Anyone actually pay for their music?

Bottom line: If I don't feel you've provided me with anything I don't feel you should be paid anything. If you disagree with that I disagree with you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bottom line in my case is the industries get more money from me because I am able to pirate. It's a fact. If I couldn't pirate your music or movie or whatever I just wouldn't buy it and take a chance on it and you'd get nothing. Instead there's a decent chance I'll enjoy it and decide it is worth paying for.

For me personally that doesnt hold for video games simply because I feel I can read reviews and opinions and make an informed enough decision based on that. One time I blindly bought a game and it was terrible. I regret that they saw a penny of mine as I dont feel they deserved it. In that case though I (foolishly) agreed to pay in advance so no I would never expect a refund for my own foolishness.

Edit: And again this doesnt mean I'm 100% for piracy. I know the reality is people suck and many will steal it even though they enjoy and get something out of the content. That is legally and more importantly morally wrong imo. Obviously this is where the real problem is and there is no simple solution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']The music industry has definitely fucked it self repeatedly.

But at the same time, part of it's just the nature of the medium.

DLC is unique to video games, not much of an equivalent for digital music.

Digital movie theft hasn't became as widespread as most people want to watch on their big screens rather than a computer (and most people don't have a pc hooked up to their TVs), the files are huge and take a while to download etc. So for most it's just not worth the hassle when rental is so cheap with Redbox and Netflix. I suppose music companies could do more on that front--but their already streaming sites, subscription download sites etc. that are pretty damn cheap....

E-books are just relatively new, still have DRM etc., but I think they'll get hit hard with piracy once they get more market share, eventually lose DRM etc. Probably not as much as music though. Probably just not much interest in reading among the pirate crowd as their is for music, movies and video games.


So books and music have it tougher as they don't have the DLC options of games, and don't have the current "hassle barriers" that movies have. Authors may end up with it worse though, since musicians at least have tours and merchandising to fall back on if piracy cannibalizes their album sales. Authors have nothing but book sales. Maybe signing appearances I suppose, but only big name writers will make any real money on those.[/QUOTE]

I disagree about books because you have consumer-friendly companies such as Amazon leading the way with e-readers. Who wants to download a shitty copy that can only be read onscreen when they can use the streamlined Kindle marketplace to get a legit copy for a few bucks. If anything I buy more books (albeit ebooks) now because I goto the library less.

Maybe college textbooks but the new edition tweaks were a racket run against students for years, so it's hardly surprising students got fed up. I never did that (didn't even have the ability back in the day) just saying I can see where it's coming from.

I love audiobooks but they are too expensive, I tried a subscription service but the queuing system was totally whack, don't know why they can't be more like Netflix.

I used to buy CDs but I am so disgusted with the music labels that I cannot bring myself to give them any more of my hard-earned. Like I said I do not pirate, I just listen to and support internet radio, see live bands, and occasionally youtube a music video.
 
I don't always listen to music, but when I do, I prefer Spotify.

Seriously, Spotify (as long as it remains free, anyway) has pretty much rendered music piracy obsolete. It is much easier to type the artist name or song title into Spotify and listen to it instantly than to download the album from Usenet/Torrents. Granted, it doesn't exactly work for people who need their music portable (I don't).
 
[quote name='camoor']I disagree about books because you have consumer-friendly companies such as Amazon leading the way with e-readers. Who wants to download a shitty copy that can only be read onscreen when they can use the streamlined Kindle marketplace to get a legit copy for a few bucks. If anything I buy more books (albeit ebooks) now because I goto the library less.
[/QUOTE]

I love my Kindle. But most mainstream books form big publishers cost the same (or nearly the same) as the print versions. So I'm not saving any money. There are lots of cheap indie books etc., but I'm not much into seeking out that stuff when there's so much mainstream stuff I need to catch up on that's less of a risk than taking a chance on some indie press or self published book.

And I don't think Amazon (or any of the ebook companies) are all that consumer friendly since they use DRM, gave into publishers on agency pricing (letting publishers set the price rather than retailers being free to set their own prices etc.).
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']Bottom line: If I don't feel you've provided me with anything I don't feel you should be paid anything. If you disagree with that I disagree with you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

But how does that justify piracy?

There are plenty of legal ways to sample things before purchasing and decide not to buy if you don't feel it provides you with anything. Especially with music with all the internet radio and streaming sites, many bands streaming new albums on their website around release date, sample clips on Amazon etc.

With movies you can rent cheaply first and just buy what you like and so on.
 
About eBooks...What's this about DRM and stuff? I've gotten tons of sci-fi/horror/fantasy eBooks for free, fully working, with zero issues for my eReader. Right now my eReader has close to 600 books on it, all of them checked and fully working. Just gotta know where to look for "good" copies. And while I do like some of the indies stuff, the majority of what I get is mainstream new releases.
 
Then you're probably pirating ebooks or unknowingly buying illegal copies as the big six publishers all only allow their books to be sold with DRM.

Or you're just not buying books from the major presses. There are a lot of non DRM books out there, just not from the big 6 publishing houses that publish the majority of mainstream/best selling books.

The big 6 are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, MacMillan, Penguin, Random House and Simon & Schuster.

They all require DRM and participate in agency pricing and set the price for their ebooks in any ebook store that offers them. They're not the only publishers who do so, but they have all the money and power and drive industry trends outside of the indie presses and self publishing authors.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But how does that justify piracy?

There are plenty of legal ways to sample things before purchasing and decide not to buy if you don't feel it provides you with anything. Especially with music with all the internet radio and streaming sites, many bands streaming new albums on their website around release date, sample clips on Amazon etc.

With movies you can rent cheaply first and just buy what you like and so on.[/QUOTE]
I know that none of what I say can legally justify it. Morally as I said I really don't feel the need to justify it though I will argue it because I like to argue. I realize we all have different opinions and 99.9% would never change theirs based on anything I had to say.

As for other means of obtaining content, the legal ways I've come across so far are less convenient. Granted there are many music sites and probably some better ones than what I've used but going back to movies it's much more convenient to pirate something and watch it than to actually go somewhere and get it.

In the case of movies I actually can tell you how to cut down dramatically on piracy: Make a Netflix Ultimate package which includes the latest in theater releases. Price it fairly and there you go. I'd go as far as saying that a third of all movie piracy in the US could be effectively stopped virtually overnight by doing this. Now would that kill the movie theatre? Maybe. Maybe it's time to let that go though.

