Adventure Game Studio

I noticed this site wasn't working the other day, but hat's nothing new, they quite often went down for a few days here and there.

But then I looked at their Wikipedia entry and found out they'd been shut down.

Here is a link to the Guardian Unlimited article about it.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2195407,00.html (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2195407,00.html)

This is a disgrace... they were not hosting any illegal material, just pointing us in the right direction.

What does everyone else think about this travesty?

I say its a big fuck.

Where can I now watch my documentaries?

Luckily there are some other places, still not so great, but at least something  :-\

A big fuck you to the corporate bastards.

Where are these "other places" you speak of?

some forums

Ok, hold on a minute.

I'm not sure about tv-links (though I did use it occasionally), but in order to watch TV, the channels need to pay the producers, etc. Same with radio.

The site, if it did not pay, and from the Guardian article, it appears that it is called "pirate" so it appears that it didn't pay (though, not sure) why should it stay open?

I mean, are we all fucked up in the mind, and want to go for the free stuff, simply to save a few $?

Come on! Same with P2P, same with everything. Fucked up morality I think, and the easiness of doing it! >:(

EDIT: Just to clarify a bit further:

TV-links was earning shitloads of money through ads, I reckon. The problem is not that the viewers should pay, but that the site should.

Fact remains that TV-links.co.uk did NOT host any copyrighted information. It merely linked to the sites it was hosted on. Technically speaking, they weren't pirates, since they weren't offering any copyrighted material.

Sadly companies have a hard time distinguishing between those who host and those who link.

If TV-links.co.uk is liable for stuff on other people's servers, so is Google.

Signed,
the recipient of many cease&desists based on his link site which hosts no copyrighted material.

Indeed what you say may stand true Voh, but still if I recall correctly (which I'm not sure at all) Family guy that I did watch on TV-links, was streamed from tv-links...

Anyways, I just feel that it's a bit of a ridiculous comment that "we just keep links, the hostings are done elsewhere, got get them", like the crack sites, that have a 1000s list of crack codes for every possible program and go "we have them here for fun. If anyone uses them to actually crack a program, its' not our fault"...

When will these idiots learn?

Shut down 1000 sites like TV-links and 2000 more will spring up.  They are NEVER going to stop the piracy stuff.  No matter what they try, no matter what they do.  What they should do is stop whining about it and spend time and money making more stuff for pirates to offer up.

Here's my proposition to all the TV, movie, music production companies:

Instead of throwing your money away on lost causes (anti-piracy and 'net trading) why not give the money to some medical research (cure for cancer, etc).  It's a much more attainable, worthy, cause.

It's their businesses and they can do with them what they like, but there's just a point where you have to stare logic and common sense in the face and realize you're fighting a battle you will never win.

As a composer and creator of copyrighted stuff, who I'm trying to earn a living, at some point of my life, by composing, I have to say that I'm highly insulted by your post Darth.

We have discussed the piracy issue before, and we did reach an agreement that there is nothing philosophical or deep to piracy, as you do it. t's just easy to download mp3s, while it's not THAT easy to download DVDs and thus you don't! I won't go about linking right now, but this is what I think happens...

As I said, people who do not create, or don't try to make a living, or don't have responsibilities just think that everything should be free, especially the intelectual property, and how you deal with it. Pretty much that everyone should compose, and use their resources, money, talent, experience, knowledge etc, and then give it away for free...

What a world we've ended up living in :(

Dead Darth, it's not that the battle cannot be won, this is common sense, as you say, and highly logical. Additionally I believe very much in the power of the Internet, etc. It's the hidden degrade of morality which comes along with piracy. It's the fact that values (especially when it comes to intelectual property) have reached lower points than every before.

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 22/10/2007 17:03:32
Indeed what you say may stand true Voh, but still if I recall correctly (which I'm not sure at all) Family guy that I did watch on TV-links, was streamed from tv-links...

tv-links had *no* files on their own server. They used a popup window which embedded the video player from the other sites (such as Guba, Dailymotion, Stage6 etc.). So while it may have seemed that it was streamed from tv-links, it was always from a remote server which had nothing to do with tv-links itself.

QuoteAnyways, I just feel that it's a bit of a ridiculous comment that "we just keep links, the hostings are done elsewhere, got get them", like the crack sites, that have a 1000s list of crack codes for every possible program and go "we have them here for fun. If anyone uses them to actually crack a program, its' not our fault"...

But the cracks sites HOST the cracks. Once more, tv-links didn't host copyrighted material or ways to "crack" or decrypt video files. All tv-links did was have links to other sites. If linking to illegal stuff is illegal, telling someone where he or she might be able to purchase, for example, Mein Kampf (which is banned in many locations) if equally illegal.

And that I don't agree with. Offering illegal material is punishable. That's fine with me. What I refuse to accept is being punishable for showing where the stuff can be found. These link sites are USEFUL for companies since they can follow the links from there instead of having to find them themselves.

Funny thing is that my own site was, after a few cease&desists, used by a game company to track down sites which had their games on it. I felt kind of used but after inquiry they did state that they felt that I wasn't doing anything wrong as I did not host illegal material anywhere on my server.

Just like tv-links.

And Darth: You're absolutely right.

Instead of focusing on WHY people pirate so damn much (25 euro for a music album of which 25 cents go to the artist? Especially if most people use MP3 players and therefore would then have to spend a while transferring their CD to MP3, and then never use the CD again?) they just want to punish and keep everything the same.

The market evolves, people!

More money to the artists! Decent prices!

Those two things would make me buy more and, well, 'appropriate' less.

Addendum to Nikolas: Yes there IS a deeper thing to piracy to a lot of people. Media is effin' expensive and what do you get for it? I'm not paying 25 euro for a CD if the composer doesn't get more than a quarter euro. I see my non-buying behaviour as a boycott, and the industry IS noticing a decrease in worldwide sales. The less we buy, the more acceptable the prices will become. A lot of artists (see Radiohead) are starting to see record companies are USELESS nowadays. All they do is make up 99% of the pricetag in payback, and the remaining 1% is for the artists.

I refuse to buy something to support an archaic and obsolete thing as a 'traditional' record company, with their stranglehold-contracts, shitty payouts and 'holier than thou' attitude.

And I'm insulted that you say pirates (amongst which would be me) simply do it because it's easy. I do NOT think everything should be free. Intellectual property is very important to me, but if I put out a CD and ask 25 euro for it, I'll understand why it's being downloaded illegally instead, which is why I'd never ask 25 euro (more like 10).

Your assumptions are very coloured because you see piracy as something which hits you as a professional. I understand that, but by generalizing you're not going to get a lot of sympathy.

Quote from: voh on Mon 22/10/2007 17:51:08
tv-links had *no* files on their own server. They used a popup window which embedded the video player from the other sites (such as Guba, Dailymotion, Stage6 etc.). So while it may have seemed that it was streamed from tv-links, it was always from a remote server which had nothing to do with tv-links itself.

As I said I wasn't sure...

QuoteBut the cracks sites HOST the cracks. Once more, tv-links didn't host copyrighted material or ways to "crack" or decrypt video files. All tv-links did was have links to other sites. If linking to illegal stuff is illegal, telling someone where he or she might be able to purchase, for example, Mein Kampf (which is banned in many locations) if equally illegal.

And that I don't agree with. Offering illegal material is punishable. That's fine with me. What I refuse to accept is being punishable for showing where the stuff can be found. These link sites are USEFUL for companies since they can follow the links from there instead of having to find them themselves.

Fair enough but it was an example. Imagine that a site ONLY has links to illegal material and nothing more. Somehow it seems that the existance of this site is ONLY for linking such sites, etc. Although not illegal per se, it certainly is being used only to faciliate such movements.

QuoteAnd Darth: You're absolutely right.

Instead of focusing on WHY people pirate so damn much (25 euro for a music album of which 25 cents go to the artist? Especially if most people use MP3 players and therefore would then have to spend a while transferring their CD to MP3, and then never use the CD again?) they just want to punish and keep everything the same.

The market evolves, people!

More money to the artists! Decent prices!

Those two things would make me buy more and, well, 'appropriate' less.

This is rather sily.

If you don't want that, go to concerts, give donations to band straight away.

I was the one who opened the Radiohead thread, remember? And I'm all for that. Don't think I'm coloured!

Quoteaddendum to Nikolas: Yes there IS a deeper thing to piracy to a lot of people. Media is effin' expensive and what do you get for it? I'm not paying 25 euro for a CD if the composer doesn't get more than a quarter euro. I see my non-buying behaviour as a boycott, and the industry IS noticing a decrease in worldwide sales. The less we buy, the more acceptable the prices will become. A lot of artists (see Radiohead) are starting to see record companies are USELESS nowadays. All they do is make up 99% of the pricetag in payback, and the remaining 1% is for the artists.

I refuse to buy something to support an archaic and obsolete thing as a 'traditional' record company, with their stranglehold-contracts, shitty payouts and 'holier than thou' attitude.

And I'm insulted that you say pirates (amongst which would be me) simply do it because it's easy. I do NOT think everything should be free. Intellectual property is very important to me, but if I put out a CD and ask 25 euro for it, I'll understand why it's being downloaded illegally instead, which is why I'd never ask 25 euro (more like 10).

Your assumptions are very coloured because you see piracy as something which hits you as a professional. I understand that, but by generalizing you're not going to get a lot of sympathy.

1. I'm not going for sympathy! I don't give a shit, if you want to know really.

Now, you refuse to buy, but you want to listen/see? Isn't this oxymoron on it's own really? You don't want to buy? Be my guest! Don't buy! I'm all for that, and I also buy very few stuff. But I don't get them anyways. Why do you need to get them?




You want to get all idealistic etc with me? fine!

Piracy is NOT helping per se (and this is aimed only for this discussion. See other posts to see that I do think that it helps, and that it is huge advertising, and that I do see the point in that), but if you really want to say all those things you say, just don't download the tracks anymore. Either way, the artists (as you say, although not true, and you're forgetin that making a CD, is MORE than the band, HUGELY more) get 1 euro/$ per sale, so you refuse to even give them that, on some lame excuse, and you get it for free...



Give me some real arguments when you come back mate.



Finally:

Want my music? Get it, go to my site and get it. And while you're at it get also my scores, also there, and a cubase project with the whole midi files on them. Don't tell me I'm coloured. Have you ever seen me sell anything to you, or anybody?

I was talking to Darth, and made it clear that I was getting references from other threads in here.

yet again: Darth downloads mp3s, but not movies. why is that? Because it's plainly easy! there is nothing idealistic, or political or anything into that. it's EASY!

You feel you it's much deeper? I do too. So I have other way to promote my music, and make my money as well and I'm open minded.

Thank you for that, seemingly I was wrong in calling your opinion coloured.

However, I think that if a band was put to the question, on whether they'd rather have a person not buy their CD and not listen to it and a person not buy the CD and listen to it, they'd still prefer the latter. Microsoft Windows got big on the back of illegal copies. Bands have become popular due to it. Following that, I agree with your statement that piracy, in a way, is good advertising.

I download television shows, which is technically illegal. I download shows that are shown here, for which I've already paid through way of viewer taxes included in television costs. There are shows that aren't shown here, but how can I be pirating something I can't legally purchase? Good question :)

The point of this topic remains that it's unfair that tv-links gets punished for linking to other people's illegal activity. And that I can't support.

ok, there was some discussion while I was writing that, but what the hell.

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 22/10/2007 17:40:40
We have discussed the piracy issue before, and we did reach an agreement that there is nothing philosophical or deep to piracy, as you do it. t's just easy to download mp3s, while it's not THAT easy to download DVDs and thus you don't! I won't go about linking right now, but this is what I think happens...

1. There's nothing philosophical or deep to the copyrights either.

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 22/10/2007 17:40:40
As I said, people who do not create, or don't try to make a living, or don't have responsibilities just think that everything should be free, especially the intelectual property, and how you deal with it. Pretty much that everyone should compose, and use their resources, money, talent, experience, knowledge etc, and then give it away for free...

2. In its current state copyright doesn't support creativity either. It only supports creating (best if only once) something big and popular - not good, mind you, popular - and milking it for the rest of your life AND seventy years after that moment.
It's not that everyone should work for free; it's that information is free ab initio and imposing any restrictions on that freedom is at least short-sighted.
3. About earning money... Nobody stops you from charging for CD's, DVD's, printed books or other 'feelies' - these are the real goods AND they do have limited supply. On the other hand, MP3's, AVI's etc. do have unlimited supply - why must we apply the same property laws on them? I mean, "stealing" a song isn't like stealing a bicycle - after all if bicycles were completely free and everybody could have any amount of bicycles (of any kind) he or she wanted, then taking other person's bike wouldn't be a crime!

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 22/10/2007 17:40:40
It's the hidden degrade of morality which comes along with piracy. It's the fact that values (especially when it comes to intelectual property) have reached lower points than every before.

It's the hidden degrade of morality which comes along with copyrights. It's the fact that human rights (especially when it comes to education and self-development) have reached lower points than every before.

Your point of view looks too tight and narrow to me; it's always useful to look at things from the different perspective - in your case I recommend the site called simply http://questioncopyright.org/ (http://questioncopyright.org/) - and it's not some teeny piratey site, it's hold by Karl Fogel who wrote (and is selling) some books himself.

p.s.:

Quote
Want my music? Get it, go to my site and get it. And while you're at it get also my scores, also there, and a cubase project with the whole midi files on them. Don't tell me I'm coloured. Have you ever seen me sell anything to you, or anybody?

What you're doing is fine, and ok thing to do, BUT the question is, shouldn't everyone else do it that way?
Just for example:
- Legal copy of Borat here costs just 50% more than pirated one, and it's not the matter of PRICE behind me NOT buying it. It's the fact that that particular copy has only ONE sound track (DUBBED in Russian) and no subtitles/original tracks/whatever. Nothing.
- While pirated copy is a copy of a Region1 release with Russian translation ADDED to the original sound. And with all the subtitles of a Reg1 release (i.e. at least English ones).
So which one, you think, I bought? Yep. More featured one.

The thing with "copyrighted" stuff, even free (or relatively cheap ones - those I (as a poor Russian student) can afford to buy) is that it IS limited, it limits my freedoms and does other ugly things to me. While pirating stuff I, at the worst case, support some mafiozi, who, gotta be honest, doesn't differ much from the bosses of Universal.

Voh: Cool :)

Generally I went to the tube station to pick up my wife and wanted to come back and clear things up completely:

1. I have pirated stuff my self. I'm no saint, and I cannot condemn something that I do. But I don't like to see pirates claiming that it's idealistic (follow next point). I do see that there could be people who think, and I value the opinion of many people (for example RickJ, who I don't knwo about piracy, but certainly is a thinker and has aided me in the past, and hope the futuer as well)
2. about piracy. If you claim that you don't like the price of anything, simply don't buy it. This would be the way to deal with high prices, to which I agree 100% with that! But why get it anyway? Here is were I object and claim it's easy. Don't buy it, but don't get it either. Otherwise you invalidate your point. There are literally millions of tracks from every genre for free in myspace, soundclick, etc, and most bands do offer in some form or another their hits or even whole albums (as muse are for example).
3. Same goes for software, etc. You want office? Why steal Microsoft when there is open office around? Want windows? Get linux. Want Cubase? Get reaper. etc... There is ALWAYS the free/cheaper alternative. And actually for samples that's where I am, there are 99$ orchestral packs from kirk hunter and garritan. I can no longer accept that samples are pricey. Sure VSL costs 12,000$, but does anyone in here need that?
4. Piracy is huge advertising and companies are indeed foolish to deal with piracy this way. I've been talking and talking to everyone that times have changed and a very few of you know that I'm planning on a book, and have very specific ideas on the promotion of the book (rick and greg know), which basically include free distribution. ;) Additionally, as a professional, my clients are the people who pay me, thus the game developers. Not the audience. So my tracks are actually free and I get the money from the people who develop the games. Same with movies, animation, etc.
(<- this whole thing is not aimed at Voh, please :))


FSi:
1. You have to be kidding me: Do you even know anything about copyright?
So, for you, I make something, I put all my efforts, everything onto it, my dreams etc, and you want to:
a. take it and use it as your own (due to lack of copyright, thus steal it and claim it is yours)
b. take it and use it without rewarding me for the huge ammount of time+money+knowedge+talent+ideas I put onto it
c. Make money out of it
?

This is what you mean?

2. How it doesn't support it? Can you explain a bit further? Information is free. Why should MY scores be free? (which they are, as I said earlier)
3. I never said "stealing" in any way, I didn't even use the word. Don't mention that to me, I don't agree to that either. What happens is that you (you in a general sense) is taking advantage from something I (again in the general sense) did

I will take a look at the link the minute I find a few more minutes.

