Messages

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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."

... You might not remember.

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.

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!!

That'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.

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!

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.  

Yummmm...

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.

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

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

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).

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Exactly the point I was making with:

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.

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.

[It's not going to stop.]

I 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:

No 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:

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?

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!

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.

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 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.

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'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.

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.

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!

I like this style of background ... very simple, yet effective!

I think it needs a little more dynamic shading.  Something like this:



Granted I did this in about 5 minutes, but it's just an example.

Hope it helps.

[millions]

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.

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)

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...

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
- Obi-wan Kenobi

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.

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$, while LOTR had something like 300,000,000$..

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. 

I'm not sure what you mean by:

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.

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:

Even 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.

I have found it (of course!) ... I sent you a PM with the link to the file (didn't want to link to an illegally downloaded mp3 in this public thread!!)

I took a listen to it ... forgot how great it was!!  I'm watchin' The Goonies when I get home tonight.  Then Back to the Future, then Gremlins.

Anyway ... enjoy

so-so??  The hell you say!!!

The Goonies is one of my all time favorite movies!!

I have been hearing rumors lately that Spielberg and Sean Astin have talked about a sequel.

Anyway ... I'll see if I can find you that song.

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?

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.

I'm not a big fan of the idiot either.  I can't really blame him for exploiting the stupidity of this country though.  I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank.  Personally I don't find him funny, clever, or original.  He's cut and paste crap that the mindless (which there are sadly WAY too many of) find humorous.

I agree with Snake about MTV.  I do remember, many many years ago in my youth, when MTV actually had M ...

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=28879.0

Not the critics lounge ... stay on target