And for whoever was asking awhether I feel I should pay more for content I particularly enjoyed the answer is yes. A video game like Uncharted or Skyrim for example I may get a hundred hours of entertainment out of. In that case if there was a way to charge me more for it or I could give directly to the developer then yes that would be fair of me to do. Have I actually done that though? No, but again I wouldn't be at all against it. I feel they would deserve every penny I could give them. There are movies which I enjoy immensely and would repeatedly watch. Again if I could give an extra amount to the people involved in the making of that movie I'd gladly do so. Particularly in a case of a movie I felt was better than people gave credit for. For example Lucky Number Slevin or Easy A are two of my favorite movies that I'm sure did not make nearly what I feel they should have. I would pay extra for those.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I buy the CD of almost every band I like. Being a musician myself, I understand the need to sell music. I have however encouraged some people to download my bands music online to help spread our stuff out there. It is a constant struggle regardless.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']Bottom line: If I don't feel you've provided me with anything I don't feel you should be paid anything. If you disagree with that I disagree with you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

As long as you listen to music one time and delete it, then I could see your point. Then you could buy the music legally or delete it so you don't have access. But the whole "provided me with anything" is very subjected. You are the judge of what is worth money and what isn't. Thus, you are biased towards things not being worth your money. As I said, as long as you immediately delete it, it's not that big of a deal, but then it wouldn't be so convenient to download stuff illegally only to delete it.

Bottom line in my case is the industries get more money from me because I am able to pirate. It's a fact. If I couldn't pirate your music or movie or whatever I just wouldn't buy it and take a chance on it and you'd get nothing. Instead there's a decent chance I'll enjoy it and decide it is worth paying for.
Click to expand...
I find that very hard to believe. As noted, there are many legal alternatives to listening to the music before buying. And usually people pirate because they only have a set amount of money they are willing to spend. So your probably comfortable spending say $10 a month on music. So you would spend your $10 a month deciding who gets your $10 all the while enjoying unlimited music.

For me personally that doesnt hold for video games simply because I feel I can read reviews and opinions and make an informed enough decision based on that. One time I blindly bought a game and it was terrible. I regret that they saw a penny of mine as I dont feel they deserved it. In that case though I (foolishly) agreed to pay in advance so no I would never expect a refund for my own foolishness.
Click to expand...
You can listen to every song in advance for free. It's actually more of a slam dunk than a video game, because you can't determine how a game controls from a youtube video, while you can get the whole product of a song.

Edit: And again this doesnt mean I'm 100% for piracy. I know the reality is people suck and many will steal it even though they enjoy and get something out of the content. That is legally and more importantly morally wrong imo. Obviously this is where the real problem is and there is no simple solution.
Click to expand...
It's nice that you have your "justifications" that help you sleep better at night. But the end result is the same. I and the other paying customers subsidize your fun through higher song prices and fewer bands get record deals because it's a cutthroat business which few bands make money. They have their justifications too you know. My favorite is the, "Well, I wouldn't have purchased it anyway, so they aren't really out of money." Of which, your justification is just an offshoot because you "support" the best bands (in your opinion) of those you download.

Actually, I understand someone's argument that just says I'm going to pirate because I can better than yours. To them, life is selfishly about getting what they want any way they can get it. And if they can get something for free, good for them because they can then spend that money on otherthings. Doesn't matter that it's illegal they will fully admit it's wrong and not care. You are acting like you have this great moral philosophy which makes doing the same thing as them, better than them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ShockandAww']
As for other means of obtaining content, the legal ways I've come across so far are less convenient. Granted there are many music sites and probably some better ones than what I've used but going back to movies it's much more convenient to pirate something and watch it than to actually go somewhere and get it. [/quote]
It's not that convenient if you actually go through the trouble of purchasing it later. What do you purchase, 5% of the content you enjoy? Oh sorry, if you enjoyed it, you would pay for it. Do you purchase 1%?

In the case of movies I actually can tell you how to cut down dramatically on piracy: Make a Netflix Ultimate package which includes the latest in theater releases. Price it fairly and there you go. I'd go as far as saying that a third of all movie piracy in the US could be effectively stopped virtually overnight by doing this. Now would that kill the movie theatre? Maybe. Maybe it's time to let that go though.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. Most people don't understand all the costs involved in developing and running a business. Thus, what they consider fair isn't what a business can deliver a product at, because people like you are used to getting products for free. How can a business compete with that? Likely if a business tried this you would blast it for being an uncompetitive price and then further justify your means of pirating their software.

And for whoever was asking awhether I feel I should pay more for content I particularly enjoyed the answer is yes. A video game like Uncharted or Skyrim for example I may get a hundred hours of entertainment out of. In that case if there was a way to charge me more for it or I could give directly to the developer then yes that would be fair of me to do. Have I actually done that though? No, but again I wouldn't be at all against it. I feel they would deserve every penny I could give them. There are movies which I enjoy immensely and would repeatedly watch. Again if I could give an extra amount to the people involved in the making of that movie I'd gladly do so. Particularly in a case of a movie I felt was better than people gave credit for. For example Lucky Number Slevin or Easy A are two of my favorite movies that I'm sure did not make nearly what I feel they should have. I would pay extra for those.
Click to expand...

You can buy multiple copies of items. Most games hit $10-20 so you can wait until it hits that range to buy again if you don't think a game is worth another $60. Songs are at most $1.29, just buy multiple copies. Movies generally drop pretty cheap too. Or alternatively, you could buy other songs, movies, games of the people that made other content you enjoy. Heck, go find their website and buy a t-shirt or something. However, that might not be convenient enough for you.
 
The truth is an appropriate business solution will never be more convenient than pirating. My wife actually had to buy a CD this year because she was looking for a specific version of a song that wasn't available for download anywhere. It's hard to get the rights to sell songs so it's impossible that you would get one store that you could buy any possible song you would want. You know, the radio version, the standard version, the acoustic version, the live in Moscow version, the live in DC version, etc. etc etc. A P2P site is likely to have all the versions in one place for you. Unfortunately it's not that easy in the business world. So if convenience is your reason for pirating, take solace in the fact you'll never have to pay for music and you can still blame companies for not fulfilling your demands. :)
 
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']The truth is an appropriate business solution will never be more convenient than pirating.[/QUOTE]

This is a problem exclusive to the music industry and it is of their own making.

For example - without even looking I know that I could go out today and buy at least 5 different versions of LOTR all from Amazon (theatrical cut, extended cut, collector's edition, Bluray, extended Bluray)

Songs can be conveyed in an almost meaningless amount of data, therefore the inability to offer studio, accoustic, live, etc versions of a popular song on every major music selling platform is the result of execessive legal red tape and an inability to understand the market.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Then you're probably pirating ebooks or unknowingly buying illegal copies as the big six publishers all only allow their books to be sold with DRM.