But my POV seems tight and narrow????? I've been there, I've been to the other side, I've been everywhere, and as I mentioned I've downloaded stuff myself. Have you tried to live as a creator yourself? Or maybe your opinion is too tight and narrow? ;)



Problem with piracy which rather bothers me, is that people who have put 0.1 effort are getting the money, while the real owners and effort people (bands + company + artists + whatever) get nothing. In short, if I take a cracked copy of a... game, let's say, and make money out of it, I find it simply disgraceful. There is nothing supported and NO idealistic idea behind that AT ALL. At least give it for free, although again I don't agree fully...

I can't really comment on this site since I've never used it, but one thing that does strike me as odd is the industry shutting down TV Series download sites without offering a legal way to buy them.

If I want to see the new series of 24 or Heroes for example, there is no option for me to buy the new episodes. Therefore, either I have to download them illegally or wait a year for them to come on TV in this country. It doesn't really make any sense to give people a telling off for getting shows from pirates when there's no way to get them legally.

Nik - I certainly didn't mean to offend you.  It's just I see so much time and energy (and money) wasted on this issue.  One man's common sense is another's insult I guess.  I meant no insult to you.

I'm not saying that piracy should be legalized or that it's fair that people are doing it.  I don't care enough to debate the rights/wrongs of it.  All I'm saying is that no matter what they (the corporations fighting it) do, they simply will not win and/or stop piracy/trading/sharing/etc.

Whether it's morally right/wrong to pirate or "appropriate" is irrelevant.  It's a simple fact that it's happening, will continue to happen, and cannot be stopped.

Here's a thought ... instead of spending countless dollars trying to fight something you can't beat (thus having to drive the cost of the products up even higher to compensate for the money lost fighting it) why not maybe consider the reason [some] people are pirating your shit is 'cause you charge too damn much for it in the first place and they can get it cheaper/free elsewhere?

Quote from: Pumaman on Mon 22/10/2007 19:25:47
If I want to see the new series of 24 or Heroes for example, there is no option for me to buy the new episodes. Therefore, either I have to download them illegally or wait a year for them to come on TV in this country. It doesn't really make any sense to give people a telling off for getting shows from pirates when there's no way to get them legally.

Actually this is a very fair point... But I'm just wasting my time every Wed. watching heroes on BBC 3 (honestly, nothing intended at all).

You are very true to that point!

Darth: :) Yes it will continue to happen, and I do hope that people will wake up and find alternatives to those bloody royalties...

FSi: Still reading the site, there's a lot to read, but can't say I agree to begin with. :)

Well, YouTube actually HOSTS those illegal shows, they just have enough money as a company to stand above American law, so they do not get shut down, or am I missing something here?

As far as I know they delete lots of stuff due to copyright problems, and additionally the bands on their own put their own stuff up. What got deleted pretty fast, was recorded MTV/VH1 stuff, because the channels couldn't afford that... But the bands are quite tolerate to 55,000,000 hits... (I would imagine at least, as noone will comment really)

Well, I can find links on YouTube that are illegally online since months - and going by the legal ground they shut TV-Links down, this should be more, more than enough to shut YouTube down. Their anti-copyright-infringement actions are a joke and they know it, they want and need the illegal files on their servers, because that's what lures people to visit YouTube the most.

Most of the shows I tried (Spaced! was an exception) had bad links because the chinese host was almost always offline.  The site barely worked for me anyway so I don't see why they bothered to close it.

Yeah, they didn't work for me too. Only things that worked were documentaries, and that was probably the only place where I could watch them... I loved documentaries section.

At least I found a new site with divx quality movies.

Quote from: Nikolas on Mon 22/10/2007 18:58:41
FSi:
1. You have to be kidding me: Do you even know anything about copyright?
So, for you, I make something, I put all my efforts, everything onto it, my dreams etc, and you want to:
a. take it and use it as your own (due to lack of copyright, thus steal it and claim it is yours)
b. take it and use it without rewarding me for the huge ammount of time+money+knowedge+talent+ideas I put onto it
c. Make money out of it
This is what you mean?

a. It's silly - nobody rejects the right to attribution; I mean the right to use it as YOUR own - for, say, educational purposes
b. if I have to; consider the people around the globe who can't afford to 'reward' 'them' for the huge amount of work 'they' put onto it. $40 for new Harry Potter book? Come on, that's my monthly allowance. (well, I'm a student and my parents do help me - actually I bought D.Knuth's books which cost a bit less than that - just because they aren't of many help in scanned form). If antipiracy laws were REALLY enforced here, about 70% of people would be completely cut off modern culture, simple uneducated pieces of russian redneck shit they are, but some bright kids have come out of there. Where would they be without proper education (and self-education, which would be impossible if they had to pay dozens of bucks for each book/movie/music album).
So yeah, go on and advocate copyright - it would keep us farmers away from your bright aristocratics white buildings, except when we're working as maids or 'dvornicks'.
c. It depends on the way I'm going to make money out of your work.
- selling it off internet - nobody would buy it, especially if it could be found for free at the nearby site
- selling it on a CD - then I did put some effort in these CD's too, don't you think? At least I bought a bunch of blank cd-r's and spent a night or two burning them to make these great tunes available to local public
- playing it at local disco/radio/taxi - now that could be considered at least mauvais tone - especially if I won't notice you; especially if I made some money out of it.
- listening pirated copy at home/other non-commercial uses - now I don't make you lose anything. If I liked the tune, I'll probably buy it (better sound quality, and some 'feelie' to keep on shelf).

Quote
2. How it doesn't support it? Can you explain a bit further? Information is free. Why should MY scores be free? (which they are, as I said earlier)

They should be available at least if you want them to stay alive virtually forever. DRM-infested piece of commercial music is going to die eventually - when the format goes old, when the distributor dies. If there were no non-drm'd copies, hasta la vista baby. Look at early 1990's commercial games - how many of them support nowadays OS'es? A little, I must say. They ARE available via emulators/wrappers and such programs, but that's not what I mean. Rogue dates as back as 1980 and still works fine. As do its forks and clones.
Another issue is the meanings of the word "free". You

Quote
3. I never said "stealing" in any way, I didn't even use the word. Don't mention that to me, I don't agree to that either. What happens is that you (you in a general sense) is taking advantage from something I (again in the general sense) did

Oh yeah, be a cheapskate and lock all your stuff and sell it for $80 a piece. I wonder how many hits will you get that way, if any.
Yes, you did put an effort in your tune - and that increased the price. A lot. Now let's see how that price distributes per copy.
Distribution via internet is pretty much free nowadays - so you can sell up to 1,244,449,601 copies (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) (with as much effort as you can sell any other number of them) - and all your cost-price will virtually vanish over such a spread. And as in the future new people will born and will connect to the Net, it will make your (your publisher's) revenue almost infinite. What that means? Now we come the simple mathematical task. You can sell same thing over and over again, but you can't make INFINITE revenue (because you're not the only person in the world), so the only way to make it FINITE is to set an infinitely low price (i.e. one that almost equals 0).

Quote
But my POV seems tight and narrow????? I've been there, I've been to the other side, I've been everywhere, and as I mentioned I've downloaded stuff myself. Have you tried to live as a creator yourself? Or maybe your opinion is too tight and narrow? ;)

I do create stuff. I don't care if it wass posted at piratey UseNet conference (it really did), no, actually I do care, I am actually HAPPY that some people cared enough about that as to share it on piratey UseNet conference.

Quote
Problem with piracy which rather bothers me, is that people who have put 0.1 effort are getting the money, while the real owners and effort people (bands + company + artists + whatever) get nothing.

You mean, like, distributors? These bastards! They would charge you for air to breathe if they had a legal possibility to do so!

Quote
In short, if I take a cracked copy of a... game, let's say, and make money out of it, I find it simply disgraceful. There is nothing supported and NO idealistic idea behind that AT ALL. At least give it for free, although again I don't agree fully...

It's not how it usually happens. People download a cracked copy of a game and play it; sometimes they share it with their friends. How could THAT be disgraceful?
You found a great piece of art and want to share it with people you like - today you can't. You probably even can't give your LEGAL copy to a friend due to license agreement...
Shouldn't de facto free stuff (as information really is) be free de jure?

p.s. my writing is all crappy and messy, sorry for that

Quote from: FSi on Tue 23/10/2007 16:55:59
a. It's silly - nobody rejects the right to attribution; I mean the right to use it as YOUR own - for, say, educational purposes

Want it or not copyright is ALSO that!

Quoteb. if I have to; consider the people around the globe who can't afford to 'reward' 'them' for the huge amount of work 'they' put onto it. $40 for new Harry Potter book? Come on, that's my monthly allowance. (well, I'm a student and my parents do help me - actually I bought D.Knuth's books which cost a bit less than that - just because they aren't of many help in scanned form). If antipiracy laws were REALLY enforced here, about 70% of people would be completely cut off modern culture, simple uneducated pieces of russian redneck shit they are, but some bright kids have come out of there. Where would they be without proper education (and self-education, which would be impossible if they had to pay dozens of bucks for each book/movie/music album).
So yeah, go on and advocate copyright - it would keep us farmers away from your bright aristocratics white buildings, except when we're working as maids or 'dvornicks'.

Honestly you need to relax and stop putting words in my mouth, ok? This is getting rather annoying. Farmers? Aristocratic whit buildings? WTF are you talking about here?

Harry Potter, starting from 9.50$ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0545010225/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1/104-6239363-4862322?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193155796&sr=8-1). If you wait a little bit it'll drop at 4$. Now 4$ to 40$ is 10% for your little mind. Want to tell me that you HAVE to get it the minute it's released? I can wait, and always do, no matter the game, book, CD or whatever. I suggest you do the same.

don't give me crup pricing.

sure pricing sometimes, sucks, but I have failed to find a way to secure that something costing 4$ in russia, won't be bought from someone in the UK, who would normally get it at 20$ or something.

Pricing sucks, let's agree on that. But the latest book of Harry Potter is NOT necessary to survive, nor necessary to get it first week. Wait and you'll find it cheap as hell:  There you go! Harry Potter 5 fro 4.50$. Is that pricey as well? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0439358078/ref=pd_bbs_olp_3/104-6239363-4862322?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193155935&sr=8-3)

Quotec. It depends on the way I'm going to make money out of your work.
- selling it off internet - nobody would buy it, especially if it could be found for free at the nearby site
- selling it on a CD - then I did put some effort in these CD's too, don't you think? At least I bought a bunch of blank cd-are's and spent a night or two burning them to make these great tunes available to local public
- playing it at local disco/radio/taxi - now that could be considered at least mauvais tone - especially if I won't notice you; especially if I made some money out of it.
- listening pirated copy at home/other non-commercial uses - now I don't make you lose anything. If I liked the tune, I'll probably buy it (better sound quality, and some 'feelie' to keep on shelf).

So you would really like it to work your arse off for something you love doing, and then learn that someone is taking advantage of that, while all he did was to copy the CD? I certainly wouldn't like that.

QuoteThey should be available at least if you want them to stay alive virtually forever. DRM-infested piece of commercial music is going to die eventually - when the format goes old, when the distributor dies. If there were no non-drm'd copies, hasta la vista baby. Look at early 1990's commercial games - how many of them support nowadays OS'es? A little, I must say. They ARE available via emulators/wrappers and such programs, but that's not what I mean. Rogue dates as back as 1980 and still works fine.

WE agree. I gate DRM and antipiracy devices (dongles etc) as much as everyone. Learn who you talk to before you spit out rubbish!

As do its forks and clones.
Another issue is the meanings of the word "free". You

Quote

Quote
3. I never said "stealing" in any way, I didn't even use the word. Don't mention that to me, I don't agree to that either. What happens is that you (you in a general sense) is taking advantage from something I (again in the general sense) did

Oh yeah, be a cheapskate and lock all your stuff and sell it for $80 a piece. I wonder how many hits will you get that way, if any.

Once again.

I'm here.

I work FOR FUCKING FREE when the project is free. My tunes are there. I also work for money as well, when the project is not free.

Go to my website and get my tunes, my scores, and my info, as well as my feedback (being 30 and almost done with a PhD in composition, I'd say rather valuable) along with anything else you want. I've been around for something like 3 years and all I've done is offer (and accept offerings as well, for which I'm greatful!)

80$? Where? What?! WTF are you talking about again? I think that you are rather confused and you think you are talking to somebody else mate.

QuoteYes, you did put an effort in your tune - and that increased the price. A lot. Now let's see how that price distributes per copy.
Distribution via internet is pretty much free nowadays - so you can sell up to 1,244,449,601 copies (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) (with as much effort as you can sell any other number of them) - and all your cost-price will virtually vanish over such a spread. And as in the future new people will born and will connect to the Net, it will make your (your publisher's) revenue almost infinite. What that means? Now we come the simple mathematical task. You can sell same thing over and over again, but you can't make INFINITE revenue (because you're not the only person in the world), so the only way to make it FINITE is to set an infinitely low price (i.e. one that almost equals 0).

I don't know, you would like that effort would not equal something rewarding? you are breaking every sense in every country in the world. I put effort thus there is a price (some times). Thank god, few people think like you, thus people like Dave and Vince and Herculean Efforts make games, and put tons of effort, and do get rewarded with the sales, as many as they are. :)

Quote

Quote
But my POV seems tight and narrow????? I've been there, I've been to the other side, I've been everywhere, and as I mentioned I've downloaded stuff myself. Have you tried to live as a creator yourself? Or maybe your opinion is too tight and narrow? ;)

I do create stuff. I don't care if it wass posted at piratey UseNet conference (it really did), no, actually I do care, I am actually HAPPY that some people cared enough about that as to share it on piratey UseNet conference.

Excellent I would be happy too. Do you sell those stuff btw? (<-honest question, nothing here)

Quote

Quote
Problem with piracy which rather bothers me, is that people who have put 0.1 effort are getting the money, while the real owners and effort people (bands + company + artists + whatever) get nothing.

You mean, like, distributors? These bastards! They would charge you for air to breathe if they had a legal possibility to do so!

Do you even have an idea what it takes to make a commercial CD?

I'm afraid that you are completely ignorant and thus speak like this...

Quote

Quote
In short, if I take a cracked copy of a... game, let's say, and make money out of it, I find it simply disgraceful. There is nothing supported and NO idealistic idea behind that AT ALL. At least give it for free, although again I don't agree fully...

It's not how it usually happens. People download a cracked copy of a game and play it; sometimes they share it with their friends. How could THAT be disgraceful?
You found a great piece of art and want to share it with people you like - today you can't. You probably even can't give your LEGAL copy to a friend due to license agreement...
Shouldn't de facto free stuff (as information really is) be free de jure?

p.s. my writing is all crappy and messy, sorry for that

But, but, but... you said that you have no problem with making money out someone elses copyrighted material. This is rather confusing... ;)

And either way, if any AGS game (since we are in AGS) sold 100 copies, and got downloaded another 5000 cracked, it seems a bit of a shame I say. It wouldn't of course get a further 5000 sale, but even 100 more would be better.




In short, it seems that you have rehearsed this discsussion with other close minded people, but hit a problem here, cause I'm not that. ;)


Go back, read what I'm saying, relax, and repost. :) I'll be here waiting.


EDIT: fixed quotes

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 23/10/2007 17:26:07
Go back, read what I'm saying, relax, and repost. :) I'll be here waiting.

Have a good time.  ;)

Quote from: FSi on Tue 23/10/2007 17:50:45
Have a good time.  ;)

I will stay up all night, wondering what you edited! ;D

Either way thanks, and you too :)

Looks like the cops are on a roll this week:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7057812.stm

Nikolas, most internet piracy, which I believe we are talking about, has no money involved.  So no money is going to all these people who did "0.1 effort", it is rather that no money is going to XYZ distributor, music store shelf stacker, CD compressor, and maybe 50p to my favourite artist.

I know Becky :) As I said I'm no saint...

But actually in Greece, Russia, china and other countries pirates just sell CDs, games, programs. It's happening quite a lot! In addition tv-links, or if not them, many others, make huge profit from piracy...

In general I can agree and understand that I can share a CD (physical form) with a friend, and do the same with an mp3, since it's convinient. but when someone comes to me and tells me about abolishing copyright alltogether etc etc, or when someone uses pirated software to make money (try before buy for example), it's something a bit different for me.

Personally, I don't condone the use of websites that host, or point to hosted copyrighted material. The only thing I will let go, is if it posts to material that is no longer being supported by the holder of the copyrighted material. In the case of tv-links, this isn't the case.

I love the excuse that because it's expensive, people will obviously take it for free, and that somehow, big corporations will see that they aren't getting the money they should be, and lower their prices. That's based on the assumption that everyone is going to steal. In reality, there are plenty of honest people who won't steal, and so corporations will raise the prices, and it's those people who pay the new price hike. Even if the corporation lowered their prices, most of the people who steal would still steal if it was freely available, anyway.

-MillsJROSS

I'm not sure what you mean by:

QuoteI love the excuse that because it's expensive, people will obviously take it for free, and that somehow, big corporations will see that they aren't getting the money they should be, and lower their prices.

These production companies should come to the [brain numbingly obvious] realization that the internet isn't going away.  No matter what they do/try they will never stop people downloading stuff from the 'net for free.  This is a no-brainer.

