tv-links.co.uk Shut Down

[MillsJROSS]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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'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.

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!!

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

I guess I misunderstood you!

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.

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!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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

[FSi++]

They took our jobs!!

[Adamski]

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

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!

[voh]

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

I'm genetically built to illegally download MP3s

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.

[tube]

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.

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.

[Becky]

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.

[FSi++]

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).

[Adamski]

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.  

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ding ding ding.

Here's an incentive: lower the prices.

[Nikolas]

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

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!

[Becky]

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

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.

You 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.

[MrColossal]

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

[Darth Mandarb]

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

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 .  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!

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.

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

Darth, 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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[voh]

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.

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

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

[Adamski]

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.

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

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'.

I never said I didn't care.

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.

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!

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.

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