Or you're just not buying books from the major presses. There are a lot of non DRM books out there, just not from the big 6 publishing houses that publish the majority of mainstream/best selling books.

The big 6 are Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, MacMillan, Penguin, Random House and Simon & Schuster.

They all require DRM and participate in agency pricing and set the price for their ebooks in any ebook store that offers them. They're not the only publishers who do so, but they have all the money and power and drive industry trends outside of the indie presses and self publishing authors.[/QUOTE]

I guess I didn't think about the ebook DRM because it doesn't affect me. That is what good DRM should be - invisible to the paying customer. Amazon Kindle store is just great and I love that they offer some books for free, so you can have a "practice run" at using the store. In contrast I had such a bad time with digital music DRM that I gave up on it a long time ago. Then that lousy ITunes rearranged all the music ripped from my CDs on my computer. Ugh digital music - what a fucking mess.

The agency pricing is bullshit but what are you going to do.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']
In the case of movies I actually can tell you how to cut down dramatically on piracy: Make a Netflix Ultimate package which includes the latest in theater releases. Price it fairly and there you go. I'd go as far as saying that a third of all movie piracy in the US could be effectively stopped virtually overnight by doing this. Now would that kill the movie theatre? Maybe. Maybe it's time to let that go though.
[/quote]

I don't think that would stop piracy at all.

Most pirates are too cheap to pay for anything. I don't think most people are pirating things because they don't want to go to the theater as they could easily wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it cheaply from Netflix without leaving the house.

Most pirates just want stuff free. Netflix is $7.99 a month for 1 disc at a time, and $7.99 for their streaming if you don't care about newer releases. It's hard to see movie rental prices ever being any cheaper than that, yet people still pirate--and not just movies that are only in theater still.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess I didn't think about the ebook DRM because it doesn't affect me. That is what good DRM should be - invisible to the paying customer. Amazon Kindle store is just great and I love that they offer some books for free, so you can have a "practice run" at using the store. In contrast I had such a bad time with digital music DRM that I gave up on it a long time ago. Then that lousy ITunes rearranged all the music ripped from my CDs on my computer. Ugh digital music - what a fucking mess.

The agency pricing is bullshit but what are you going to do.[/QUOTE]


E-book DRM isn't invisible though. You can't back up the books to your computer and put them on another Kindle later on (which would be a quick easy way to do it when you upgrade) as the DRM is specific to device rather than account. So you have to register your new Kindle to your account and then manually download each book you own manually either on the device through the Archive or going to the Manage My Kindle section of Amazon.com and sending them to the new device one by one.

The lending feature is also very restrictive. Most books can't be loaned out at all (up to the publisher on whether to enable it or not), and those that can can only be loaned out once. And as with any digital file, you lose any legal option to sell or give it away like you could with a physical good like a paper book. That's a big reason I don't like downloadable video games unless they're $10 or less. I have no interest in collecting games so I pretty much always sell/trade a disc game after beating it. I don't mind for e-books though as they're cheap enough that I don't care. With paper books I just donated them when moving rather than selling them anyway. But it's an issue for some who frequented used bookstores etc.


As for digital music, yeah, DRM indeed a pain in the ass there. But I don't think it was any worse than e-books are. Back in the day you could have DRM'd iTunes songs on 5 devices at the same time IIRC correcly. With Kindle DRM books the publisher sets how many devices it can be on at the same time, with most seeming to be set at 6.

So the DRM isn't really any different, you just don't notice it as much as you probably just read you books once on one device and forget about them, where as music people have more desire to have it on multiple devices etc. So it's more annoying for music, and that's why I never bought digital music until DRM went away.

As for iTunes organization of MP3s, I've never gotten why people gripe about how iTunes does it. It puts songs in folders of artists with subfolders of albums--exactly how I'd want it if I organized it myself. The only problem I've encountered is it messes up compilations (like a soundtrack) sometimes and puts them in artist folders as well, rather one folder for the album. But that's easy enough to fix manually and I seldom buy those kind of things as I really only enjoy cohesive albums by a band. So I've never been a song or compilation listener really.

[quote name='camoor']This is a problem exclusive to the music industry and it is of their own making.

For example - without even looking I know that I could go out today and buy at least 5 different versions of LOTR all from Amazon (theatrical cut, extended cut, collector's edition, Bluray, extended Bluray)

Songs can be conveyed in an almost meaningless amount of data, therefore the inability to offer studio, accoustic, live, etc versions of a popular song on every major music selling platform is the result of execessive legal red tape and an inability to understand the market.[/QUOTE]


I think that's just a limitation of music. An album with some B sides tacked on etc. just doesn't have the same appeal as say a directors cut or extended version of a film. So they just don't have as easy a time repackaging things and reselling them in a short period of time to make more money like movies can with directors cuts or games can with game of they year editions with all the DLC packed in etc.

Even for bands I love, I generally won't buy the re-release albums. I'll either do without the extra songs, or just buy the extra songs individual from Amazon as MP3s if available.

In any case, with all the mistakes the music industry made early on with DRM etc., I don't see what they're doing wrong now. You have standard prices of .99 cents a song and 9.99 an album, and any more most things are cheaper than that on Amazon with lots of albums selling for $3.99 etc.

They definitely fucked it up big time early on, but I see no reason not to buy legally now as cheap as most mp3 albums are. And besides, if digital music bothers you, CDs haven't gone anywhere and prices have came down from where they were in the 90s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']This is a problem exclusive to the music industry and it is of their own making.

For example - without even looking I know that I could go out today and buy at least 5 different versions of LOTR all from Amazon (theatrical cut, extended cut, collector's edition, Bluray, extended Bluray)

Songs can be conveyed in an almost meaningless amount of data, therefore the inability to offer studio, accoustic, live, etc versions of a popular song on every major music selling platform is the result of execessive legal red tape and an inability to understand the market.[/QUOTE]

Games have a bunch of versions too, the standard copy, the collector's edition, the super mighty expensive collector's edition, the game of the year edition, the greatest hits edition, yada yada yada.

My point wasn't that I couldn't purchase the songs, we could, but we had to buy a CD to do it, just like you can purchase the other versions of the other forms of media.