They shouldn't lower their prices because piracy is keeping their sales down.  They should lower their prices because their too-high prices are causing people to get it for free so as to not pay the too-high prices.  Sure, as you said:

QuoteEven if the corporation lowered their prices, most of the people who steal would still steal if it was freely available, anyway.

But there are those, like myself, that would happily pay for music again if the prices were reasonable.  I know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

So ... when they get their heads out of their arses and lower their prices I, for one, will gladly pay for it again.

Though, again, I must stress ... I'm not arguing the right/wrong aspect of this debate.  I'm just pointing out the fact that these people are spending way too much time combatting something they will never defeat.  Take down OiNK this week, next week two or three more will pop-up to take it's place.

These resources they waste could be much better spent on activities that will actually accomplish something.

But Darth,

When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story. Isn't this how life works? Want a Mac? sorry too much, you have to go for a crappy PC. Want a Steinway piano? Sorry too much, go for a Yamaha, or nothing. And so on.

The point that mills is making is that there is no excuse to get cracked software or pirate stuff or whatever, especially when it comes to mp3s. Because I can accept someone starting out (a student perhaps) and he would like to try out PS, or Cubase or something, but can't really accept that he wants to try out the new Metallica mp3s...

finally, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much the prices were people would still get them for free through other routes. why I say that? Because, as I mentioned earlier there are millions of mp3s around the internet which ARE free, from unsigned artists. Why go after the commercial ones really? It's super luxury! If you are looking for film music stuff, go to my site and get my mp3s for free. Of course the quality is tons worst than LOTR but then again my budget for all these tracks was 0$, while LOTR had something like 300,000,000$...

But yes, to your point, they are battling a lost cause I also believe that. And as I mentioned earlier as well (I hope it was this forum and not any other), artists need to wake up and find alternative ways of getting money.

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 23/10/2007 23:15:39When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story. Isn't this how life works? Want a Mac? sorry too much, you have to go for a crappy PC. Want a Steinway piano? Sorry too much, go for a Yamaha, or nothing. And so on.

In a Utopia perhaps.  Sadly ... that's not even close to the reality we live in.  I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying, just the reality of it.  (Except the bit about "crappy" PC ... Macs are no better than PCs, but you're right ... they are rediculously over-priced)

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 23/10/2007 23:15:39The point that mills is making is that there is no excuse to get cracked software or pirate stuff or whatever, especially when it comes to mp3s. Because I can accept someone starting out (a student perhaps) and he would like to try out PS, or Cubase or something, but can't really accept that he wants to try out the new Metallica mp3s...

From your point of view (and Mills') there's no excuse.  That doesn't mean the "poor" student doesn't have a reason that he thinks is justified.  And, from his point of view, your view is meaningless to him.  That's just, sadly, the way of human nature.  I totally understand what you're saying and can see your point of view.  But my point of view is; CDs are WAY overpriced and I'm not paying their prices for them even though I want the music.  Mp3 just offers a convenient solution to that over-priced CD problem.

Is it illegal?  Sure, by letter of the law it is.  Do I feel bad about it?  Like I'm doing something wrong?  Absolutely not.  I would feel FAR worse if I over paid for it.

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 23/10/2007 23:15:39finally, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much the prices were people would still get them for free through other routes. why I say that? Because, as I mentioned earlier there are millions of mp3s around the internet which ARE free, from unsigned artists. Why go after the commercial ones really? It's super luxury! If you are looking for film music stuff, go to my site and get my mp3s for free. Of course the quality is tons worst than LOTR but then again my budget for all these tracks was 0$, while LOTR had something like 300,000,000$..

The commercial ones are the ones they KNOW they like.  The commercial ones are the ones they want.  It's just, again, the reality of the situation that it's those they will go after.  If they had reason to hear the FREE mp3 bands somewhere I'm sure they'd go after their music too.  However, if those un-signed bands had the backing of the record lables (thus the exposure and notariety) their mp3 wouldn't be free anymore.  Cause and effect really.

It's ironic, in a way, that the rediculous prices they record labels charge is a result of the advertising/marketing they do to get those artists on their labels exposed and that that very exposure causes the downloading because more and more people know the music.  Cracks me up really. 

Quote from: Nikolas on Tue 23/10/2007 23:15:39
When something is expensive and you can't afford it you simply don't buy it. End of story.

I am talking about the basic concept that it's impossible to put a correct price on a software (in general sence; not only programs, but also information, etc). It's free by nature, and nothing can stop its spread (as various p2p networks show us), and, more important, its spread benefits mankind (with the exception of VERY few people whose 'losses from sharing' are only imaginary), so why must we stop it?

Again, though I do dislike pirates here (some good releases are exceptional; but sometimes pirates DO a better job than legal distributors - as strange as it may sound, but I can give some examples) they are bringing modern culture closer to people.
Come on, some villages don't even have a local pirate, not to mention legal shop, not to mention the Internet access. Some steps have been made, but it's still a long shot here.
So: they LIKE it, they'd even buy it (IF they could afford it and IF it was available to them at all), but their only source is Vasya Pupkin. Sad.

Quote from: FSi on Wed 24/10/2007 12:48:04
I am talking about the basic concept that it's impossible to put a correct price on a software (in general sence; not only programs, but also information, etc). It's free by nature, and nothing can stop its spread (as various p2p networks show us), and, more important, its spread benefits mankind (with the exception of VERY few people whose 'losses from sharing' are only imaginary), so why must we stop it?

I'm all for stopping software patents and all that nonsense, but honestly I can't see how your argument applies to pure entertainment of no actual information content whatsoever. A typical Hollywood blockbuster can hardly be considered beneficial (in the strict sense of the word) for us consumers. Unless you consider relieving boredom such a benefit. It definitely doesn't make us better in any way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not agreeing with all that piracy is stealing crap. Although as soon as you make money selling your pirated products, you cross the line. By the way, has anyone (outside of RIAA/MPAA and the ilk) ever shown any evidence to back the claim that things like file sharing actually have a negative effect on record and movie sales? Personally I'm not likely to ever buy entertainment I don't already know to be good. Books are an exception, mostly due to the price of a paperback being much lower than that of a movie.

FSi, a very important comment which seems to elude (seems) as well as the link you gave me, which I did follow up to a point.

you are confusing copyrights, with ideas.

Ideas are NOT copyrighted. ideas can be patented (Which is a rather small ammount of time and completely set) and is based on the prototype.

In music:

Drums, chords, orchestration and lyrics CANNOT be copyrighted. I mean if this was untrue, there would be 20 songs in total! ;D

On the contrary patent is limited to the prototype and exactly what it does. Nobody can stop somoene else doing a variation. Take the example of always with wings :p. The first to think to have wings. They added a set size. 2 years later ALL had wings. different size, different style, different material.

Djing and jazz are all about ideas and this is where your website is wrong.

Other than that, I'll repeat it I'm not neither a saint, nor a fool, I do see instances were piracy is the only option.



I also agree that it's impossible to put pricing on a product, based on your customer, but this is not how it works. A simple example: I have £1000 rent and £1000 nursery fees. That's around 3000 euros, per month. I need to charge my services accordingly, so I can live. This is London for you. It doesn't matter to me what my customers want exactly. Of course I know the market and know what to charge, but unfortunately someone from India, won't be able to hire me... I need to survive first. By all means, if my survival is set, and clear, I don't think I would start going after for a better car, etc, I would probably give things for "free" or something. At least my thoughts for now.

But just an idea about pricing. It's a continuous struggle (especially for freelancers) to see what, where, who, the budget, etc. and the balance needs to be right.

I purchased the most recent Freezepop album online. I then bought my favourite tracks on iTunes, because the CD was going to take a week to arrive and it was only 70p per track. Then I downloaded a torrent file of the entire album because even though I own one and a half copies of the CD legally already, I can't actually put any of it on my MP3 player because of all the copy protection.

That's stupid.

Had I not actually really liked Freezepop, the temptation would be - as it is with most bands - just to download their music already ripped, for free. That way I can put it on my MP3 player, I can do whatever I like with it.

I would really, really honestly be encouraged to buy music more often if it wasn't for copy protection. It's so stupid because, clearly people can easily get around the copy protection and upload the songs for the entire world to download for free. All it really seems to do effectively is stop people who legally purchased the music, from being able to enjoy it.

I feel very reluctant to pay £10 for a CD full of music that I will rarely actually get to listen to, unless I'm sitting on my PC at home.

It's like saying, "Oh! You bought it! But you can't actually DO anything with it."

Er... sorry this was a bit off topic really. Sorry. Rant over.

I agree. DRM is true culprit in this situation. Happily, a few companies are now realizing the detrimental effect DRM can have on the industry's relationship with it's consumer base.

Nobody wants to be told how often they can play a CD/watch a movie/etc, and few people are rightly reluctant to pay for something that they don't feel they'll actually own.

You can't treat your customers like criminals, and not expect them to rebel.

Can this argument be applied to TV-Links? In a roundabout way, I suppose it can. Various media companies in the US offer free to view content, but block access to IP's from outside the US. Of course there are (semi-)legitimate reasons for doing so, but it annoys people that, because of their location, they are denied the right to view "free" content.

But the shows linked to on TV-Links are also generally available to buy on DVD in most countries/territories, so I guess you could argue that DVD sales could suffer because of such sites.

Of course, each side could probably produce reams of statistics to support/deny such arguments.

QuoteThese production companies should come to the [brain numbingly obvious] realization that the internet isn't going away.  No matter what they do/try they will never stop people downloading stuff from the 'net for free.  This is a no-brainer.

They shouldn't lower their prices because piracy is keeping their sales down.  They should lower their prices because their too-high prices are causing people to get it for free so as to not pay the too-high prices.  Sure, as you said:

First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it. I also think these companies are smart enough to realize the internet is a factor, which is why people can download music on-line for money.

Now I don't honestly care about anyone else's perspective on this issue, in that, I live my life by my code, and you're free to live your life by yours. I'm just not going to cry over something being closed down, that I don't agree with.

I can afford DVDs and CDs, and I don't think their unreasonably priced (for the most part). As a programmer, I firmly don't like the idea of someone spreading around something I created to eek out a living, just because they can't afford to pay prices that are set by my rent, my car, and other things I need to survive.

I think the real issues with the tv-links website are whether or not linking to "illegal" material is wrong. Of course, if you think you should be able to get that material for free anyway, you won't really care. If, however, you honestly like a show (especially a current running show), isn't it far better to buy the DVDs and hopefully, tell the big wigs that the show should run for another season? Yes there are gray area's where there are shows that aren't being released to DVD, or just aren't accessible in your area. If you think hosting the sites is wrong than I can't see how linking the sites could be right.

-MillsJROSS

Quoteisn't it far better to buy the DVDs and hopefully, tell the big wigs that the show should run for another season?

Oh, is THAT what it does? Then I shall stop buying them forthwith, so that they learn not to stretch great shows for huge periods of time "just because". After all, all good things have a beggining, a middle and an end, and a belated end kills most of the whole thing. I don't want to be a part of that.

...ok, so I don't actually buy them. But if I did, I'd surely stop now.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 01:18:19First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it.

This is just a matter of opinion.  Selling something that cost 30 cents (to produce) for 15 dollars is robbery.  Plain and simple.  No matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.  It's not that I can't afford it.  I could easily if I thought it was a reasonable price.  I do not.  And I'm not alone.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 01:18:19I also think these companies are smart enough to realize the internet is a factor, which is why people can download music on-line for money.

In this regard, I completely disagree.  They offer up on-line music, sure, then they charge the same amount to download an album as if you bought the CD only you don't get any of the tangible materials, there's not even 1/100th of the distribution, the list goes on and on.  This is rediculous!!  You get far less for the same cost!  That's so stupid I can't think of adjectives worthy to describe it!

I don't think it has anything to do with their [lack of] smarts (which they do lack in my opinion).  It's their insatiable greed and their desire to keep lining their pockets through the ignorance and naivety of their consumers.  I, for one, will not contribute to that.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 01:18:19Now I don't honestly care about anyone else's perspective on this issue, in that, I live my life by my code, and you're free to live your life by yours. I'm just not going to cry over something being closed down, that I don't agree with.

I'm not going to cry over it either.  I'll just use one of the three that popped-up to take it's place 30 seconds after it was closed down or one of the other of a million that are still up and running. :)

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 01:18:19I can afford DVDs and CDs, and I don't think their unreasonably priced (for the most part). As a programmer, I firmly don't like the idea of someone spreading around something I created to eek out a living, just because they can't afford to pay prices that are set by my rent, my car, and other things I need to survive.

As a programmer I agree.  I don't like the idea of my stuff being spread around freely.  However, there's nothing that I can do to stop it.  It's going to happen whether I like it or not.  So I simply don't lose sleep over it or make a silly attempt to stop it.

I look at it like this: No matter how idealistic people want to be about the subject, it's not going to stop.  No matter how much time, effort, and money is put into anti-piracy/stopping it, it's not going to stop.  No matter how many laws are put into place, it's not going to stop.  The more effort is put against it, the stronger it will get.

I don't know ... I guess it just amazes me how many people seem to like pissing in the wind!

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 25/10/2007 02:24:26

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 01:18:19First off, I completely disagree that CDs are too expensive. I'd say the average CD is about $15 - $25. I've easily drop more than that on a meal and not even think about it.

This is just a matter of opinion.  Selling something that cost 30 cents (to produce) for 15 dollars is robbery.  Plain and simple.  No matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.  It's not that I can't afford it.  I could easily if I thought it was a reasonable price.  I do not.  And I'm not alone.

I don't think that this is the case really. It's more a matter of ignorance, sorry Darth.

When "intellectual property" is involved there are two different phases going on. Music, software, games are such things.

Phase 1. Get your budget back.

Sure a CD costs 10 cent to get, and the whole packaging let's say that it costs another 20 so 30 cent all together.

But behind all that there is a huge budget that could very well be 10,000,000$ (for Michael Jackson). This involves videos (do you realise how much it costs to run a 4 minute video?), all artists involved, studio time, and equipement, producers, engineers, the band, living, running, concerts, advertising, etc. For big bands the 10,000,000$ is a small ammount.

For any company to be alive they need to make up that money VERY VERY fast, simply because pop music doesn't last. Result? The actual price behind the CD could very well be 5$ for the first month or so. Why? To make the budget. They can't afford not to. And since they are aiming at 5$, the actual price is 15-25$. Makes commercial sense.

In addition a company needs to make a living itself. It is offering hugely. you know why? Cause you want THESE bands, and THESE bands only (and not the unsigned). Because the company has made them appealing to you ;)

Phase 2.

Budget is back, no problem. They need to gather more money for the next budget but that's not much of a problem. So the actual price behind the CD drops to 50 cents (to get a few more for the next budget). This is where the stealing begins. But actually CD prices drop to 2-3$ after a while.

What I still don't get is why not wait for the prices to drop?

Because once again the latest Britney mp3 IS not a necessity. Want toxic? Get it for almost free now. Nobosy else wants it! It will be dead free. Same with Harry Potter books.

What is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 25/10/2007 07:04:51Because once again the latest Britney mp3 IS not a necessity. Want toxic? Get it for almost free now. Nobosy else wants it! It will be dead free. Same with Harry Potter books.

What is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

I really hate to get into debates like this. And Nikolas, I do agree with you on the CD costs.

However, if CDs and music become practically free after a few months, why not download it for free now? It'll be free in a few months anyway, and at least now it's hip. In a few months, people might mock the fact that I haven't listened to a CD yet. Price tag of free won't make up for that either.

But really, if the record companies stopped worrying about money and made some good music every so often, we wouldn't have this problem.

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 25/10/2007 07:04:51I don't think that this is the case really. It's more a matter of ignorance, sorry Darth.

No need to apologize for having an opinion. 

I don't see it as ignorance.  At least, not on my part.

Because, as I said:

QuoteNo matter the excuses used; promotions, distribution, advertising/marketing, blah blah blah it doesn't warrant such a rediculous mark-up.

They (or you, or anybody) can make all the excuses/explanations on the planet.  In the end it's my decision to pay (or not pay in this case) the prices they charge.

If the situation is as you say:

QuoteWhat is SO urgent that you need to get it for free, bypassing the living of 100s of people involved in that creation of that CD?

And they try to justify their prices by having to support the living of 100s of people involved in the creation of the CD ... well, given the reality of mp3 sharing and downloading they need to re-visit their business model.  There simply is no reason for "100s" of people to be involved in making one CD.  A 14 year old boy can produce a studio quality CD on his home computer these days.  It's just another excuse being used to continue the raping of their consumers.

It's all good man.  You see it your way, I see it mine.  But I must, again, point out the reality that:

No matter how idealistic people want to be about the subject:
It's not going to stop.

No matter how much time, effort, and money is put into anti-piracy/stopping it:
It's not going to stop.

No matter how many laws are put into place:
It's not going to stop.

