton of the bands we are fans of. Let alone even knowing about them. Piracy has made a career for some people.



I tend to agree with this, to a point. It was, and largely still is, a low-risk way to find new music. The problem being that those bands need to make money to keep going. So, I'm saying, once you're a fan, spend some money on them. And bands, smarten up and give free previews so people are more likely to become fans and buy albums, or more importantly, concert tickets and other merch that makes you more money than CD or mp3 sales. People will argue that they should be able to make money from their music alone, and I would argue that the music is what's driving the merch sales, or else no one would buy the merch.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> I tend to agree with this, to a point. It was, and largely still is, a low-risk way to find new music. The problem being that those bands need to make money to keep going. So, I'm saying, once you're a fan, spend some money on them. And bands, smarten up and give free previews so people are more likely to become fans and buy albums, or more importantly, concert tickets and other merch that makes you more money than CD or mp3 sales. People will argue that they should be able to make money from their music alone, and I would argue that the music is what's driving the merch sales, or else no one would buy the merch.



I have to say thought that is dependent on a lot of things. Like NIN is so popular that he can just give all his music away for free because they are making money elsewhere. However, people like Keith Merrow no longer have physical releases because of pirating and he doesn't tour. Do artist that are amazing, but don't have all the extras deserve compensation of some sort?


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I have to say thought that is dependent on a lot of things. Like NIN is so popular that he can just give all his music away for free because they are making money elsewhere. However, people like Keith Merrow no longer have physical releases because of pirating and he doesn't tour. Do artist that are amazing, but don't have all the extras deserve compensation of some sort?



It's up to the artist. If they want to make money, they'll find a way to do so. If they want their only source of income to be music sales (CD or digital), that's up to them, but they won't make much. Every band should have at least a few songs streaming somewhere for free. Period. Even if it's just on YouTube. If you post it yourself, you control the quality and can link it directly to places to buy the music, merch, or get other info about the band. The fewer the clicks required, the more successful it is. Also, it gives you a connection to your fans, makes them feel like they're getting it direct from you and fan relationship is essential. No one can rely on only CD sales, and no one should of they plan on making music their only source of income.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 7, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> I didn't mean to omit your point about balance, by the way. I agree that it takes more than pirating albums to sink a band, and that labels can't blame their issues wholly on it. I actually have a theory about the decline of serious love of music in my generation that I think is to blame, but I won't get into that now.
> 
> On a different note, what ways should the industry evolve to deal with this? Do you think DIY bands are the wave of the future, or Capitol Records Artist Loans?





I'm EXTREMELY hungover so excuse me if I make no sense. I've noticed that Periphery seem to be on to something 
clever. IIRC, they record the music themselves (or with the help of our own Nolly as of late) and then have what, 8 different label deals under the proviso that they own the music? That's awesome. It takes effort to organise obviously, but to me it seems like it pays off a lot more than just signing away your life to a label that doesn't give a fuck about you. Artists should have the power and it's turning that way now, I think if anything that's great!

As for the future, things will evolve and take their course. Smart bands will get by, bands who aren't so smart will perish. It's a shame to see so many bands die off in the last few years, it really is, but they got caught in a time when things changed quickly and they will have to face the music. (see what I did there?) I just hope that whatever comes along next means more money for the artist. It's hard to picture how things will be because of the internet-borne awareness of a vast amount of bands and ways to make and promote music. I like to think I'm good at predicting future situations, but this one has me stumped.

It could be that in future record labels cease to exist and being an artist will also mean being a businessman... who knows.



mcleanab said:


> Security? No there isn't. IF you show up when you are supposed to, IF you do your job consistently, IF your boss doesn't have a personal vendetta against you (oh, I don't know, he hates it that you are a musician so you are "not focused" on your "real" job for an example), IF your boss isn't about to go belly up due to bad management or IF your giant corporation didn't just get bought out and they are downsizing, IF a car doesn't smash through the store front, IF a thousand other things that can go wrong at any given moment... in a coffee shop or a record deal. (ask Aimee Mann or Cheap Trick).
> 
> There's no security ever. It's an illusion. Yes your paycheck is consistent as long as everything doesn't change. A life as a "full time" artist, the paycheck_ may _not be consistent. Juliana Moore came to speak at a local university and told all the young artists that she too did not know where her next paycheck was coming from (as did Geena Davis and the guy who played the Thing in the FF movies). Inconsistent? Yes. Secure? No... no such thing... not even at a coffee shop. Not even Kelsey Grammer with 20 years playing the same character. Not even for a CEO of a company that goes under after investing his whole life there and all the pensions, savings, insurance, etc are gone. Happens to all of us...
> 
> ...



Nice rant man, but I did only say _more_ security, not that it was secure


----------



## mcleanab (Mar 7, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Nice rant man, but I did only say _more_ security, not that it was secure



Touche'!  (you may be hung over, but my coffee hadn't kicked in yet!)


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 8, 2012)

This rant has a Part 2:



And can you seriously not edit old posts? I was going to throw this in the OP as well.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 8, 2012)

Also, I uploaded another video today, link's in Piracy Pt. II.