I don't know that I agree with what you're saying. Believe it or not there are people that would buy multiple versions of Lord of the Rings. There are also people that will buy 8 versions of the same song with different twists. But I don't think there are many. It's the band's song, they have every right to release a special edition CD and try to get their true fans to pay $10 for it instead of selling the same amount of copies for $1 on some download service. Most people are okay with the standard version for $1 and couldn't care less about the special edition CD. It's not a bad business move if you have enough fans and market it correctly.

It's no different than you going into your employer and demanding $40/hr. You have every right to set a value on your work as they are trying to set a value for their work (i.e. special versions of games have premiums attached or additional downloadable content.) This is how they are paid, by selling music, they don't have an hourly job (well some do, but only because they don't make enough). Now back to the $40/hr example, your employer can pay you or tell you to take a hike. Much like buying a song, or deciding it is too expensive and not buying it.

The guy who claims he is morally right in pirating offers a third way. The employer could tell you that your not worth $40/hr, but that they think you're worth $8/hr. And you will work for them for free until you agree to work for $8/hr because they like your work enough to use it, but not quite enough to pay for it. And the company is in the right, because they'd have more work for you at $8/hr and in the long term, you'll be better off making $8/hr. Great employer!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As for digital music, yeah, DRM indeed a pain in the ass there. But I don't think it was any worse than e-books are. Back in the day you could have DRM'd iTunes songs on 5 devices at the same time IIRC correcly. With Kindle DRM books the publisher sets how many devices it can be on at the same time, with most seeming to be set at 6.

So the DRM isn't really any different, you just don't notice it as much as you probably just read you books once on one device and forget about them, where as music people have more desire to have it on multiple devices etc. So it's more annoying for music, and that's why I never bought digital music until DRM went away.

As for iTunes organization of MP3s, I've never gotten why people gripe about how iTunes does it. It puts songs in folders of artists with subfolders of albums--exactly how I'd want it if I organized it myself. The only problem I've encountered is it messes up compilations (like a soundtrack) sometimes and puts them in artist folders as well, rather one folder for the album. But that's easy enough to fix manually and I seldom buy those kind of things as I really only enjoy cohesive albums by a band. So I've never been a song or compilation listener really.

I think that's just a limitation of music. An album with some B sides tacked on etc. just doesn't have the same appeal as say a directors cut or extended version of a film. So they just don't have as easy a time repackaging things and reselling them in a short period of time to make more money like movies can with directors cuts or games can with game of they year editions with all the DLC packed in etc.

Even for bands I love, I generally won't buy the re-release albums. I'll either do without the extra songs, or just buy the extra songs individual from Amazon as MP3s if available.

In any case, with all the mistakes the music industry made early on with DRM etc., I don't see what they're doing wrong now. You have standard prices of .99 cents a song and 9.99 an album, and any more most things are cheaper than that on Amazon with lots of albums selling for $3.99 etc.

They definitely fucked it up big time early on, but I see no reason not to buy legally now as cheap as most mp3 albums are. And besides, if digital music bothers you, CDs haven't gone anywhere and prices have came down from where they were in the 90s.[/QUOTE]

For ebooks granted - but there is something to be said for launching the product the right way.

For music - you make alot of good points.

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']Games have a bunch of versions too, the standard copy, the collector's edition, the super mighty expensive collector's edition, the game of the year edition, the greatest hits edition, yada yada yada.

My point wasn't that I couldn't purchase the songs, we could, but we had to buy a CD to do it, just like you can purchase the other versions of the other forms of media.

I don't know that I agree with what you're saying. Believe it or not there are people that would buy multiple versions of Lord of the Rings. There are also people that will buy 8 versions of the same song with different twists. But I don't think there are many. It's the band's song, they have every right to release a special edition CD and try to get their true fans to pay $10 for it instead of selling the same amount of copies for $1 on some download service. Most people are okay with the standard version for $1 and couldn't care less about the special edition CD. It's not a bad business move if you have enough fans and market it correctly.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't think you understood my point either. Of course I know ppl buy multiple versions of LOTR. That's why as soon as you buy the standard DVD set they immediately suggest you buy the standard bluray version, collector's edition, extended cut, etc. And why not - why not earn an extra buck from people who love the product?

I'm saying the music industry is fucking retarded for not doing the same. It's one of the worst run industries ever, the labels are lucky they make any money at all.
 
[quote name='camoor']For ebooks granted - but there is something to be said for launching the product the right way.
[/quote]

My point was more that e-books haven't really done anything differently other than not yet repeating the dumbass RIAA lawsuits.

The books are DRM'd and limited to a set number of devices just like early DRM music was. Pricing is even worse with the agency pricing stuff--there's no reason digital products that have no printing/pressing or shipping costs involved should be costing the same as the physical version.

I think there's just less bitching about it as the e-book crowd skews older and is less tech inclined and knowledgeable about DRM, piracy etc. There's some discussion of these issues on some of the e-book forums I read, but nothing like there was with MP3s back when they were all DRM'd. And these e-book forums are more full of old fogeys than any forums I've ever read with age polls often finding the average in the 50s with lots of 60 and 70+ year olds. Kind of mind blowing vs. the average forum experience!

Yeah I don't think you understood my point either. Of course I know ppl buy multiple versions of LOTR. That's why as soon as you buy the standard DVD set they immediately suggest you buy the standard bluray version, collector's edition, extended cut, etc. And why not - why not earn an extra buck from people who love the product?

I'm saying the music industry is fucking retarded for not doing the same. It's one of the worst run industries ever, the labels are lucky they make any money at all.
Click to expand...

The point he and I were making is that the music industry does do this with putting out special editions of albums with some b-sides or remixes added in etc. Sometimes there's a SE of an album at launch that has those things, or a DVD about the making of the album etc. included.

They just don't seem to sell as well as Director's cuts of movies or Game of the Year editions of games etc. People seem more resistant to rebuying an album to get a few more songs than they are to buying a longer cut of a movie etc.

People are probably like me and just say screw it and do without the extra songs as they see it as a greedy money grab, or they just buy the new songs individually in iTunes rather than buying the special edition CD etc.

I think this just doesn't work in the music world as music has been devalued. People are used to just pirating music or buying at .99 cents a song or less. If you view music as being of that little value, then you're probably not going to be very open to rebuying an album you already bought to get a few new songs or a dvd or whatever is added in.

That subjective devaluation hasn't happened in movies and games or yet as movies still sell a ton at launch at $20-25 usually, and blu rays are seldom cheaper than $10. The big games sell a ton at launch at $50-60 etc.