This debate has been going on for a decade now.  The amount of "illegal" downloads has increased steadily despite all the hooplah against it.  Those the fight against it have, in my opinion, accomplished nothing.  All they've done is waste their time, money, and effort for no appreciable results.  Sure... they did arrest some old ladies and young boys and shut down one (of millions) of torrentz sites.  Way to go Crusaders!!

Spending millions of dollars to accomplish nothing ... yeah, that's business smarts right there!

Certainly a 14 year old cannot do what NIN, or Radiohead, or other big bands, or commercial even bands do. Proof: you want the big bands, not the 14 year old (who, chances are is free).

In the end, sure you may no accept the excuses and explanation, and is fine by me, but they are there and make sense. You stand your ground by commenting that you won't give in, you are not giving anti-arguments to what I've told you. I gave you a reasoning on the prices of the CDs. You found it an excuse.
Fair enough, there is obviously nothing I can do to change your mind, and really this "debate" is not about that really. I already knew that from the minute I replied to you. We've been there before, my friend :)

But, as you are, I'm also attempting to try and find any reasoning in what you say and the basic argument "I won't stop", is not even one.

The business model that doesn't work for you, actually works, let me repeat that. It made te music that YOU want to download. Without that model you no longer want the track. Bizzare huh? ;)

Obviously DRM is rubbish, companies chassing pirates is rubbish, and obviously pricing and the whole situation needs to change. Radiohead are taking a step to the right direction in my opinion, I have plans for further ideas about it (promoting and selling of music), which involves something else. But I certainly am not dependant on getting published and hope to sell. Prefer to have my stuff for free out there. :)

Evil: The (ethical and ideal) difference is that if you buy it in the begining you give 13-15-25$ however back to the budget. If you get it later you give to their earnings. Practicaly free and legal is not illegal and totally free, right? I really really want the orange box (for PC), but am waiting a bit. I have to spend money elsewhere (and will post pics about it!) I don't really need it that bad so I have to take it for free. Furthermore I don't care if you all speak about it. A bit envious, yes, but nothing I can't handle...

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 25/10/2007 08:08:27
The business model that doesn't work for you, actually works, let me repeat that. It made te music that YOU want to download. Without that model you no longer want the track. Bizzare huh? ;)

I've been following the discussion with great interest, but this line caught my eye. Could you elaborate a little more on this, Nikolas? Because I'm assuming you're referring to the business model of record companies distributing and marketing the music etc., and therefore inflating the cost of one CD. You're saying that without this model, people wouldn't want to download the music anymore? Is that because people wouldn't be aware of the existence of the band, or what? Why wouldn't this alternative - artistes without record companies - work?

I'm asking because I think indie bands are gaining more and more popularity these days. Have a look at the almost cult following of bands like The Arcade Fire. Artistes are also beginning to reject the control that record companies have over their music, preferring instead to market their music directly to their audience. Radiohead is one example of this, and I believe many bands are following in their footsteps. This would indicate that the business model of going through record companies is failing.

Certainly, right now the main issue is that getting signed means more exposure, since these record companies are the ones with the most money to spend on marketing and advertising and publicity stunts. I don't doubt that. But to change that, people just need to be shown where else to get good music, besides relying on record companies to tell them - not what music is good music - but what music is popular music.

auriond:

what I mean is that there are literally millions of free tracks, legally, from unsigned artists floating on the net. If one wants music they can go to myspace to the millions of pages and listen their hearts out.

But for some reason, pirates aim for those tracks that cost lots of money to produce, and the main reason for that is exactly the company behind it, the huge budget, and the promotion, otherwise it's not tons better than any track out there. So the actual business model, and the existance of the company behind the commercial tracks is what makes a track so appealing to pirates, while another small band, with the same music, wouldn't have the same faith.

Other than that, I know that the music industry is changing and it's about time. There isn't the need for huge budgets (but still a 14 year old wouldn't make it), but a 30 year old who knows a lot, could come close, and the Internet is aiding to the promotion with minimal money again.

What I was doing above was answering Darths comment that they need to change business plan: this plan works cause you are caught with it and want this music. Problem would be if you didn't want this music so no buy, but no piracy as well. That would truly be the end of the industry. right now you want it, but just rebel a bit...

EDIT:

For a small fact. I've made 5 recordings of classical (contemporary) tracks, and I'm thinking of sending them to radio stations in case they would like to play them.

So, in my head, I thought to make the best I can:

I contacted somebody (if he doesn't mind, I can name him) to make me the cover. Gave him pictures of me, and wanted to find an older photoshoot I had done with a photographer.

I also have someone to take care of the texts etc.

That is 3 people for you + me.

Now the orchestras were 25 people (strings) , 2 solo strings, me as a solo piano artists, 2 studios, and a string quartet. All different people.

So for the production of this semi-professional production CD, it actually took 25+2+1+3+4+3 people. This is... 35 or something. No promotion included. And all this, just to do a bit of decent work, and not make a copy of a crappy CD and send it over with handwritten "Nikolas Sideris" on a silver noname CD.

This is a real life example, which stands completely true. without any of the 35 people quality would reduce greatly, and without the musicians there would be no music to speak of. Maybe not a 100, but for a commercial CD imagine how many are needed, just to get the CD out.

Quote from: radiowaves on Mon 22/10/2007 16:25:03
Where can I now watch my documentaries?

Luckily there are some other places, still not so great, but at least something  :-\

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/

There are some politically-oriented ones here. this might not be exactly what you are looking for, but who knows...

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 25/10/2007 08:08:27Certainly a 14 year old cannot do what NIN, or Radiohead, or other big bands, or commercial even bands do. Proof: you want the big bands, not the 14 year old (who, chances are is free).

I think you misunderstood me there.  What I meant was, as far as the production of the CD, the 14 year old can do that on his home computer.  He isn't the "band", just the one puttin' the CD together.  I have several CDs that I have bought for local bands that I support (Abruzzi Drive, Whirling Road, the Killer Flamingos just to name a few)  I bought their CDs (which without exception were recorded, mixed, produced on home computer setups) because I knew all the money was going directly to them.  There is no difference between their CDs and ones put together by "100s of people".

QuoteIn the end, sure you may no accept the excuses and explanation, and is fine by me, but they are there and make sense. You stand your ground by commenting that you won't give in, you are not giving anti-arguments to what I've told you. I gave you a reasoning on the prices of the CDs. You found it an excuse.

I did give my anti-argument.  I've been stating my anti-argument through this whole thread and, to be honest, am a little sick of typing it over and over :P

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 25/10/2007 09:12:26This is a real life example, which stands completely true. without any of the 35 people quality would reduce greatly, and without the musicians there would be no music to speak of. Maybe not a 100, but for a commercial CD imagine how many are needed, just to get the CD out.

My example(s) above of local bands had, at most, 5 or 6 people doing the entire thing (only 1 if you don't count the band members)  and the quality was just as good as any commercial CD out there.  Once again, it's just another example (to my way of thinking) of how people just accept something as, "this is just how it's done" rather than considering a new [much needed] business model.

I refuse to accept this due to the experience (albeit rather limitted) that I've had with CD production.

QuoteBut for some reason, pirates aim for those tracks that cost lots of money to produce, and the main reason for that is exactly the company behind it, the huge budget, and the promotion, otherwise it's not tons better than any track out there. So the actual business model, and the existance of the company behind the commercial tracks is what makes a track so appealing to pirates, while another small band, with the same music, wouldn't have the same faith.

Exactly the point I was making with:

QuoteIt's ironic, in a way, that the rediculous prices they record labels charge is a result of the advertising/marketing they do to get those artists on their labels exposed and that that very exposure causes the downloading because more and more people know the music.  Cracks me up really.

I don't have any statistics (and don't really care enough to search for some) but I'd wager that CD sales haven't declined in recent years.  Those the buy CDs are still buying them or this raping wouldn't be continuing as it has for the last decade since mp3 came on the scene.

Well, actually what lot of you don't see is the actual process of doing quality recordings. Usually distributors etc have their own studio. Yes, band plays the music, but mixers make it sound good. An no, I don't think a 14 year old could do proffesional mastering, that sounds right on just about every device its played. If they can do it on home computer (which I highly doubt), then its fine, but its their decision. So why bands don't do home producing if 14 year olds can even do it?
I am also shure that good distribution costs lots of money too. But that does not excuse the amount of money they rip off from musicians. It should be at least 50-50%

Nikolas:
I calmed down and what did I see? We look like a couple of those toys, you know, ones you have to pull some sort of a cord to hear them say pre-recorded message. Not that I ever even touched one, but still.
I say my arguments (probably missing helluva lot of your points), you read them and answer them while missing helluva lot of my points. Never actually checked that out, but apparently you've repeated yourself a couple of times (and, for the record, so did I).
Speaking of business models, information flows and such, this particular information flow model we've fallen into seems pretty useless to me. Maybe we could change it?

Everyone else:
This have a little connection to the whole tv-links.co.uk affair. Maybe someone should start a "copyrights discussion" topic that would grow popular, eventually become popular enough to be transferred to Popular Thread and become almost forgotten by everyone as any other thread there.

Quote from: FSi on Thu 25/10/2007 14:10:28This have a little connection to the whole tv-links.co.uk affair. Maybe someone should start a "copyrights discussion" topic that would grow popular, eventually become popular enough to be transferred to Popular Thread and become almost forgotten by everyone as any other thread there.

How much more can be said about tvlinks being shut down? :P

Anytime a thread touches [even lightly] the subject of mp3 it turns into this.  Just as anytime a subject touches on religion you get pages of debate.

[beating a dead-horse] Reality of the situation [/dead-horse]

It's all good (for me).  I still love you all :)

Oh and Nik - if you are ever selling your music (and it's something that I would want to listen to) worry not, I would gladly give you the money for it!  As long as the money goes to you of course :)

First of Nicolas I agree with you. And second of all to the rest you can do piracy at any grade and at any rate as long as it's not your enjoyment over others people hard work. Think before you download.

It costs my girlfriend probably 3 cents for a piece of paper. She then draws someone's portrait on it and sells it to them for 10 dollars... Frankly this is absurd and I'm going to start stealing portraits of myself from her from now on  until she charges me the proper price that I've arbitrarily set, not taking into account anything else but the single cost of a piece of paper!

Also, cars are expensive, and shoes too! These are all up for grabs now!

I loved TV links but then all their links upgraded to some new flash player and none of them worked in my Wii anymore... BOO!

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 25/10/2007 22:05:10It costs my girlfriend probably 3 cents for a piece of paper. She then draws someone's portrait on it and sells it to them for 10 dollars... Frankly this is absurd and I'm going to start stealing portraits of myself from her from now on  until she charges me the proper price that I've arbitrarily set, not taking into account anything else but the single cost of a piece of paper!

Also, cars are expensive, and shoes too! These are all up for grabs now!

If your statement is/was directed at me:

That's a rediculous comparison to make.  Please re-read my posts before accusing me of "arbitrarily" this or "not taking into account" that ... as clearly, I'm doing neither.

Now I'm going to prepare dinner for the AGS forums.  Tonight, we'll be having Reality Sandwhiches.  I can tell some AGSers have never had them before. :P 

Yummmm...

It seems to me that the business model set by the industry is still working for the artist. You can argue all you want that not all your money is going to an artist, but most musicians the industry is backing and pimping, are filthy rich. If you're a good internet band, how much money do you think they're making. Even if there are a few who get by. I'm not saying we should measure an artists success by how much money they're making, but it just seems that we're arguing that this model isn't working, but it seems the artists are surviving.

Even if most of their money comes from tours, who do you think sets those tours up and advertises for them. Yes, not all of your money is going to the artists, it's going to a plethora of people who helped contributed. Yes, some of your money is going to be funneled into someone's pocket, who probably has almost nothing to do with the artist or music. The model is working for that guy, too.

I'm not arguing the system is perfect. I think if you can pay your bills and just be in a local band, you're doing well. I wouldn't steal from either business model, is all.

Of course, you're not going to stop downloading of free content. Arguably, the internet has just made this easy, it's not like it created a black market. Industry's have been dealing with stealing for as long as they've been selling products. You might as well argue that we shouldn't arrest people, because someone else will be doing the same crime in the future.

Frankly, the only thing I'm concerned about when I purchase music is whether or not I like the music. Now, if the industry was clubbing baby seals for every CD sold, I might refrain, but I've never felt that the industry was an evil entity. It's an entity run on the basis of making profit, and it's product is Music. It's like any industry, you're not going to get the greatest item in the world, but it will be dependable, and it will be consistently good. If I buy a Mrs. Smith's apple pie, I don't expect it to taste better than a homemade local pie shop's pie, but I know it will taste good.

I in no way think worse of people who download music, or watch tv shows online. It's just something I won't do. I do understand the logic behind stealing, to some degree. I just think it's flawed. I don't believe we are entitled to have something for free just because we don't agree with how that something is being produced or we don't like the person(s) producing it.

Quote
That's a rediculous comparison to make.  Please re-read my posts before accusing me of "arbitrarily" this or "not taking into account" that ... as clearly, I'm doing neither.

That's what I understood you to mean when I re-read your post. I thought his comment was rather correct. Of course, I don't much like reality sandwiches, so what do I know.

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 25/10/2007 23:03:57That's what I understood you to mean when I re-read your post. I thought his comment was rather correct.

Firstly: Could you (or anybody) please quote my post where I suggested a price for CDs in this thread?  I merely stated that they need to lower the prices.  Never suggested a price, arbitrarily or other.

Thanks.

Second: I clearly (on several occasions) stated that I know there is more to it than just the CD.  I, also clearly (and several times), stated that I disagree with these lame-ass excuses for ripping us off.  How is this, pray-tell, not "taking into account more than just the CD"?

Thanks.

QuoteSecond: I clearly (on several occasions) stated that I know there is more to it than just the CD.  I, also clearly (and several times), stated that I disagree with these lame-ass excuses for ripping us off.  How is this, pray-tell, not "taking into account more than just the CD"?

Yes, it seems you're willing to concede that there are additional costs to CDs, but any cost you don't agree with becomes lame ass. While you may not be dismissing other costs, besides the CD, your posts do give the impression that you're not even willing to consider those arguments as discussion points. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there should be any money spent on advertising and marketing, it's something the company DOES spend money on, and therefore SHOULD be factored into the cost of a CD.

I'm not in anyway condoning what the Industry is doing, or for that matter saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that there is something they spent money on, and they need to get their money back.

Regardless of whether or not you think they charge too much for CDs, it's their right to charge whatever they want. They could add 2 dollars to every CD so that they can buy a herd of donkeys to ride around in their offices. It's their product, they are free to set the prices. Not everyone will be able to afford the prices. Just because it's charged a price we don't believe in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it for free through other means.

I'm not going to reread all your posts to find any proof of what you said or what you didn't say. I had read your posts, and that's the impression I got, I apologize, if I mistook your previous posts. But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous." I, however, do think that dismissing excuses and calling them "lame-ass" is a horrible way to have a discussion. But I'd never say it was a ridiculous way to have a discussion.

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 01:34:23Yes, it seems you're willing to concede that there are additional costs to CDs, but any cost you don't agree with becomes lame ass. While you may not be dismissing other costs, besides the CD, your posts do give the impression that you're not even willing to consider those arguments as discussion points. Regardless of your opinion on whether or not there should be any money spent on advertising and marketing, it's something the company DOES spend money on, and therefore SHOULD be factored into the cost of a CD.

You admit that I acknowledge the "reasons" but you don't understand that I don't agree with them and consider them to be "lame-ass" excuses?  What else am I supposed to do about this?  Flip-flop and go along just so the "righteous" don't get upset 'cause I refuse to buy CDs?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  As I consider all other people's opinions as their opinions, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to mine.  Regardless of who does or doesn't agree with it.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 01:34:23Regardless of whether or not you think they charge too much for CDs, it's their right to charge whatever they want. They could add 2 dollars to every CD so that they can buy a herd of donkeys to ride around in their offices. It's their product, they are free to set the prices. Not everyone will be able to afford the prices. Just because it's charged a price we don't believe in, doesn't mean we're entitled to get it for free through other means.

I think this is something I'm aware of.  Since I already said:

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 23/10/2007 22:57:58I know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

Again, something I've adressed on more than one ocassion in this thread.  However, since ...

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 01:34:23I'm not going to reread all your posts to find any proof of what you said or what you didn't say. I had read your posts, and that's the impression I got, I apologize, if I mistook your previous posts. But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous."

... You might not remember.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 01:34:23But, I did not think MrColossals comparison was "ridiculous." I, however, do think that dismissing excuses and calling them "lame-ass" is a horrible way to have a discussion. But I'd never say it was a ridiculous way to have a discussion.

First, you just did say it.  Second, I would say that to agree with somebody's statement that accuses me of saying something, but not being willing to re-read my posts to back it up when I refute it is a horrible way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion which, apprently, I'm not entitled to 'cause I download mp3 ** sob sob **

You know what ... this thread is going nowhere.