----------



## Randy (Mar 9, 2012)

Great follow-up and something I can agree with a lot more.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 12, 2012)

Randy said:


> Great follow-up and something I can agree with a lot more.



Thanks man! First one was mainly attention grabbing and just ranting from one point of view, but in reality I tend to sit on the fence, agree with both sides, and don't feel that the two videos contradict each other  

Next rant: The problems with trend culture. 

Also, work on some fun shorts that I think people will dig.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 12, 2012)

eleven59 said:


> Thanks man! First one was mainly attention grabbing and just ranting from one point of view, but in reality I tend to sit on the fence, agree with both sides, and don't feel that the two videos contradict each other
> 
> Next rant: The problems with trend culture.
> 
> Also, work on some fun shorts that I think people will dig.



I've got one problem with trend culture. I'm an avid reader and most new releases are vampire books are romance/adventures written by women. Stuff I can't get into haha Twilight hasn't just ruined movies it has ruined books as well.  I assume you mean by trend culture is something to the effect of "a bandwagon culture".


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 12, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I've got one problem with trend culture. I'm an avid reader and most new releases are vampire books are romance/adventures written by women. Stuff I can't get into haha Twilight hasn't just ruined movies it has ruined books as well.  I assume you mean by trend culture is something to the effect of "a bandwagon culture".



That's definitely part of it, but there's more to it as well. Don't want to give away the whole rant yet


----------



## 74n4LL0 (Mar 14, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> Piracy steals the artists profit....





Well if you consider Pierre-Joseph Proudhon philosophy "Property" itself is theft.
So if piracy is stealing intellectual property, and property is a theft. Piracy means stealing to the thief...


----------



## MF_Kitten (Mar 14, 2012)

Piracy VS honesty aside, i think there's a huge problem with the industries these days. music, film, and video games alike.

I'm really happy that there are smaller record companies popping out, that are actually doing really well, that aren't fucking the artists. However, they represent a small portion of the industry.

Music is more alive and more active than it ever has been, and the quality-to-budget ratios are amazing now. Amateurs getting ridiculously great sounding stuff is not uncommon these days. And with digital solutions popping up, bands can sell their stuff online without needing anyone else to do all the work for them, and BAM!... no record company needed. Granted, if you want to become properly huge, that's not quite the way to go. But many bands want that "slightly underground" amount of attention, and for them it's perfect.

The same thing is happening in the video game industry. Indie developers going FAR beyond what most would imagine possible, and making very high-quality stuff. Steam has made the whole thing fair for the consumers, and better for the developers. In the meantime all the big companies are making games that can't be played unless you keep a constant internet connection, and they are using day one DLC to suck more money out of your wallets.

The film industry is still being a dick though. Indie films are of course more amazing than ever, as the same budget-to-quality ratio is improving rapidly, but the big films are starting to get stale. It's like when you see a movie from the early-to-mid 90's, and you're thinking "jesus shit, that's so damn 90's, it's horrible, i had no idea at the time!", except tit's starting to happen already, while they are still doing that in films. Horrible.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 15, 2012)

MF_Kitten said:


> Piracy VS honesty aside, i think there's a huge problem with the industries these days. music, film, and video games alike.
> 
> I'm really happy that there are smaller record companies popping out, that are actually doing really well, that aren't fucking the artists. However, they represent a small portion of the industry.
> 
> ...



I think we can all agree that mainstream video games are in fact better. Most indie games are on handheld devices or more arcade based. I do get tired of the sequel syndrome they have gone through (same with movies), but the bigger the project the more the bank needs to know it isn't getting screwed so I get it while hating it simultaneously. I have a love hate with indie movies. Some are the best movies I have ever seen. Most aren't though in my experience, but the same applies in theaters I guess. Foreign films hold a bigger place in my heart than indie though.


----------



## eleven59 (Mar 20, 2012)

Bump for part 2 for those that missed it (if someone could drop it in the OP, that'd be awesome). There's been stuff getting in the way of putting up a new rant, but that should hopefully be coming sometime in the next few days/week, and I'm going to be bringing my camera out to a couple of shows, as well.


----------



## nickgray (Mar 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I think we can all agree that mainstream video games are in fact better



Huh? Modern mainstream games are pretty lousy. Indie scene is much, much more interesting if you ask me. Bastion, To the Moon, Spacechem, Machinarium, Braid, Super Meat Boy, Cave Story, World of Goo, etc. are the kind games I've had most fun with in the last 5 or so years.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 21, 2012)

nickgray said:


> Huh? Modern mainstream games are pretty lousy. Indie scene is much, much more interesting if you ask me. Bastion, To the Moon, Spacechem, Machinarium, Braid, Super Meat Boy, Cave Story, World of Goo, etc. are the kind games I've had most fun with in the last 5 or so years.



Agree to disagree I hate the arcade format most indie games are presented in. I've played a few like Psychonaut's that was a lot of fun, but games like Skyrim, Arkham City, Unchartered series I enjoy much more. Most of the games you mentioned (it least the ones I know) are side scroll type and while fun I have fun playing other things. The notion that indie games by definition is better was all I was disputing. Just because something is popular does not entail that it is bad nor the opposite. I think things like COD and God of War and Halo and the like are a bit overdone, but not all mainstream games fall into those categories.


----------