Also, that fear of devaluation is why the publishers forced agency pricing in. They are scared to death that e-books costing way less than the print versions will devalue books the way cheap mp3s have devalued music. That and the rise of self publishing is a huge threat to them as authors can make more selling many fewer copies themselves than getting 10% cut of more sales from a publishing house contract.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']I guess I didn't think about the ebook DRM because it doesn't affect me. That is what good DRM should be - invisible to the paying customer. Amazon Kindle store is just great and I love that they offer some books for free, so you can have a "practice run" at using the store. In contrast I had such a bad time with digital music DRM that I gave up on it a long time ago. Then that lousy ITunes rearranged all the music ripped from my CDs on my computer. Ugh digital music - what a fucking mess.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, digital music DRM issues have pretty much been cleared up years ago. Even if they didn't, if you own a CD and rip it, just upload it to Google Music and you should be able to access it wherever you go.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Also, that fear of devaluation is why the publishers forced agency pricing in. They are scared to death that e-books costing way less than the print versions will devalue books the way cheap mp3s have devalued music. That and the rise of self publishing is a huge threat to them as authors can make more selling many fewer copies themselves than getting 10% cut of more sales from a publishing house contract.[/QUOTE]

There is something to be said about smart businessmen.

Self-publishing will do what it is going to do. But the print world is not going to repeat the mistakes of the music world, mark my words.

The real mystery is - why doesn't the music industry learn.
 
Another annoyance - I just discovered some new music and googled the lyrics. Sure enough google directed me right into a goddamn virus (which was successfully blocked, thank you AVG)

Music industry - could you find some goddamn way of posting goddamn lyrics which take up goddamn little space on the goddamn internet without having honest folks resort to strange virus-ridden foreign sites. If I knew what the lyrics were truly about I might be interested in purchasing the goddamn song but if you're going to be goddamn obscure with your goddamn effects-ridden goddamn vocals then you should goddamn be ready to let me know what the goddamn lyrics actually goddamn are.

This is fucking inexcusable in light of the fact that when you purchase the song you still don't get the mother fucking lyrics.

If the music industry isn't the stupidest, most backwards, most inept industry I have ever heard of in my entire life, well, then, I don't know what is.
 
[quote name='camoor']There is something to be said about smart businessmen.

Self-publishing will do what it is going to do. But the print world is not going to repeat the mistakes of the music world, mark my words.

The real mystery is - why doesn't the music industry learn.[/QUOTE]

The real mystery is why you don't realize that the music industry has learned. You seem stuck in the past. Digital music has been cheap and DRM free for YEARS now and keeps getting cheaper. They've done all the things you're suggesting about putting out special editions of albums etc.

You just hate the labels so much for how they bungled the introduction of digital music, that you don't realize that they've changed and that digital music is now the BEST digital product for consumers. It's the ONLY digital media where you can get ANY song with no DRM. Ebooks, digital movies, digital games etc. almost all have DRM if it's a mainstream title from a major publisher.

And the book publishers are 100% repeating the same of the record labels mistakes by forcing in DRM, agency pricing making e-books cost as much (and sometimes more!) than the print version on Amazon etc. Many people on ebook forums just boycott those presses and only read indie and self published books that are much cheaper and lack DRM. Their practices are 100% costing them sales, driving some to piracy etc. just like the record labels knuckleheaded practices did back in the day.

And as Ebooks continue to gain marketshare (they're up to 20% of book sales now per an article I read the other day) we'll start seeing more big name authors ditch publisher contracts and start self publishing. That's a much bigger threat to publishers than self publishing of music is to record labels. All an author needs is a computer to write the book on, and a few thousand to have it professional edited for content and style. It's much more expensive to produce a professional album with the need for a recording studio, professional producer etc. Even big bands like Pearl Jam struggle to self publish, as they had to do an exclusive partnership with Target to get their last album out (and used proceeds from that exclusivity deal to help also sell it in indie record shops).


Any way, what more do you want for the music industry? MP3 albums are easily available for $4-10 with NO DRM, and can easily be uploaded to various cloud options to be accessible from anywhere. What more do you need/want? Are you just so jaded from their past practices that you aren't aware of the current options, because the current options are a TON better for consumers than e-books, downloadable games or digital movies currently. The music industry finally has digital content right IMO, the other media seem intent on repeating most of the mistakes the music industry made and just hoping they can slide by with having slightly less restrictive DRM, easier access to files than back then with the rise of wifi and 3G etc.

Edit: I see your post about lyrics. I do miss those with digital downloads and agree they could include those. Though a lot of CDs I buy lately don't include lyrics, but just have pictures in the liner notes. So part of that is on bands choosing not to include their lyrics. As for lyric sites. They're are several reputable ones out there, so best to just find one and book mark it rather than taking chances with googling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Great points.[/QUOTE]


Again, this is why I came and went in both of the threads about this topic and was so blown away that I gave up. Its very clearly that a vast majority of people from this new digital era have just decided what they do is right with their only real justification being that its the interweb so its hard to get caught.

Everything that has been said has been utterly bullshit in the worst kind of way. Its clear that most have no idea how the industry works as a business, as a distribution agent, accounting, consumers..etc. Yet they have this ideas that are completely set in stone that almost always turn out to be so far left field you are not even in the same stadium anymore. I work in the field and what many of you are saying is mind boggling its like being a physicist and listening to people talk about Einstein Law but they dont know that 2 plus 2 equals 4. You cant even start the conversation because your core base of information is so wrong that its laughable.

The bottom line is...they are not Robin Hood stealing from the rich tyrants of the music industry and giving to the poor, you are actually a common thug robbing mom and pop stores and pushing old ladies down.

I want to make this clear, I like Camoor I do but its clear like I said from the very beginning he has absolutely no idea what the hell he is talking about in every shape and form. He perfectly represents the vast majority of these new digital rebels. You are asking for these things that were completed YEARS ago...you are angry about sections of companies that dont even exist anymore, you are ripping on studios but your actual complaint is for publishers, then you go on to rip publishers when its actual distribution agents you are after. And my personal favorite the people who are offended that someone would even THINK they should be compensate for the goods or services they produce.

Just one last note, again, I am not ripping camoor per say, I am using him as a representative of all of these new age digital rebels. But seriously dude, DRM free? Dude thats like stealing medical supplies because you are worried about small pox, apparently missed the memo when they solved the problem 200 years ago. There will never be anything good enough for these people. The system isnt perfect but is way better than the imaginary tyrant you are fighting against. The problem is they dont have the time for you to wake up and see the real world because every day you are asleep its millions out of their pocket.