To those holy-crusaders of the mp3 debate.  I assure you you're wasting your time getting upset over this.  It's not going to stop.  But by all means keep on with the [lost cause, hopeless, pointless, go nowhere] quest!  Just like the incapable-of-forward-thinking record companies you have the right to continue wasting energy on a battle you'll never win!!

Darth, you know that I'm not after you to make you change your mind. And you know that I'm not crusder or saint, and that I did use TV-links myself.

I just want you to realise that there is no real reason behind piracy in any case really, because there are alternatives and it's not bread you're taking, it's mp3s. The only reason is that it's dead easy and that it's dead cheap (=free). Same with almost (<-almost, for anyone who would like to jump at me) other P2P lover, including myself, although I wouldn't call me a lover personally. I can't find an argument to back me up when I download a track or a short video or  something. There is no excuse but that I don't want to get my card out and pay the 1£ or something. Not even the quality of what I'm getting is not important.

I just want to see that in this thread, nothing else. It's not about right or wrong, it's not about anything. I just don't want to see people proclaiming that they pirate, or download stuff, because it's either
a. ethical (what? where?)
b. righteous (like above)
c. they are commenting or complaining about something (no you're not. You don't need to pirate in order to complain. you need to NOT buy, in order to show that you can withstand the siren call of the mp3s that they have so well packaged)
d. they can't do without. (mp3s? Michale Jackson, or NIN? Come on! It's not bread! It's mp3s)
e. They don't need me buying. They have tons already. (huh? did you check their last tax return maybe?)

That's all. The correct answer to 95% of the cases is:
f. Nothing. (It's just easy and free. No philosophy behind it)

Now, this 5% that I live outside, are the people behind the try before buy movement, who are actually doing something completely active, and in addition have a very specific role in what they do (try before you buy, but don't make money out of cracked software) which, they personally, follow like a "bibble" of sorts. I can accept that THEY, or demoniac, have a very specific ideology. Because they are donating their time and possible a huge fine and their freedom to do that. When you download the software, you don't abide to that philosophy, nor help really, nor complain loudly to the companies. None of that.

And yes, while I'm talking to you Darth, this is general, not only to you, as half of the things I put in the a-d list do not belong to you, nor half of the paragraphs I wrote. :)

Please keep in mind how much I like you Darth, and everyone in here, and this is just the debate and nothing special at all! AT ALL! This is for the shake of discussion really, not to persuade anyone to stop something that I have done in the past, and still do...

Mills, fast question: Have you used P2P in your life before? Just to prove that we are not preaching and all that. Just speaking our minds and the way we think (the 'we' comes a bit abusive... )

QuoteYou admit that I acknowledge the "reasons" but you don't understand that I don't agree with them and consider them to be "lame-ass" excuses?  What else am I supposed to do about this?  Flip-flop and go along just so the "righteous" don't get upset 'cause I refuse to buy CDs?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  As I consider all other people's opinions as their opinions, I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to mine.  Regardless of who does or doesn't agree with it.

I'd perhaps want some validation as to why you think they're "lame-ass." I've never stated that you're not entitled to your opinion. I'm not even sure I said you're opinion didn't count. It's just very difficult for me to argue against "lame-ass" without calling you a "doodie head."

QuoteI know it's not my product to manufacture, distribute, etc and I don't get to determine the cost of the product.  However, it is my money and I decide what I will spend it on.  They don't seem to grasp this concept.

I believe they perfectly grasp your concept. It's simple economics, and I'm sure they have several Ivy League College employees there to explain things for them. The truth is, they rely on the people who do decide to spend their money on CDs. They set prices to them.

QuoteFirst, you just did say it.  Second, I would say that to agree with somebody's statement that accuses me of saying something, but not being willing to re-read my posts to back it up when I refute it is a horrible way to have a discussion.  Just my opinion which, apprently, I'm not entitled to 'cause I download mp3 ** sob sob **

You're entitled to that opinion. I'm sorry I'm not able to oblige you by reading the ten or more posts you made AGAIN. That's a rather tall order to make. However, I didn't say you were discussing things in a ridiculous way. I said I didn't. A ridiculous way would imply that you had no logical ground to stand on, and I'd be laughing at your statements. This isn't the case. I meant you were being logical in an unpleasant way. This doesn't mean I'm dismissing your opinions, though.

QuoteTo those holy-crusaders of the mp3 debate.  I assure you you're wasting your time getting upset over this.  It's not going to stop.  But by all means keep on with the [lost cause, hopeless, pointless, go nowhere] quest!  Just like the incapable-of-forward-thinking record companies you have the right to continue wasting energy on a battle you'll never win!!

I'm not upset about this. I think it's wrong, but as I said, I don't think any less of anyone who lives by their own set of principles. To be perfectly honest, though, this argument is a little out of my element. I don't really listen to music, I prefer the upbeat voice of NPR. So I don't buy CDs, or have much an interest in attaining music legally or illegally. I just don't believe in stealing.

I'd also like to extend the olive branch of peace, if you've been offended by anything I've posted. Something that generally goes without saying, but I sense a little heat to this back and forth, and just want to clear the air. The hard part of this internet thing is it's hard to grasp a tone of voice, and I rarely, if ever, intend to offend.

-MillsJROSS

EDIT-- Nikolas,
I have indeed downloaded music before. So, no, I'm no saint. But I stopped once I realized it would be hypocritical of me to want to sell software and expect people not to get it illegally, if I was doing the same. That was five years ago. I have also been to tv-links, but more on a try before buy principle. It's why I bought Venture Bros.

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 02:53:40You're entitled to that opinion. I'm sorry I'm not able to oblige you by reading the ten or more posts you made AGAIN. That's a rather tall order to make. However, I didn't say you were discussing things in a ridiculous way. I said I didn't. A ridiculous way would imply that you had no logical ground to stand on, and I'd be laughing at your statements. This isn't the case. I meant you were being logical in an unpleasant way. This doesn't mean I'm dismissing your opinions, though.

I guess I misunderstood you!

Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 26/10/2007 02:53:40I'd also like to extend the olive branch of peace, if you've been offended by anything I've posted. Something that generally goes without saying, but I sense a little heat to this back and forth, and just want to clear the air. The hard part of this internet thing is it's hard to grasp a tone of voice, and I rarely, if ever, intend to offend.

It's all good.  I don't take 'net things personally so no worries on that front.  I didn't mean for it to get "heated" either.

So peace! :)

Darth, we're gently trying to tell you to stop being a pirate.  Come on man, return to the light.  Forsake those dark mp3 desires and embrace pure capitalism in all its glory!  Oh, and buy some more copies of The Shivah, will you?  I don't care if you don't like the game, I WANT MY MONEY :(

Quote
They took our jobs!!

Here's a reality sandwich for everyone to chow down on:

Quote from: Amon Tobin

well the debate about illegal downloads has obviously been raging for some time.  some blame it for the crisis the music industry is currently facing, others herald this as a new utopian era for the consumer. contrary to the oversimplified views sighted by both ends of the spectrum I believe this to be a fairly complex issue with radically different implications for different artists and labels.

with this in mind I see no point in entering into debate on the general issue here. nor would I consider it my place to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. all I can comment on with any certainty is how all this has affected me personally and in light of my nearing release this might be of interest to those of you who've expressed an interest in my music.

over the last few months I've received a surprising amount of mail from people who'd downloaded 'foley room'. the comments are very positive and many encourage me to "keep on doing what you're doing" for which I am thankful.

today, the release date for my album, it's unlikely that you will see it in most high street shops and after the initial run it's unlikely that you will be able to order a copy even from online stores. this is because in-spite of more people having access to and apparently listening to my music than ever before, the predicted sales of the record were so low that it didn't justify the manufacture or distribution to any significant level. strange? not when you consider how hard it might be to convince any retail outlet, physical or digital, that they should try and sell something everybody could already get for free months beforehand.

so what does this mean in the wider context? who the fuck knows. like I say I won't speculate on the wider picture and you can draw your own conclusions as to what this means with regards to my own future output. again I stress that I'm not talking about what should happen here. I'm not saying I should be able to 'keep on doing what I'm doing' or even that my record deserves to be bought. all I'm saying, mainly for the benefit of those who might otherwise have been unaware, is that if you personally like what I do and wish to continue hearing more then the only way that will happen is if you support it.

Bottom line is no matter what elaborate excuses you make up to make you feel better about being a cheapskate, no matter how archaic you percieve the recording industry to be, if you pirate music the artists will suffer.

Edit: Unless they're dead, in which case go nuts!

I'm Dutch (historically seen as cheapskates) and Jewish (historically seen as greedy).

I'm genetically built to illegally download MP3s :D

But if I really like the album, oftentimes I'll purchase it regardless. I don't see downloading TV shows as piracy. I don't participate in the viewing ratings program, so what I watch isn't even noticed by anyone, I pay my taxes for my television rights, and whatnot. I'm not taking money from anyone due to that. Movies, sure, but there are periods of the year where I'll go to the theater once a week to see a movie. I don't purchase DVDs because I usually only watch a movie once. Why would I want a DVD, watch it once then forget about it and give it away?

There's no logical reason to purchase TV shows or movies on DVD for me. Therefore I download - the money saved is a bonus rather than the point.

Music? Yeah, I'm a pirate. Games? Yeah, I'm a pirate.

Do I still purchase music and games? Of course, but not everything. Of the 6500 MP3's currently on my main system (and an additional 1200 on my laptop, but they overlap a lot), approximately 30-35% is legally ripped from my own CD's.

Why? Because most of the albums I own illegally generally suck, and I only like one or two songs out of it, which are consequently the only tracks I'll have of that album.

It's not just about being free and easy, though that IS a factor. It's that I feel gypped when I pay 20-25 euro for a CD and only actually WANT 1/10th of the album ANYWAY.

And yeah, hoorah, iTunes. Don't have a credit card and can't, even. DRM infused in the songs is another reason not to. The fact that iTunes only offers AAC also doesn't help. When I purchase music, I refuse to be told how many times I can copy it to a different system or in what software I can listen to it.

I'll pirate as long as it seems worthwhile. When the legal alternatives can give me that feeling too, maybe then I'll choose otherwise.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 25/10/2007 22:05:10
It costs my girlfriend probably 3 cents for a piece of paper. She then draws someone's portrait on it and sells it to them for 10 dollars... Frankly this is absurd and I'm going to start stealing portraits of myself from her from now on  until she charges me the proper price that I've arbitrarily set, not taking into account anything else but the single cost of a piece of paper!

Wouldn't this work better as an analogy if you extended this little story a bit? Maybe by adding a third party who produces massive amounts of relatively cheap copies of these portraits and sells them for 20 dollars a piece, taking most of the profit. Sure, it's good business and all that. Nothing wrong with good business.

What's not good business is putting a significant part of the profits on something that cannot possibly work. Like stopping piracy. That's where I fully agree with Darth. (If you call gleaning profit from lawsuit settlements good business and/or more ethical than piracy, there's something wrong with you.)  I also agree that lowering their prices to a more reasonable level would be another example of good business.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 25/10/2007 22:05:10
Also, cars are expensive, and shoes too! These are all up for grabs now!

If you steal a car, someone loses theirs. Same with shoes. And if you download an mp3? Does anyone lose anything? I'd bet that as often as someone doesn't buy an album just because he can get it for free, someone discovers an artist through a pirated mp3 and subsequently buys an album they would otherwise not have known they wanted.

Wouldn't you agree that wailing about pirates who are killing the industry is pretty daft, if you're not exactly doing any worse because of them? Granted, CD as a medium is slowly giving way to digital distribution, which more than explains the way CD sales have been decreasing since the year 2000 or so while online sales have been gaining speed. On the other hand, MPAA is doing better than ever while movie piracy flourishes, and the game industry isn't any worse off.

My point is, no, I don't think piracy is ethical or right or whatever. But there is more to this than the black-and-white imagery some corporations and corporately backed/brainwashed individuals like to paint.

It's not really that complicated.  You get something without paying for it when you should have, it is stealing.  Blah blah blah mp3s aren't physical products blah blah blah.  People pirate because it's pretty risk free compared to shoplifting, and we're all inherently greedy and cheapskates.  You want something, you can get it relatively risk free without paying, you take it.

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 11:55:15
It's not really that complicated.  You get something without paying for it when you should have, it is stealing.  Blah blah blah mp3s aren't physical products blah blah blah.  People pirate because it's pretty risk free compared to shoplifting, and we're all inherently greedy and cheapskates.  You want something, you can get it relatively risk free without paying, you take it.

If you get something without paying for it when you should have, it's a theft.
When someone makes you pay more money for something thad cost less than nothing, it's a scam.
When someone does this on the global scale, it's a global scale scam. And that scam begins with the implication that one could and should make money from intellectual property, make money by restricting someone else's rights (on the lowest level it's all like that, get down here, it's all warm and cozy).

I think Radiohead have almost gotten it right with In Rainbows. The system I would use would be:

* 160kbps MP3s you chose how much to pay for.
* 48khz/24-bit FLACs and high res downloadable artwork, £8 (for the folks that want uncompressed, high quality tracks)
* 2xCD with bonus tracks, 2xVinyl and artwork, free MP3 and FLAC downloads, other bonus items, £40 made to order.

So you have your casual iPodders covered with satisfactory MP3s that they can judge how much is worth, the more quality-concious folks can get better-than-cd-quality digital files and the high res artwork, and the fans that want everything get bonus material, hard copies that will probably be eBayable and retain their value.

The reason why artists are suffering now is because the recording industry just doesn't know how to respond to the majority of people no longer caring about CDs, or being able to get music for free. It's the independant artists and labels being run out of flats or at a low profit who CARE about music that are really suffering here, and not the RIAA or the suits who made monies selling everyone their old record collection back to them on CD.

Piracy isn't going to go away, so musicians and labels are going to have to get their heads around this and find an incentive to give people to actually purchase music rather than go and download it from a torrent site. In Rainbows is a massive step in the right direction.  

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 09:19:38Bottom line is no matter what elaborate excuses you make up to make you feel better about being a cheapskate, no matter how archaic you percieve the recording industry to be, if you pirate music the artists will suffer.

Just another opinion from an artist that I've never heard of (or downloaded).  Sounds to me more like somebody trying to get their point of view about the "evils" of downloading rather than any real-world example.  But, having no clue who the "artist" is I don't really know.

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 11:55:15It's not really that complicated.  You get something without paying for it when you should have, it is stealing.  Blah blah blah mp3s aren't physical products blah blah blah.  People pirate because it's pretty risk free compared to shoplifting, and we're all inherently greedy and cheapskates.  You want something, you can get it relatively risk free without paying, you take it.

Quote from: FSi on Fri 26/10/2007 12:27:06If you get something without paying for it when you should have, it's a theft.

I should think it's become obvious by now that there is no "bottom line" and that it is "that complicated".  No matter how obvious, clear, and sure you are on the subject that doesn't immediately make it "fact".  People have vastly varying views/opinions on this subject.  You see it as "obviously/bottom line" theft.  Others don't.  You aren't going to change their view, they aren't going to change yours.  The way I see it here, those that rally against downloading mp3 are just setting themselves up for disappointment 'cause you simply will not stop it.

You can make all the subtle insults about how those that download are just "cheapskates" and "theives" and how we "try to justify" blah blah blah.  What I believe is what I believe and whether anybody else accepts it I could really care less.  Nobody on the planet knows what I feel/believe better than I do... no matter how high and mighty a stand a person wants to take they don't know better than I do about my beliefs and the reasons I do what I do.  When I state my reason/belief for something, and somebody comes along and tries to tell me that I'm wrong and THIS is why I do it, that's just simply ignorant.  Would you care to tell me what I should do for a living too?  Or perhaps what I can/can't have for breakfast?

You may think I'm ignorant and/or arrogant for downloading mp3 and/or making a stand (virtually alone) in this thread.  That's fine if that's how you feel.  I am neither ignorant nor arrogant (which those that have met me would attest to). 

The ironic thing is I don't really care one way or another about this subject.  What I mostly care about is how people seem so hell-bent against something they can do nothing to prevent!

Oh man ... the police are at the door to arrest me for downloading.  Oh wait ... no they're not. :P

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 12:38:24Piracy isn't going to go away, so musicians and labels are going to have to get their heads around this and find an incentive to give people to actually purchase music rather than go and download it from a torrent site. In Rainbows is a massive step in the right direction.

Ding ding ding.

Here's an incentive: lower the prices.

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 12:38:24
I think Radiohead have almost gotten it right with In Rainbows. The system I would use would be:

* 160kbps MP3s you chose how much to pay for.
* 48khz/24-bit FLACs and high res downloadable artwork, £8 (for the folks that want uncompressed, high quality tracks)
* 2xCD with bonus tracks, 2xVinyl and artwork, free MP3 and FLAC downloads, other bonus items, £40 made to order.