One last thing and this is the only they that will be a direct statement to camoor (because I was speaking in very general terms earlier) someone asked you this question and you ignored it but I want an answer. With your logic you are stealing this music because it is not up to whatever code you are going by.......how many times if you found content that hit the mark on your scale and gave them their just due and how much was it? Because going by your system you should have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars over their asking price to at LEAST ONE band so far. You can possible have not found at least 1 group in the years of pirating everything that hit your mark.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']As long as you listen to music one time and delete it, then I could see your point. Then you could buy the music legally or delete it so you don't have access. But the whole "provided me with anything" is very subjected. You are the judge of what is worth money and what isn't. Thus, you are biased towards things not being worth your money. As I said, as long as you immediately delete it, it's not that big of a deal, but then it wouldn't be so convenient to download stuff illegally only to delete it.[/QUOTE] Well really I dont listen to a lot of music and I don't pirate music randomly, that would be much less convenient than say using purevolume or Amazon or Spotify or itunes or whatever the hell people use nowadays. Let's say I did pirate music randomly though. Of course I would delete it if I didnt like it. Why would I want it taking up space on my computer? If I download the latest album by a band I like and it sucks, I delete it. I imagine anyone would. What else would you do with it?

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']I find that very hard to believe. As noted, there are many legal alternatives to listening to the music before buying. And usually people pirate because they only have a set amount of money they are willing to spend. So your probably comfortable spending say $10 a month on music. So you would spend your $10 a month deciding who gets your $10 all the while enjoying unlimited music.[/QUOTE]
Here again I'm more talking about a movie rather than music. The movie industry would get next to nothing from me if I couldn't pirate. Instead I can and they do. And if we're talking about music yes I will pirate it and not pay if it's like a single song off an album. That is wrong and immoral of me along with being illegal. I shouldn't do it but I do. I probably owe one to two dollars to a hundred or so artists. I should pay that.

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']You can listen to every song in advance for free.[/QUOTE] Where can I do this? I'll throw one out there Blink 182s latest album or Adele. Where? If I can listen to the album somewhere else conveniently besides pirating it then great.

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']It's nice that you have your "justifications" that help you sleep better at night. But the end result is the same. I and the other paying customers subsidize your fun through higher song prices and fewer bands get record deals because it's a cutthroat business which few bands make money. They have their justifications too you know. My favorite is the, "Well, I wouldn't have purchased it anyway, so they aren't really out of money." Of which, your justification is just an offshoot because you "support" the best bands (in your opinion) of those you download.[/QUOTE] Again we're talking about morals. Morality does not = Legality. You clearly have a different set of morals than I and we have disagreements there. Get it through your head though, I do not find what I do immoral aside from above where I said that I may pirate a single off an album. I'm not "justifying" anything because I don't see the need. I'm saying I do not find it wrong to begin with, whereas you do. I would use a torrent site as my "preview app" whereas you might use itunes or a radio or wherever it is that you can listen to a song for free first.

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']It's not that convenient if you actually go through the trouble of purchasing it later. What do you purchase, 5% of the content you enjoy? Oh sorry, if you enjoyed it, you would pay for it. Do you purchase 1%? [/QUOTE]
I dont understand this. Yes it is convenient. Is there something more convenient? If I like it I want to go through the "trouble" of purchasing it.


[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']You can buy multiple copies of items. Most games hit $10-20 so you can wait until it hits that range to buy again if you don't think a game is worth another $60. Songs are at most $1.29, just buy multiple copies. Movies generally drop pretty cheap too. Or alternatively, you could buy other songs, movies, games of the people that made other content you enjoy. Heck, go find their website and buy a t-shirt or something. However, that might not be convenient enough for you.[/QUOTE] Basically I would want a donation site only for the developer or the musician or the director or whoever it may be. The artist sang/wrote (ideally) the song I like so I'd want only the artist to have that extra for example. So the artist should take donations on their website. Or Naughty Dog made Uncharted and I like it so Naughty Dog should take donations on their site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']The truth is an appropriate business solution will never be more convenient than pirating. My wife actually had to buy a CD this year because she was looking for a specific version of a song that wasn't available for download anywhere. It's hard to get the rights to sell songs so it's impossible that you would get one store that you could buy any possible song you would want. You know, the radio version, the standard version, the acoustic version, the live in Moscow version, the live in DC version, etc. etc etc. A P2P site is likely to have all the versions in one place for you. Unfortunately it's not that easy in the business world. So if convenience is your reason for pirating, take solace in the fact you'll never have to pay for music and you can still blame companies for not fulfilling your demands. :)[/QUOTE]
From a business perspective, all they need to do is use a strong DRM. Yes, it screws the customer from using the product in their own sense but it slows/stops pirating.

Though like I said earlier, companies had this issue prior to Napster age and did nothing to hinder pirating. Plenty of people copied their friends tapes/cds/vhs/etc. The difference between then and now is your "friends" are now 1000+x more.
 
DRM doesn't help much at all. It's barely a speed bump for the major pirates who are the ones costing companies the most money as they're not only downloading a ton for themselves, but also offering it up for others to take.

So DRM just ends up being an inconvenience for those who legally by their digital media as it makes it harder to put it on multiple devices, loan to a friend (which you can do with a physical good) etc.

So DRM is just something that limits the fair use rights of legitimate consumers and does little to slow piracy as it's super easy to strip DRM with a tiny bit of computer literacy--which most pirates have a lot of.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']
Where can I do this? I'll throw one out there Blink 182s latest album or Adele. Where? If I can listen to the album somewhere else conveniently besides pirating it then great.[/QUOTE]

Blink 182 has their new album streaming on their site under the Music section.

http://www.blink182.com/discography/default.aspx?pg=2

And Adele has her's streaming on her Myspace page.

It's super common for acts to have their latest albums (if not more) streaming on their web sites or Myspace/Facebook pages these days. Sometimes it's limited to the month before, or week or two before, release. But still plenty of time to sample and decide if it's worth buying or not.

http://www.myspace.com/adelelondon/music/albums/21-17390860
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lordopus99']From a business perspective, all they need to do is use a strong DRM. Yes, it screws the customer from using the product in their own sense but it slows/stops pirating.