They got SO MUCH Bashing everywhere for the 160 kibts, that they put the 24 bit version up for download? :D:D

After what you discussed in the other thread, I honestly plan on getting 2 boxsets, especialyl since I like the music so much.[/quote]
No time for big post right now, but I promise I'll be back!

Darth, I never said whether I was for or against downloading illegally.  I never even mentioned if I did ;)  You don't have to take everything as a personal insult, for gods sake it was pretty damn obvious I was generalising :P

I just volunteered that basically, people (as in "the majority of people" not specifically "people including Darth Mandarb") will continue to do it because it is risk-free and they can get it for free, I don't think the majority of people that pirate really give that much of a shit how much it takes to make a CD vs how much artists make yadda yadda: it's there, they can get it, they do.  Good for you for having a concience about what you will and won't pay for, but I don't think most people that pirate spend that long justifying their position.  I know I don't.

QuoteYou may think I'm ignorant and/or arrogant for downloading mp3 and/or making a stand (virtually alone) in this thread.

No, I think you're arrogant for dismissing the comments of Amon Tobin as "some 'artist' you've never heard of" when it doesnt take five seconds to type his name into Wikipedia to find out who he is, what he's released etc.

Darth, what's a good price for an album? What would you pay?

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 15:14:44Darth, I never said whether I was for or against downloading illegally.  I never even mentioned if I did ;)  You don't have to take everything as a personal insult, for gods sake it was pretty damn obvious I was generalising :P

I just volunteered that basically, people (as in "the majority of people" not specifically "people including Darth Mandarb") will continue to do it because it is risk-free and they can get it for free, I don't think the majority of people that pirate really give that much of a shit how much it takes to make a CD vs how much artists make yadda yadda: it's there, they can get it, they do.  Good for you for having a concience about what you will and won't pay for, but I don't think most people that pirate spend that long justifying their position.  I know I don't.

Becky!  I didn't mean my reply to to make it sound like I was accusing every/anybody of attacking me personally!  I was just using myself as an example!  I didn't really feel set upon or anything :)  (and I wouldn't mind if I was!)  I'm really the only one in this thread on the side of the file-sharers, so it would seem obvious that most of the comments would be directed at me, but I am not taking it personally :P.  I don't [in almost all cases (including this one)] take 'net forum posts pesonally.  If my use of "you" gave the impression I was targetting you specifically I didn't intend on that :)  I was, like-wise, making a broad statement!  I wasn't (am not) mad at ya! ;)

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 15:14:44No, I think you're arrogant for dismissing the comments of Amon Tobin as "some 'artist' you've never heard of" when it doesnt take five seconds to type his name into Wikipedia to find out who he is, what he's released etc.

I did look him up (actually used wikipedia oddly enough) after reading the quote.  I didn't know who he was, have never heard of him.  So regardless of whatever acolaydes he might have, it just came across as another crusader rallying against file sharing.  It was just my opinion which I don't really see/think of as arrogant, it's just an opinion.  But hey, I can't control how you feel :)

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 26/10/2007 15:20:46Darth, what's a good price for an album? What would you pay?

It's not my place to determine the cost of their product (as I have said several times already).  They can charge whatever they want and try to rationalize / justify as a fair price.  As it stands now, I'm not going to pay it.  Even if I did have a price in mind for what I would pay for a CD, that's just my opinion.  If they lowered their cost [to my price] that wouldn't even be a stone's throw in the ocean worth of an effect on people downloading for free. (as we've all mentioned several times)

So there's absolutely no reason for me select a price.

So I'm confused, if something is too expensive in your eyes you have to have some sort of baseline you're judging it off of.. Something that is in your "price range" of reason. I'm also not talking to all the other pirates, I'm talking to you. I'm just curious what you think is too expensive. Albums generally seem to go for a dollar/dollar fifty a song?

I'm a pirate. I pirate because I'm lazy/cheap/a thief/not willing to accept the way the market is supposed to work. People will do this as long as it's relatively risk free and easy to do. I'm not on anyone's SIDE here because no one needs me on their side.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 26/10/2007 17:03:58So I'm confused, if something is too expensive in your eyes you have to have some sort of baseline you're judging it off of.. Something that is in your "price range" of reason. I'm also not talking to all the other pirates, I'm talking to you. I'm just curious what you think is too expensive. Albums generally seem to go for a dollar/dollar fifty a song?

You know what?  To be totally honest, I don't like the idea of CDs at all.  Whatever they lower the price to I won't be happy because a CD is too ... linear ... for me.  It's one band's 10 songs that, chances are, I'll like 2-3 tops on the CD.  If they lowered the price enough I would start buying them again, but it would be simply to rip it to mp3 and then put the CD away.

So what would make me happy and renounce my evil pirate ways?

A consolidated website (or service like iTunes) that offers:

1) every song ever recorded (as much as is possible) in high-quality mp3
2) no copy-protection and/or burn/play restrictions.  I'm buying it I can do whatever I want with it
3) unlimited downloads (no restriction on what or how much I can download)
4) a reasonable monthly fee (no more of this per-song crap)

When that (ALL 4 options, no middle ground) becomes available, or much lower CD costs, I'll gladly get on board and cease being a pirate.  Until then, the eye-patch stays where it is.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 26/10/2007 17:03:58I'm a pirate. I pirate because I'm lazy/cheap/a thief/not willing to accept the way the market is supposed to work. People will do this as long as it's relatively risk free and easy to do. I'm not on anyone's SIDE here because no one needs me on their side.

It's good that you admit that.  That's like my brother.  He says, "I can get it for free.  I don't give a shit about all the politics involved.  I can get it easily and free so I'm going to"  Congrats!!  That's great!  But I don't understand why/how some people (not anybody in particular) have a hard time accepting that I download mp3 for a specific reason.  People do have ideals that they believe in (this thread is a perfect example of that!)

Lastly, I wasn't implying an, "us against them sword swinging" kind of "side" taking, but there are those that pirate, and those that don't.  If the moral police arrested all the pirates in the world the old, "but I'm not on their side!" excuse probably wouldn't fly.

If a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

I'd be happy to pay 10 euro for a CD. That's about 14.50 USD. Currently new CD prices vary between 16 euro and 20. That's 23 - 28 USD. Is that a fair price, Americans? Is that even normal?

For example, a quick price check reveals that Korn - Untitled (first CD I saw that I knew was recent) is 28 USD in the Netherlands, and $13.97 on Amazon.com, downpriced from 18.98 USD. That's still 10 bucks difference.

It's BS. That's what it is.

But! EMI has started a trial where they offer new CDs for a maximum price of 10 euros, and so far they've been selling like hotcakes. Holy shit, it seems I've bought 5 of those things in the past two months, after 3 years of purchasing... Well, only one CD (Weezer - Maladroit, so at least it was 33 USD well-spent (yes, it was 22.50 EUR)) but you get the point.

This is a good idea, and seemingly it's working. 10 bucks is a good price, be it USD or EUR. It's not expensive, it's not cheap. It's a fair price, and I enjoy purchasing CDs legally for a price that doesn't cut into my budget like a butter knife on a chainsaw  :=

So yes, lower prices are good. And even though MrColossal asked Darth, my answer is 10 bucks.

QuoteIf a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

A-fucking-men! Don't you just love hypocrits?  :-*

QuoteJust another opinion from an artist that I've never heard of (or downloaded).  Sounds to me more like somebody trying to get their point of view about the "evils" of downloading rather than any real-world example.  But, having no clue who the "artist" is I don't really know.

The exact response I expected, "don't know him, don't care!" so the reality of a well known, respected musician getting screwed over by people downloading his music and not understanding or caring about the consiquences can be brushed aside as 'not a real world example'.

It's not just a difference of opinion, these are real people being affected by the mentality that you can take as much music as you like and nothing will happen other than some executives not being able to buy another BMW to replace the one they bought last month. I can post more stories and examples if you'd like, although you'll probably not have heard of the musicians in question so it's probably not worth it.

The stance you take on the price of music has some elements of truth to it, but the way you have turned it into a strawman to justify taking your entertainment for free without giving it back shows nothing but contempt for musicians such as me and Nikolas, which is why we get so wound up about it. It's just totally greedy.

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 18:02:36The exact response I expected, "don't know him, don't care!" so the reality of a well known, respected musician getting screwed over by people downloading his music and not understanding or caring about the consiquences can be brushed aside as 'not a real world example'.

I never said I didn't care.

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 18:02:36It's not just a difference of opinion, these are real people being affected by the mentality that you can take as much music as you like and nothing will happen other than some executives not being able to buy another BMW to replace the one they bought last month. I can post more stories and examples if you'd like, although you'll probably not have heard of the musicians in question so it's probably not worth it.

If you think posting more stories will help this debate, by all means, post away.

This Amon fella sounds like he got a pretty raw-deal.  Maybe the record companies (since they're the ones that arrange the concert tours, promotions, etc.) shouldn't only look at sales of CDs to determine an artist's popularity.  If the reason the sales were low was, truely, because of mp3 downloads (and not cause people just didn't like his stuff) they should clue in that people WANT this guy's stuff and they should use that.  But no, they see that they won't sell a lot of CDs so it's not worth it.  That is, to my way of thinking, short sightedness on THEIR part and they need to clue-in to the mp3/digital/download revolution!

Quote from: Adamski on Fri 26/10/2007 18:02:36The stance you take on the price of music has some elements of truth to it, but the way you have turned it into a strawman to justify taking your entertainment for free without giving it back shows nothing but contempt for musicians such as me and Nikolas, which is why we get so wound up about it. It's just totally greedy.

Ahhh ... the good ol' strawman!! I was wondering when he would show up!!  Once again, you're assuming you know what I believe in.  You can get wound up all you want but you simply  can't dictate the things I believe in or the reasons why I do the things I do based off your own personal feelings!  That's just not the way it works.

I will give you the same promise I gave Nik ... produce something that I want to listen to and I'll gladly pay you for it as long as the money goes to you and I think it's a reasonable price ;)

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 26/10/2007 17:46:13
It's good that you admit that.  That's like my brother.  He says, "I can get it for free.  I don't give a shit about all the politics involved.  I can get it easily and free so I'm going to"  Congrats!!  That's great!  But I don't understand why/how some people (not anybody in particular) have a hard time accepting that I download mp3 for a specific reason.  People do have ideals that they believe in (this thread is a perfect example of that!)

Yes but your ideal that CD prices are too much, or that you do not like CDs at all, doesn't equal piracy, or "stealing" the tracks (<=notice the "" I don't fancy that word and don't believe it's stealing, just to mention that)

Yet again, you would make a moral, ethical, reasonable stand by NOT buying CDs and proclaiming that you stop buying or downloading, until they lower the prices. If you download them you don't make a stand really, you just find a way to have fun, yourself and nothing else.

It's the same thing with DVDs, but for some reason, if I remember correctly you don't download movies. Because of the hussle. Wouldn't you think that the same situation, would suit the same ideals, and thus the same arguements, and the same results (pirating movies?) Why don't you pirate movies then?

In the end it's just that it's easy.

QuoteIf a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

Nope, they're on their selfs sides.

finally Darth,

QuoteI will give you the same promise I gave Nik ... produce something that I want to listen to and I'll gladly pay you for it as long as the money goes to you and I think it's a reasonable price.

I am doing exactly that, right now.

I've agreed with a great someone to make me the cover. I told him I might make money out of it (but few), and didn't think of selling, but if I do I will have to give him something, no? Shouldn't I pay him if I make any money? (<-my answer: yes! :D)
If I try to promote the CD further, like ads, and banners and stuff, shouldn't I pay for that? (<-my answer: yes! :D)

Now, if I try to make up the above expenses, I would have to put a certainly fair price for the CD, but, the money wouldn't go only to me, but to everyone else as well, either as prepaid ads and stuff, or even %.

So in the end, I don't have a chance of you buying my CD (if I ever sell it that is), as the money won't go only to me, will they?

QuoteI will give you the same promise I gave Nik ... produce something that I want to listen to and I'll gladly pay you for it as long as the money goes to you and I think it's a reasonable price ;)

So what about the people who produce things that you want to listen to but the money doesn't go directly to them and you don't think it's a reasonable price?  You just...take it?  Why not just not take it at all, if your standpoint is all about fair prices and paying the artist.  As Nikolas said...you don't really make a point by saying "I only want to support artists that choose fair prices that I want to pay and the money goes to them but I'll just take all the others anyway."

Quote from: voh on Fri 26/10/2007 17:50:36

So yes, lower prices are good. And even though MrColossal asked Darth, my answer is 10 bucks.

QuoteIf a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

A-fucking-men! Don't you just love hypocrits?  :-*

Voh, 10 bucks sounds good to me too! But I think I can live with the 9 dollars the average album I want goes for on Amazon's new mp3 store. Check it out if you haven't.

Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

If one really wanted to take a stand that had more impact, wouldn't one want to deprive themselves of that service they were boycotting? If you don't want to give money to the big companies buy the album used from a record store, support the record store and get the music, awesome! Or deprive yourself of all music not morally purchasable and suffer for the statement. It's a stronger statement that way, in my opinion.

Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 26/10/2007 18:33:12So in the end, I don't have a chance of you buying my CD

Sure you do!

The money I'd be paying is still being paid to you, the artist.  What you choose to do with that money after I give it to you is entirely up to you!  How you choose to divy it up is entirely up to you.  If you have to give away all (or a lot of) the money to cover production costs then I would suggest you, perhaps, find a cheaper way to produce it :)

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 18:37:05So what about the people who produce things that you want to listen to but the money doesn't go directly to them and you don't think it's a reasonable price?  You just...take it?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself :P. 

The answer can be found in many of the posts I've already made in this thread.

Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 26/10/2007 19:07:31If one really wanted to take a stand that had more impact, wouldn't one want to deprive themselves of that service they were boycotting? If you don't want to give money to the big companies buy the album used from a record store, support the record store and get the music, awesome! Or deprive yourself of all music not morally purchasable and suffer for the statement. It's a stronger statement that way, in my opinion.

I totally agree, which is exactly what I'm doing.  I'm not against the cost of music.  I'm against the cost of CDs.  So yes, I don't buy them.  I find it a FAR stronger statement to obtain the music anyway without buying the CDs.  If you don't see it that way, so be it.  But wouldn't it be silly for me to do something based solely off somebody else's opinion on it?

But Darth, this is what happens with all companies and artists. They pay in advance, or pay %, exactly like I plan to do. what makes my effort different is that you "know" me, and I'm tiny, compaired to whatever band is out there.  Otherwise the business plan is pretty much the same, isn't it, just different figures (totally different)

I see it as vastly different.

I'm tired.

QuoteI find it a FAR stronger statement to obtain the music anyway without buying the CDs.

Obtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint ;)

Quote
Also, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Agreed.  Even though I do eventually buy the things I have downloaded, I'm still a cheap lazy theif and I know it and don't try to hide it.

Quote from: Nikolas on Fri 26/10/2007 18:33:12

QuoteIf a person pirates, they're on the side of the pirates.

Nope, they're on their selfs sides.

Which is the same side as all the other pirates.  Tuh-may-toe Tuh-mah-toe.

Quote from: Becky on Fri 26/10/2007 19:51:21Obtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint ;)

But shouldn't I be the one to determine what I think, feel, or believe on my own?  You interpret it as greedy, I do not.  I'm not a greedy person (not accusing you of calling me that, you simply implied it).

QuoteAlso, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Admitting you do it while denouncing it as thieving just makes you an honest hypocrite :P I don't think what you do should be called that though, or even that it's a negative thing, seeing as you're someone that spends a reasonable amount on media you like.

QuoteObtaining something you don't agree about the price of for free anyway implies you are greedy, rather than having a potent ideological standpoint

I can understand this, if it's assumed that the person gives up paying for creative products entirely. But I think enjoying a wide variety of things for free while supporting some of the creators as best you can is a reasonable approach to take if you think distribution methods have changed things so that a lower price, wider selection model is a better thing for both artists and society in general. It's not perfect, but as things are it's impossible to spread your budget out properly.

My life is richer for piracy, and artists are not losing out. I wouldn't be so negative about people that pirate in order to broaden their horizons. If you pirate in order to pay less, on the whole, to artists, then you are indeed a leech (much better term than thief in this context, imo, it doesn't so much have the implication of taking someone's property.)

Luckily I think most people want to support artists they like. Perhaps I have too much faith in them.

Quote from: scotch on Fri 26/10/2007 21:10:59

QuoteAlso, I'm not being a hypocrite, what I meant by not being on the side of the pirates was I don't buy into "music must be free" or "I'm taking a stand on music prices!" ideology of stealing. I'm a cheap lazy thief...

Admitting you do it while denouncing it as thieving just makes you an honest hypocrite :P I don't think what you do should be called that though, or even that it's a negative thing, seeing as you're someone that spends a reasonable amount on media you like.

What about an honest thief? Or an unrepentant thief? I'm a thief dammit! I get in there, take the mp3s so quick that I leave the RIAA saying "What was that?! Huh... Musta been the wind..."

First of all I would like to say that Nikolas should be commended for his forward thinking, his openness to unconventional ideas regarding his profession, and his willingness to actually try some of those ideas out.   It's quite easy to talk about what someone else should do to make a living but it's quite another thing to do it yourself.  Things are usually not as easy as they sound and especially so if the thing is new, unconventional, and unproven. 

Quote from: Becky
It's not really that complicated.  You get something without paying for it when you should have, it is stealing ....

Many things can be said about copyright but "uncomplicated" is not one of them.   So when should you have to pay?

Recently a recording industry executive, who was asked under oath which of a list of downloadable mp3 files were infringing copyrights and which were legally offered for free download by the industry, testified that he would have to consult with an expert to make that determination.

Another recording industry executive recently, testified under oath, that copying a song from a legally bought CD to an MP3 player is a copyright infringement, meaning that you should have to pay for it.  Knowledgeable attorneys will tell you this is not mentioned anywhere in the copyright law nor supported by any case law.

Copyright
Copyright is a limited monopoly privilege granted to authors of creative works for the  purpose of promoting the creation of such works for the public good.   This is enshrined in case law and  the legislative history of copyright law from it's beginning in the US.  It's my understanding that it's been a long standing doctrine/opinion in the US court system that a  balance between the extent of privileges given to rights holders and the public good should be maintained.   Like a contract both parties agree to do (or not do) certain things in return for some benefit(s).

Length of Term - Copyright has a time limit which was originally 18 years.  This has been continually extended by US congress because of heavy lobbying (i.e. big $$ contributions) by rights holders to the point where it is now virtually unlimited.    I object to this for a number of reasons.  First of all creative works are not created in a vacuum, they draw upon popular culture which is in turn is influenced by other creative works.  So to some extent or other,  creative works contain public contributions, giving the public a stake in the final disposition of the work.   It is not unreasonable for the public to expect to be able to freely access such works at some point in time.

Orphan Works - Orphan works are those that have been abandoned by the rights holders to the public domain.  Until recently copyrighted works had to be registered with the government and periodically re-registered.  This made it easy to know if a work was copyrighted or not. Since it is no longer necessary to register a work to get copyright protection it is nearly impossible to know which works have been abandoned to the public domain by the rights holders and which have not.  The end result is that a huge number of works will not be preserved and will be lost over time.  To me this is unacceptable.  These things represent a snapshot of our culture, our history, and who we are/were at specific points in time.   Google for OTR or Old Time Radio programs and you will find a wealth of MP3s available.  Why?  Most, if not all, of these programs were never copyrighted because there was no perceived commercial value left after the initial broadcast.   If it had not been possible/legal for enthusiasts and collectors to make and share recordings of these shows would have been lost forever (actually many have been).  If you take the time to listen to some of these programs, after awhile you get a real feel of what life was like during the 1930s and 40s.  It's the closest thing to being able to travel back in time there is.    Many, many silent films have been lost as well as a number of Doctor Who episodes because of the rights holders lack of interest and care.  Had these been in the public domain it is likely they would have been preserved.  Actually many of the lost Doctor Who episodes have been reconstructed from materials that were "illegally" copied from TV by individual fans or film distributions "illegally" retained by broadcasters. 

Copyright Abuse - Abuse of the monopoly position to form cartels and fix prices is not allowed and anyone doing so can lose their copyright protection.  In rergard to the discussion about CD prices, I would ask why is it that when you go into a record store all CD's have exactly the same price?   Ok I will conceed that that there is usually a higher price for double CDs and boxed sets and a lower price for "Slim Whitman" and other similar acts.  Usually there are perhaps three price points A - new releases, B - Oldies, C - Crap,  and all, except for special editions etc, are labeled A, B, or C.  Go to a different store and the prices are the same.  How does this happen if there is no cartel, no abuse of copyright?   Imagine you went into a computer store and they had computers of every conceivable manufacturer and that no matter which manufacturer or model you looked at the price was either $600, $800, or $1200.  Wouldn't you be a little suspicious?  What if you went to another store and saw the same thing except their prices were $595, $795, and $1195, and another and another, etc.    In a free and open market where there is healthy competition there are as many different prices (of equivalent models/products) as there are suppliers.   When I hear people say that CD prices are too high, it means to me that they perceive the asking price to be far above the fair market price (the price set by a free market were it allowed to operate).   I suppose the question of whether this perception is reality could be a debate in of itself.  I tend to agree that there appears to be collusion in the music industry to limit competition and maintain prices and believe there is ample evidence to support this notion.  As in nearly all cases where a free market is not allowed to operate black markets quickly develop to fill the vaccum and that's all this "illegal downloading" really is.

Fair Use - Fair use of copyrighted works by the public is specifically allowed in the copyright laws.   What constitutes fair use is unfortunately vaguely defined.  The courts have some guidelines but no one really knows until a specific practice or act is brought to court and a judge applies the guidelines.  In the past this has been adequate because the public have not had the technological means available to them to fully exercise their fair use rights and until recently nobody ever filed copyright infringement lawsuits against individuals singled out from the general public.   Now there is a battle over our fair use rights.  On one side is the industry with their $$ politicians who want to usurp as much as our fair use rights as possible (preferably all of them) and us who want to preserve our fair use rights so that we can use whatever wizz bang technology that may come along to exercise those rights without permission or interference from the content industry.   

- DRM, this is an attempt to control how and how long a consumer can use legally purchased content.  I believe this is a particularly egregious violation of fair use rights because in many instances it causes harm to the consumers equipment (Sony rootkit for example) and foisted upon the consumer without his consent or knowledge.   I also provides a means of built-in obsolence.  Since MP3 files don't wear out or melt like CDs and cassettes there has to be another reason why the consume will want to buy the same content again and again.   To do this you only allow the consumer to make a couple of copies and then when MP3 is no longer all the rage or when he buys his fourth MP3 player he will have to buy the same content all over again.   Some DRM goes even one better and put an expiration date on the files themselves.

- EULA End User License Agreements, Usually these come with software and force the consumer to agree to them.  They generally have the effect giving rights to the content provider far in excess of what they are given via copyright protection.   "So what !" you may say, "I never read them and who gives a shit anyway? Nothing bad ever happens if people don't so what it says!".  That may have been true in the past but may not be true in the future.  If you are a Vista user you have given M$ the right to change they software on your computer whenever they want, stop your computer from working whenever they want, and spy on you whenever they want to check for license compliance or whatever else they want to check.   I think much is the same with Windows Genuine Advantage users as well and Windows Updates to a lesser extent.

- Backup Copies or copying to another device for playback, as mentioned above the content industry thinks this is not covered by fair use and is illegal.

- Time Shifting, It was established in the Sony Beta Max case that recording from TV or radio to playback at a later time is covered under fair use.   However, the content industry is trying to roll back this decision and have gotten at least one ruling from a lower court that can be interpreted to contradict the Beta Max ruling.   The are also trying to get congress to pass laws requiring all consumer electronics to include technology that will allow the content producer to disable parts of the equipments functionality while their content is being processed by the equipment.   I of course object most strenously to this because because I will have to pay the added cost of the technology and don't see why I should have to subsidize an already lucrative industry and because this restricts my fair use rights.   

- Transformative Usage, Copyrighted works can be used if the usage is transformative.  The best way to explain this is by example I guess.  I read a case about a guy who wrote a book that was more or less a historical or biographical account of (can't remember specifics) a musical group.  He gave a chronological account of their rise to fame and later decline.   As part of this account he gave thumbnail reproductions of album covers and concert posters.   There was a lawsuit over this and the judge ruled that the usage of the album and poster art was to document the historical facts while the original usage was artistic in nature and was therefore transformative and a non-infringing use of the material.   

- Free Speech,  Under fair use the public has the right to critique, satirize, or comment on or about copyrighted works and to reproduce portions of said works for these purposes.  However free speech issues go deeper than this.  Suppose you wanted to comment on something in a past time period.   For your commentary to be received in the way you intend you must first give the audience a context and a familiarity of the popular culture of the times.   Art, music, TV, magazines, newspapers, etc are both inspired by and reflect the popular culture at any given point in time.  Using these kinds of materials in a new work would be one of the most effective means of illustrating the popular culture of the subject time period.  Although I think this should be covered under fair use it is not clear that the courts would agree.  There are also some pretty good arguments that copyright is incompatible with freedom and free speech.  The founder of the freenet project has a pretty good essay on the topic here: http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html (http://freenetproject.org/philosophy.html).   He essentially makes the case that in order to enforce copyright on the internet you have to be able to monitor who is saying what to whom and that this is exactly what is needed to censor free speech.   If they don't like what you are saying and they know who you are they can shut you up.   Conversely, if they can't find out who you are they can't stop you from talking but they won't be able to enforce copyright either.

Is it stealing?
o Is it stealing if I download a file from the internet containing copyrighted material without paying for it?  If you have read my above comments you will understand that the question is unanswerable from the information given.   The answer depends upon a lot of things and it's not as simple as it seems on the surface to sort out.   The file may have been downloaded for any number of non-infringing uses of copyrighted works in which case the answer is no.  There are also many uses that are probably or ought to be non-infringing under fair use and/or transformitive use.  For example what if the person already owns the copyrighted material and  downloaded it because it was more conveint than ripping the CD?  What if I am studying music composition on the Phd level like Nikolas and I am doing research on the musical style of the Beatles (i.e. Why do the Beatles sound like the Beatles?)?  In this case the songs are downloaded so that they can be critically analysed to find some kind of recurring patterns, themes, chords, or other charistics that determine musical style. What if I now publish my thesis and include some excerpts of the songs so as to illustrate my findings?   Asking if this is this or that stealing is kind of like asking your accountant if you can deduct this or that from your taxes; there is no simple answer.   Is it stealing if I put family photos on a DVD slide show for my mom with some background music from CD which I legally purchased?

Btw accountants, at least the clever ones, have a clever way of answering this question "You can deduct almost anything you want as long as the total amount of deductions isn't too much!"  How much is too much?  Nobody knows but the IRS and they don't tell.  So what is commonly done is to keep deducting a little more each year to see how much you can get away with.  Keep enough money in the bank so that you can pay any additional taxes and penalties quickly and always make a couple errors not in your favor.

Here are some follow up "Is it stealing" questions for your contemplation ...

o Is it stealing if I give $$ to the legislature to change the law so that what used to be yours is now mine?   You have a cute little on house and some land on the beach.  I give some money to the mayor and the city council and they condem your property by right of eminent domain and give you the value of a cute little house.  They sell it to me for the same amount and I bulldoze the cute little house and build luxury condo's and sell the whole thing for 10 times the cost of the land and construction.  (re copyright term extensions and fair use restrictions)

o Is it stealing if I violate the law in such a way that forces people to give me more money?  I want to sell you some bananas for $5.00 per pound and you say but bananas only cost $0.50 a pound.  I tell you that if you don't pay $5.00 per pound Luigi will get angry and break your knees.  Or alternatively I tell Luigi to follow you around and if someone sells you bananas for less than $5.00 per pound to break their knees.  (re copyright abuse and price fixing)

o Is it stealing if I sell you something and then come back a couple years later and take it back or break it so you can't use it?  For example I sell you a car.  A couple of years later I would like to sell you another car so I come over one night and melt your engine.
(re DRM and root kits)

o Is it stealing if I sell you something that uses your stuff for my benefit without your knowledge or consent?  For example I sell you a car radio and install it for you.  I don't tell you but it's wired up so that whenever you are not using your car I can unlock it and drive it around for awhile.  (re DRM and root kits)

o Is it stealing if I force you to agree to a contract that only benefits me and obligates you?  I am the only person that sells cars.  You want to buy a car.  I say Ok but you have to sign this contract that says that I can come over and drive whenever I want, that I can add, remove, or change car parts whenever I want and not tell you, and if do anything to/with the car I don't like I can come over and melt the engine.  (re EULA, Vista, etc)   Not only that you can only drive on certain roads that I give you permission for.  (re DRM, fair use restrictions).

Conclusions
If top recording industry executives don't know if it is stealing or not without the help of expert legal counsel, children (and Darth ;) )  can hardly be expected to know either.  Nor can anyone claim it is a simple matter to determine, IMHO.  But what really squishes my tookie is the fact that the content industry is using their clout $$ to erode the public's rights to use copyrighted materials in non-infringing ways.  Here is my wish list of things I would like to see changed.

Copyright Terms - Reduce the initial copyright term to 16 years.  Allow copyright to be extended to additional terms where each successive term is one half the length of the previous term and where the registration fee is twice the amount of the previous fee adjusted for inflation etc.  The minimum term would be for one year but the fee would continue to double year after year.  This would allow someone to extend their copyright as long as they were making a profit. The exponential nature of the registration fee structure tends to equalize the burdens placed on the small guy as compared to corporate monsters.  Everyone can get into the game for $10 and if they are still turning a profit after34 years the registration fee is still affordable at $1280.  Eventually everyone has to get out of the game and put their stuff back in the public domain.  I think this goes a long way to solving solving many of the issues surrounding orphan works, historical commentary, etc. 

Length of Copyright (yr)	Length of Term (yr)	Registration Cost ($)
16	16	$10
24	8	$20
28	4	$40
30	2	$80
31	1	$160
32	1	$320
33	1	$640
34	1	$1,280
:	:	:
40	1	$81,920
50	1	$83,886,080
60	1	$85,899,345,920

 
Fair Use and Transformitive Use - I would like to see fair use rights enumerated and include the following activities

- Allow the recording of any information transmitted over public infrastructure for personal or family use.  Public infrastructure to include airwaves, internet, public performances (not private performances).  This is currently the case law for TV and radio transmissions.

- Allow the the use of copyrighted materials for use in personal productions such as home movies, family photo slide shows, etc. 

- Allow incidental use of copyrighted material.  For example you make a documentary film  "What I did Last Thursday"  and so you film yourself walking downtown last thursday.   You walk through a park and there are a bunch of  kids singing happy birthday in the background. You walk by a pop machine an buy a can of coke.  You walk by the movie theather and ask some people, who are standing outside in front of the a bunch of movie posters, which movie they are going to see.  The posters, the song, and the art on the coke can are all copyrighted but have you should not have to pay for their use because you were simply recoding things routinely encountered in everyday life.   

- Allow the lending of materials by the general public.  Currently there are specific privelages given to public libraries.  The problem is that you and I cannot qualify as a public library and so are prohibited from lending content that we own on a large scale basis.  This is important because the internet is quickly becoming the largest library on the planet.  I see no justification in preventing people from lending content to one person at a time just like lending someone a book.  Only one person can read it at a time.  No matter how many people borrow your book you still haven't infringed anyone's copyright.  I would like to see the see the same concept applied to the internet. 

- Require "Medium Neutrality" in accessing broadcast royalties.  Currently royalties for internet broadcasts are prohibitedly expensive even for large companies.  Why should the internet be discriminated against. 

- Disallow DRM, EULAs, and other evil crap.

- Allow online card catalogs like the one Google is currently doing and getting sued over.

- Allow search engines and other websites to link to news and other stories published on the internet.  Damm those northern EU countries that sued Google because the search engine returned links to their news stories.  If I was Google I would have blacklisted them from their search and then charge them advertising rates to get off of it. 

- Allow individuals to record content for the purpose of review and analysis.  For example, got a coupon for $96 the other day from Sears.   It told us what a good customer we were and how they wanted to reward us.  They invited us to check off up to 12 crappy gifts to which we could apply the $96 coupon.  My wife wanted to do it for Christmas presents and thought that she would just have to pay the shipping.  I knew that this was not the case but I took me 20 minutes of reading this post card sized thing to finally find the one little sentence that said that they were going to charge her credit card the price listed for each and every item she selected.   My point is that it's easy to be fooled by clever language.  So when you hear or see something on the news on in a movie you really don't have an opportunity to go back to see and question what they really said.  You are only left with whatever reaction they wanted to provoke but can't really remember their reasoning or facts.  I think it's a good thing to be able to document what this politician or that news anchor said this year as compared to last year or last month. 

Summary
This post is far too long but is by no means comprehensive or complete.  I'm sure I could think of more things to say about it but I am just as tired of writing as you are of reading.  IMHO all the P2P file sharing shinola is simply a black market response to a cartel's obstruction of the free market.  The same cartel seeks to usurp fair use and other rights given  to the public by copyright but which have rarely been exercised due to lack of technological means.   I urge everyone to vigilent about your fair use rights and write to your legislators about your concerns.  You can bet the content industry is busy writing wining and dinning them.

P.S. I don't consider Darth to be a pirate but rather consider him to be engaging in civil disobedience.  Besides Matey, Err! Ye be no pirate if Ye be not talkin like a pirate.  Rrrrr! Only thems what is pirates be pirates and thems what ain't, ain't!   

[edit]
Here is where I get most of my news about copyright, etc
Recording Industry vs People (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/)
Groklaw (http://groklaw.net/)

I'm going to have to assume that was insightful, Rick.
It reminded me, I'm supposed to be writing an essay for Monday.