Though like I said earlier, companies had this issue prior to Napster age and did nothing to hinder pirating. Plenty of people copied their friends tapes/cds/vhs/etc. The difference between then and now is your "friends" are now 1000+x more.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='ShockandAww']
Here again I'm more talking about a movie rather than music. The movie industry would get next to nothing from me if I couldn't pirate. Instead I can and they do.
Where can I do this? I'll throw one out there Blink 182s latest album or Adele. Where? If I can listen to the album somewhere else conveniently besides pirating it then great.
[/QUOTE]

I should have never came back in this thread. (Although I actually like both of you but this topic is making me rage)

Lordpuss....what in the heavenly hell are you talking about? What is the difference between Hitler and a guy who killed his wife for cheating on him? Uhhh its the extra 40 million people he killed. How in the world can giving 1 person something relate to giving 10 million people something? How can your brain even process the statement of "the only difference is 100 thousand plus people." That a pretty big difference.

Then you shockandawe (very appropriate name because your ignorance is mind blowing) what you are saying is, "If I couldnt steal 10 million I would never be able to pay them 100 dollars" I am the only one here who works in the film industry TRUST ME when I say this...THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU NEVER GIVE THEM A fuckING DIME THAN FOR YOU TO PIRATE FROM THEM. But of course you logic doesnt account for that. They are not forcing you to watch movies, they are not forcing you to listen to music but like a 5 year old you simply just want them and that is enough justification for you.

I have said this before...my biggest problem with you digital rebels is the fact that NONE OF YOU are advocating less movies or less music. With the theory being if you were only 5 movies out a year you would have enough money to pay for all of them. You want just as much if not more you just want to pick and choose what to pay for. If you dont have the money to pay for a movie....have you ever tried....i dont know....just not watching the movie?

I find it hilarious that digital media is the front that you have choose to take this stand...probably has nothing to do with the fact that only in this realm can the average joe hide in almost complete anomaly.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't think that would stop piracy at all.

Most pirates are too cheap to pay for anything. I don't think most people are pirating things because they don't want to go to the theater as they could easily wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it cheaply from Netflix without leaving the house.

Most pirates just want stuff free. Netflix is $7.99 a month for 1 disc at a time, and $7.99 for their streaming if you don't care about newer releases. It's hard to see movie rental prices ever being any cheaper than that, yet people still pirate--and not just movies that are only in theater still.[/QUOTE]
Well it would stop me from bothering anyway.

If people want to pirate in order to avoid paying for content they enjoy, they should be fined or sued or whatever an appropriate amount. I disagree with an appropriate amount being in the thousands of dollars. That just makes the pirates hate you/your company all the more. If I pirate a song and you catch me fine me $5-$20 or something and move on. The only people that should have huge fines or jail time are those that would pirate and then sell for profit or something like that. If it's just a song you end up with a pirate who was wrong and some jackass suing for thousands who is even more wrong and nothing is solved.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']Well it would stop me from bothering anyway.

If people want to pirate in order to avoid paying for content they enjoy, they should be fined or sued or whatever an appropriate amount. I disagree with an appropriate amount being in the thousands of dollars. That just makes the pirates hate you/your company all the more. If I pirate a song and you catch me fine me $5-$20 or something and move on. The only people that should have huge fines or jail time are those that would pirate and then sell for profit or something like that. If it's just a song you end up with a pirate who was wrong and some jackass suing for thousands who is even more wrong and nothing is solved.[/QUOTE]

I do agree with that. As I said earlier, the appropriate fine for someone who's just illegally downloading things is MSRP of the content plus 25% or something like that.

Anything more should be reserved for the people who are uploading tons of content, and especially those who are selling bootlegs etc. and thus profiting off other's work.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I should have never came back in this thread. (Although I actually like both of you but this topic is making me rage)

Lordpuss....what in the heavenly hell are you talking about? What is the difference between Hitler and a guy who killed his wife for cheating on him? Uhhh its the extra 40 million people he killed. How in the world can giving 1 person something relate to giving 10 million people something? How can your brain even process the statement of "the only difference is 100 thousand plus people." That a pretty big difference.

Then you shockandawe (very appropriate name because your ignorance is mind blowing) what you are saying is, "If I couldnt steal 10 million I would never be able to pay them 100 dollars" I am the only one here who works in the film industry TRUST ME when I say this...THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU NEVER GIVE THEM A fuckING DIME THAN FOR YOU TO PIRATE FROM THEM. But of course you logic doesnt account for that. They are not forcing you to watch movies, they are not forcing you to listen to music but like a 5 year old you simply just want them and that is enough justification for you.

I have said this before...my biggest problem with you digital rebals is the fact that NONE OF YOU are advocating less movies or less music. With the theory being if you were only 5 movies out a year you would have enough money to pay for all of them. You want just as much if not more you just want to pick and choose what to pay for. If you dont have the money to pay for a movie....have you ever tried....i dont know....just not watching the movie?

I find it hilarious that digital media is the front that you have choose to take this stand...probably has nothing to do with the fact that only in this realm can the average joe hide in almost complete anomaly.[/QUOTE]
Yes I'm ignorant I can admit that. I dont know how the industry works.

And if it's true that someone would rather I not give them a penny then I'm pretty surprised by that and really dont understand it. Thinking about it myself as a non artist, I would think that if I wrote a song and someone pirated it and enjoyed it and then bought it I'd be greatful for that. I'd appreciate it that they felt it was worth paying for.

And of course I want to pick and choose what I pay for lol. Like I said before if your movie or music sucks why the hell do you think you deserve money from me? We both apparently would have been better off if your movie or music never existed in the first place! I've stolen your movie/music and you've wasted time of my life. I don't feel I owe you anything for that.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']
And if it's true that someone would rather I not give them a penny then I'm pretty surprised by that and really dont understand it. And of course I want to pick and choose what I pay for lol. Like I said before if your movie or music sucks why the hell do you think you deserve money from me? We both apparently would have been better off if your movie or music never existed in the first place! I've stolen your movie/music and you've wasted time of my life. I don't feel I owe you anything for that.[/QUOTE]

Life is full of risks.

Anytime you buy some food you've never had at the grocery store or a restaurant you risk not liking it.

Does that justify stealing it the first time so you can sample it and decide if it's worth spending money on?

With digital media that doesn't even apply as much as their are free or cheap ways to sample content, numerous reviews to check etc. to remove some of the risk.

You still haven't responded to my providing links to full, free streams for Blink 182 and Adele that you requested.

It's pretty easy to sample things for free these days. Even if it's something you can't find a full album stream off you can hear the singles usually and listen to clips from the rest of the songs on store sites like Amazon.

With e-books every book in the Kindle store has a free sample available that's the first chapter or two usually.

Movies are a bit tougher, but with trailers and reviews I seldom watch something I end up hating. And it's super cheap to rent with Netflix and Redbox and then wait and buy the ones you love when they're on sale later.