You can try to muddy the waters all you like, but it doesn't disguise the basic point that downloading without the consent of the copyright holders is stealing. Own up to it like Eric, or deny it (to yourself even) like Darth, but don't try to claim there isn't a crime, because when you get to court you will lose.

By the way - downloading songs, movies and tv shows is entirely legal in the Netherlands. Uploading it is illegal.

So I'm not doing anything wrong by my own country's laws. How does that figure into the 'bigger scheme'? American copyright law is fine, but local laws override them. I'm not doing anything illegal, yet since it's illegal in the States, I'm a pirate?

It's confusing, really :P

First off, Rick, very nice post.  Took me forever to read through it (and I'm sure I missed some) but still!  And yes, I respect Nik very much.  We see some things differently, sure, but in the end I respect him very much.

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sat 27/10/2007 03:25:02You can try to muddy the waters all you like, but it doesn't disguise the basic point that downloading without the consent of the copyright holders is stealing. Own up to it like Eric, or deny it (to yourself even) like Darth, but don't try to claim there isn't a crime, because when you get to court you will lose.

What, exactly, did I deny?  I owned up to the fact that I download, expressed the reasons why I do it,  and explained it MANY times.  And here, ONCE AGAIN, somebody tries to tell me that my reasons aren't real, that I'm doing it for the reasons THEY think.  *sigh*

Quote from: voh on Sat 27/10/2007 03:41:46By the way - downloading songs, movies and tv shows is entirely legal in the Netherlands. Uploading it is illegal.

It was, I thought, the same here in the States.  The people that are being busted are the ones offering the mp3, not the ones downloading them but I could be wrong.  I think it's silly to make downloading mp3 illegal.  If that's the case they better start arresting damn near everybody 'cause most people I know have, at one time or another, made a mix-tape (or CD) full of music and given it to somebody else or received a mix-tape (or CD) full of music they didn't pay for.  It's the same thing as uploading/downloading mp3.

Now Rick, that's one heck of a post! Very well done!

Of course I can assume that Rick, from what I've read, seen and chated is very conscious to what he does!

I won't go analysing every single paragraph you made, cause I'll die or something, but I can certainly comment on some things.

Basically indeed copyright and downloading has different parts and chances and ideas and "uses". There is this fair use (to which I believe educational use also is a part), and other stuff, only that usually, very usually to anyone with common sense fair use is quite clear and distinguished, and not use as an excuse.

I've been following very closely, with my own personal correspondance to UE the IMSLP.org case. IMSLP is quite clear that they want to be legal, and have done no harm and yet were foolishly attacked. On the other hand tv-links.co.uk is also clear that they don't mind being illegal, but are bassed on a mere legality to stand their ground (which didn't hold btw). For me these 2 different situations are quite clear to what they are.

Of course we are not discussing the Beatles (which, btw, I could take up money for my PhD, from my college and go buy everything, or borrow from the library of the collega), but Britney Spears, or... Spice Girls, or Beyonce, or (hey only females??? ;D) whoever else, which could difficult be anything else but "I downloaded it because it's a fun tune".

The industry is in huge trouble actually, and now that Radiohead (there were others before them btw), are contract free and went the reasonable way, everyone else is following, even NIN (there was a comment from Reznor...)

Things are changing and I can't see any other way for the future, than the CDs being there as promotional material (or mp3s even), and being given for free along with the newspapers or something. Sinec Prince did it with 2,500,000 copies of his new CD, why not everybody?

EULA is one thing that bothers me greatly, since I buy everything I use, and I'm SO insulted by those idiotic tihngs you have to agree to. Problem with those, and how it started, is that they first thought that "Oh shit! If they buy the program, they can sell the code! If they buy the sames they can sell the samples", so they went "Ok! They will buy a LICENSE!" Yiiiiha! And then they started "but, educational versions can't be used commercially", or "you can't resell your license " (everything in life can be bought second hand, except software, at least in music), and other moronic stuff,which are there just for greed and nothing more. And they simply don't see that a company allowing resales will bring the customer back. They can't see that.

Stealing:

On the eye of the law, although I don't agree with the word, I would assume that yes. Indeed anyone using rip graphics from MI (Which is SO trendy all those years ;D) is doing something illegal, only noone bothers. It makes sense. Same if I make a mix tape for my girlfriend (not my wife, my girlfriend! ;D;D), or if I make a small video with my kids on and put a bit of music on. Fortunately the industry is NOT that insane!

But illegal? I guess it is.

I, personally, find it far worst that people can buy to bend the laws, or anything close to that, which happens ALL THE TIME. Being slightly illegal (although hardcore defenders will say you're either legal or not, end of story), is nothing wrong really, and I've yet (as Darth says) to find anyone Saint.

Also Rick, you are talking about copyright, but copyright in Europe (and I do think that in Canada+USA) is automatic, and happens the minute the art piece is concived. This is all nice and dandy, and is no problem really. I wouldn't like to see the loss of copyright for any living artist. But holding the copyright for 50-70 years after the death of the composer, is an insult to any intelligent human being, as well as donkeys, monkeys and anything else, who would also understand the idiocy of that system.

I mean, Rachmaninov, Ligeti, Schnittke, etc, are all dead and all still copyrighted. Why *** fuck are they copyrighted? (I know the answer, don't think I'm asking! :D)






In all, as you can see I'm right in the middle and pretty conscious to what's happening right now in the world.



The only problem I don't like to see and this triggered this thread (by me), is when people go "Oh! they shut tv-links.co.uk, the bastards"... Wait, wait a minute... It wasn't exactly legal and it really helped faciliate all those links getting together etc, etc. And it had NO OTHER use, than that, but only that (as opposed to google which is exactly what you use it for, not only for stgreaming videos and illegal, and also youtube, which, yes has copyrighted material, but also Nightfable puts videos on, and I do, etc, which are mine to put). Tv-links had no other use than to viewing copyrighted material, even if they were not hosted there. So I kicked a bit to this thread.

QuoteThe people that are being busted are the ones offering the mp3, not the ones downloading them but I could be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong on this point.  You can be sued for downloading copyrighted mp3's without paying for them and it has happened before (a few fileshare programs with community servers had to release lists of ips connecting to them and many of those people were sued).  It's not always difficult to prove if you paid for an mp3 or not since internet access is kind of like leaving a paper trail, and someone with the right tools (like the FBI) can check your monthly usage and other details.  And if you think I'm paranoid about the FBI, let's just say that my nephew went to a government job interview and they asked him a question like 'Have you ever looked at naked pictures of a girl' so he answered that he had without thinking about the question (he thought girl=adult).  The FBI promptly raided his house and confiscated his computer under this crazy overzealous idea that he was a pedophile.

Trust no one!

I not an expert on this subject but I have been following the SCO vs IBM litigation closely for the past several years on the Gorklaw blog and have learned a bit.  They are very professional over there and give careful and thoughtful analysis of the events.  The analysis and much of the commentary comes from former paralegals, attorneys, and technology professionals rather than disgruntled teenagers. 

I don't condone blatant copyright infringement and I am sorry if my last post give that impression.  My passion lies with the preservation of the public's fair use rights and sane public policy regrading copyright, the internet, and emerging technologies.  Blatant copyright infringement only exacerbates the problems.

Quote
I've been following very closely, with my own personal correspondance to UE the IMSLP.org case. IMSLP is quite clear that they want to be legal, and have done no harm and yet were foolishly attacked. On the other hand tv-links.co.uk is also clear that they don't mind being illegal, but are bassed on a mere legality to stand their ground (which didn't hold btw). For me these 2 different situations are quite clear to what they are.

I don't know anything about tv-links.co.uk except what I have read in this thread.  It would seem to me that tv-links crossed the line by the it's links were maintained.  From reading this thread I surmise that webmaster was knowingly posting links to infringing materials and therefore actively encouraging and facilitating copyright infringement activities by others. 

Quote
The industry is in huge trouble actually, and now that Radiohead (there were others before them btw), are contract free and went the reasonable way, everyone else is following, even NIN (there was a comment from Reznor...)

I firmly believe the real motivation behind the RIAA lawsuits is fear of becoming obsolete rather than fear of losing sales to file sharing.  The reason recording companies exist is that historically individual artists did not have the capitol required to produce, promote, and distribute their products.  With current PC technology, the internet, a paper route, and a little bit of talent a 16 year old kid could afford to produce an album, promote it, and distribute it to the entire planet.  CD manufacturing facilities, recording studios, distribution channels, etc, etc all as useful as buggy whips.

The reason I posted earlier is that many comments seemed to me to be based on greatly oversimplified notions of copyright law and I wanted explain that with copyright things are not as simple as our intuition tells us that they ought to be.  A great number of cases are making hteir way through the US court system and many unanswered questions will get answered on way or another.  It will be interesting to watch what happens and in the end I think a lot off the mess will get sorted out. 

Quote
Also Rick, you are talking about copyright, but copyright in Europe (and I do think that in Canada+USA) is automatic, and happens the minute the art piece is concived. This is all nice and dandy, and is no problem really.

It's also automatic in the US.  However you have to register the copyright before you can file an infringement lawsuit.   The problem with the automatic protection is that without registration it's not possible to know which works are orphaned and which are not.   The result is that orphaned works will eventually be lost to the rubbish bin of history.   I would be in favor of a system where you get automatic protection for the first 16 or so years and then be required to register after that. 

Quote
I wouldn't like to see the loss of copyright for any living artist. But holding the copyright for 50-70 years after the death of the composer, is an insult to any intelligent human being, as well as donkeys, monkeys and anything else, who would also understand the idiocy of that system.

I can understand this point of view especially from someone working in the UK.  I am not exactly clear on this but isn't there something in British law about copyrights staying with the author?   In the US the copyrights are usually assigned by the author to the author's employer.   Since corporate entities end up being the rights holders over here extending the term to the life of the author doesn't have much meaning.  It's also not really fair to old people who produce their greatest works near the ends of their lives.  They ought to be able to leave something behind for their families.   In the little table I suggested the amount of  the initial registration fee and initial term length could be adjusted to get results closer to what you would consider to be fair or acceptable. 

* takes 2 cents out from under his bed *

I may be speaking out of my arse, since it's late, and I need to sleep, and I only read like the first 1.5 pages of the thread, but here's my take on the piracy thing...

Indeed, it's not the end of the world if I don't get this year's Megadeth or Apocalyptica album, but the thing is, and I hate to invoke poverty again, that I can't really buy any album. Sure, I can save up two month's money and buy one CD. One Romanian band's CD. Fair enough, let's calculate something... Let's say that in one year's time, I'd buy 6 CDs. 6 Romanian CD's. How does that help me, really? I'm very passionate about my music, and I seriously love to listen to music all the time, I can't stand sitting in my room while it's quiet. I always have been like this, so you can't say that because I was introduced to pirated music, I got hooked... For me, it's always been a case of wanting and not getting. Also, not everything is available here for buying... For example, where in the hell am I going to get Pink Floyd's 1967 album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn? Not to mention that Romania's shops aren't really that big on rock music, let alone metal. I saw one day, I remember, in a shop, Megadeth's Peace Sells ...But Who's Buying? album, dusty, thrown on a shelf (and this is a major shop mind you), only 40 lei (two month's allowance). Next, I saw some fucking two-bit Romanian pop tramp's single, 60 lei. This is absurd, if we're going to have overpriced albums, at least put some value into it! This is another thing that annoys me about buying albums.

Sure, when I'll have the money, I'll go clean, I really plan to buy albums legally...

There just simply is no way to get discografies legally, especially since legal albums do not include everything, while the pirated ones tend to have more... Where would I be without my music today? I'd be incredibly close-minded, and sitting in the silence of my room. I remember FSi said that real-life albums are in limited supply, and internet ones are unlimited, and that's why they're pirated. I totally agree with this. I would never have got Iris' (Romanian Hard Rock band) pre-1996 albums if it weren't for torrents, and for that I thank the gods of the Internet.

Although it's a luxury, I consider music a must-have luxury for the open mind. Sure, I'm not pleading a case for movies and tv shows, hell, most of them are shit anyways, but music, people?

So yeah, fuck it, when the new Metallica album gets released, people can destroy shops and murder themselves over it, but I'll be listening to it ten days before them, constantly adding to my musical experience.

Also, I don't really download new, and small stuff, most of it is free anyways, I just get the big boys' albums, and I seriously think all the major bands have enough mountains of money with which to wipe their arses, so why must I be denied an open mind, a cultural experience, and a chance to understand better my favourite band? Although I illegally downloaded their discography, that doesn't mean I respect them any less. Hell, I respect them infinitely more, because I got a chance to listen to them, hence my respect is not 0.

That's everything I have to say on the matter at this late hour...

PS: I'm sorry if this doesn't make any sense, I'll try and post tomorrow with something that isn't written at 12:30 AM...

Hah, there's a reason why Australia is listed by surveys (which are always biased, but yeah) as the TV piracy capital of the universe. Granted, it's probably aimed squarely at sad people who only watch Heroes and Lost and Prison Break and all that other rubbish, but there's a grain of truth that Australians think that the television planning people are doing a crap job and BitTorrent does it a lot better. Right now I'm watching Top Gear which aired last Sunday evening in the UK, normally I'd be waiting for 18 months for the semi-privatised SBS to air the same show with station ads spliced in and the news section cut out.

As for music, the whole "is uploading or downloading the real crime" argument is pointless. That doesn't address the moral dimension of whether you're supporting the artist or not.

My system works like this:
(http://rebui.ld.net.au/covox/music.png)

(sorry if the largeness of the image offends someone, several other posts in this thread are bordering on ninety pages too!)

I like that Covox.

It show's that not everybody who downloads music/video's etc (in my case i tend to watch streams) is necessarily a tight-wad who keeps his wallet in a locked chest under his bed.  Sometimes its necessary to check things out before deciding if it's worth buying.  If that means downloading a couple of tracks, then so be it.

When it comes to video, yeh sure I watched the first half of Heroes season 1 on tv-links, but now that BBC2 has caught up to where I was I'm gonna carry on watching it on there (the quality's ten times better anyway) and I fully intend on buying it on DVD, and i can wait for season 2.

I also watched a few movies on there, but more often than not, actually they were movies that I've already bought on video at one point or another... Pink Floyd's The Wall, Pi, Crouching Tiger.. I watched them because I was in a different  country but fancied watching them and it would have been foolhardy to buy them again or have them shipped to Japan from home just to watch them again.

Another film I watched on there was The Cube... I'd never seen any of these films before and since watching that out of interest I now plan to buy the whole trilogy as soon as I'm earning... I would never be thinking about buying them had I not seen it on tv-links...  so in one way, the makers of The Cube films will benefit from tv-links when I  buy their films.

I agree with others here that record and TV companies have yet to come up with a good answer to the problems and opportunities presented by internet distribution. Here's food for thought- the companies that make 3D (and 2D) art programs have for years used a strategy that seems like a good fit for today's market:

Art programs are sold at a different price to each buyer. Students get extremely low prices, schools get reasonable but reduced pricing, and professionals pay full price. Most companies also offer a limited functionality version for free, but only for non-commercial use.

Obviously the same strategy wouldn't work for music or TV shows, but it's only a matter of time until a new sales model emerges. For instance the television network NBC (http://nbc.com) puts all their programming online for free, supported by banner ads. Unfortunately the same can't be said for game distribution. All that seems to be happening in that arena is an arms race between anti-piracy measures and the cracks/warez community.

Sorry to bring this up, and for those who took part in the discussion this may come as a shock, but... hey a man should be able to think for himself outside himself.

I was wondering if watching tv-links is illegal in any chance. And I've decided that not only it isn't but it is preferable. Here in the UK (and in Greece with a simmilar system) you get the tv license (= money to the BBC that noone watches). This entitles you to have a tv in your house or your computer and watch whatever you want. BBC, Sky, Virgin, etc. So why not tv-links?

Under the above idea, I have little trouble thiking that I did use it occasionaly, and if the chance comes will use it again.

The trouble comes if you check if tv-links (the owners) too the permission to broadcast those channels. I'm 100% sure that sky pays to get all those channels, same with Virgin (of course they get the money back by the monthly subscription). So if tv-links (which either way had a strong legal case, as we did examine earlier), had not paid to get those channels, then it is briching copyright. (even if tv-links was just a database, as voh mentioned and blah blah, to which I agree).

Sorry for the bump, but had to get it out of my chest. :)

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 08/11/2007 06:59:17
This entitles you to have a tv in your house or your computer...

Hold up... You're not allowed a computer without a TV license?
Didn't know that... and think it's outrageous if it's true.

sorry, it entitles you to use your computer as a TV. Sorry...  :-[

Sorry to resurrect it seeing as it was halfway down page 2, but I thought some people might like to know I've come across a site very similar to tv-links and just as useful (if not quite as pretty to look at).

http://www.alluc.org (http://www.alluc.org)

Sorry if everybody already knows this site, but I didn't, and I figured that it must be news to someone else as well as me, so if you're that person then I'm sharing it with you. :)