You just act like there are no legal options for sufficiently sampling things before buying, when that's just not the case. There's never been a time period with MORE options for legally sampling music, books and movies than the present.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']Again we're talking about morals. Morality does not = Legality. You clearly have a different set of morals than I and we have disagreements there. Get it through your head though, I do not find what I do immoral aside from above where I said that I may pirate a single off an album. I'm not "justifying" anything because I don't see the need. I'm saying I do not find it wrong to begin with, whereas you do. I would use a torrent site as my "preview app" whereas you might use itunes or a radio or wherever it is that you can listen to a song for free first.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I understand, and how you can morally support pirating is right along the lines of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're taking advantage of people's work, but not compensating them and you think that is somehow moral? Sure your a petty theft because you steal $3 from 200 different artists, how does that make what you do moral?

I believe you have no morals which is why you feel okay stealing people's work. I also believe you heard the term relative morality and now everything you want to do, you justify it by saying it's okay to do it in your morals. Doesn't mean it's moral. Let me help you out morals are principals based. What principles do you believe in that it is okay to steal from other people?

I dont understand this. Yes it is convenient. Is there something more convenient? If I like it I want to go through the "trouble" of purchasing it.
Click to expand...
Okay, help me out here. You say, of course if you don't like it you'll delete it, and you say that you pay for music you enjoy? So you have a bunch of music that you enjoy that you aren't paying for on your computer? Doesn't that go against your morals? Glad you've finally admitted your love of money is your morals and you'll do whatever it takes to keep said money.


Basically I would want a donation site only for the developer or the musician or the director or whoever it may be. The artist sang/wrote (ideally) the song I like so I'd want only the artist to have that extra for example. So the artist should take donations on their website. Or Naughty Dog made Uncharted and I like it so Naughty Dog should take donations on their site.
Click to expand...
There's always something with you. If they did this, I'd support them, or this I'd support them. Just admit that you pirate to pirate and move on with your ridiculous morals argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ShockandAww']Yes I'm ignorant I can admit that. I dont know how the industry works.

And if it's true that someone would rather I not give them a penny then I'm pretty surprised by that and really dont understand it. Thinking about it myself as a non artist, I would think that if I wrote a song and someone pirated it and enjoyed it and then bought it I'd be greatful for that. I'd appreciate it that they felt it was worth paying for.

And of course I want to pick and choose what I pay for lol. Like I said before if your movie or music sucks why the hell do you think you deserve money from me? We both apparently would have been better off if your movie or music never existed in the first place! I've stolen your movie/music and you've wasted time of my life. I don't feel I owe you anything for that.[/QUOTE]

I swear to god I am going to murder the next non artist who says this. Dmaul works as a criminal justice professor at a university. Ok. From what I can gather he loves his job.......so please ask him why he doesnt work for 0.00 cents each year? Shouldnt sharing his knowledge with new student be enough payment for him?

Let me answer it for you...ITS BECAUSE HE CANT PAY THE GROCERY STORE WITH APPRECIATION. The very second my student loans accepts satisfied pirates as payment I will be very happy to give away all the movies I ever work on.


To your other point....the only way that would work is if you could UN-SEE the movie. Movies are a service once you view them you have used that service and whether you like it or not you should pay for it. If you go to the car wash and they wash your car...you cant at the end just not pay for it because they cant un-wash your car. You have still gained something that you didnt previously have while not paying for it. News flash dude, you dont get to choose whether it was worth it or not after the fact...if you didnt think it was worth it you should have never viewed it in the first place. I know its requires you to have some type of personally responsibility which I can only assume you want no part of. If you go to college and you quit after 2 years they will still require you to pay for the 2 years...why? Because there is no way to un-learn what you have...un-take back the resources they already spent...un-take back the time.

I can only hope that people are pretending to be this dense.....my mind is shattered at how the rules of basic commence have magically gone away. I dont even mind pirates that much....its this new age thought process that gets me.

Also, sorry Dmaul I didnt mean to toss you in with my point but you are much better at communication than I. I just wanted to murder everyone, I just hope that one day its considered accepted for me to steal things from other people profession.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do agree with that. As I said earlier, the appropriate fine for someone who's just illegally downloading things is MSRP of the content plus 25% or something like that.

Anything more should be reserved for the people who are uploading tons of content, and especially those who are selling bootlegs etc. and thus profiting off other's work.[/QUOTE]

I agree DRM is useless. Once one person cracks it, the torrents already have it.

You got to understand that the music industry is only persecuting people that are sharing via P2P. So these people that got caught have duplicated these songs thousands of times. Most of the time the fine is $10-20 a song. That's not altogether unreasonable based on the offense. Plus they do try to be reasonable. One lady they told her if she paid $5,000 they would let her off, but she fought it in court and they court determined she owed over 100,000. So that's just stupid on her part.
 
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']I agree DRM is useless. Once one person cracks it, the torrents already have it.

You got to understand that the music industry is only persecuting people that are sharing via P2P. So these people that got caught have duplicated these songs thousands of times. Most of the time the fine is $10-20 a song. That's not altogether unreasonable based on the offense. Plus they do try to be reasonable. One lady they told her if she paid $5,000 they would let her off, but she fought it in court and they court determined she owed over 100,000. So that's just stupid on her part.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, people are trying their hardest to make it look like they are the tyrants when its just not the case. The system isnt perfect but its pretty damn good.

One of the problem is the lack of knowledge and ignorance (and I am using ignorance in the classic way of...the right information is out there but you are willingly avoiding it at all cost) about the cost of movies and music.

Best Buy has convinced you that buying a 1080p handicam, Windows movie maker super and youtube access has made you in the same realm as a studio. You no idea of the cost it takes to produce this content. Like it was said before, not even the biggest bands on the planet can self produce an album.

When I worked for NFL Films the camera they used was 67 thousand dollars, the lenses were 10k a each. Then there is the price for someone to build it, fix it when it breaks, operate the damn thing, transport it, the cost of a director to tell the person what to shoot, the price of a producer to make the deals legal for them to shoot whatever they are going to shoot, the price of the legal department to draw up papers, the price of the editing house to have the equipment that takes the footage (again we dont work with shitty youtube video) the price of someone to edit the footage, then the price for a network to run the footage you just spent 2 months making.

And that was for a 30 second tv spot. Times that about 100 for even a real low budget movie.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do agree with that. As I said earlier, the appropriate fine for someone who's just illegally downloading things is MSRP of the content plus 25% or something like that.

Anything more should be reserved for the people who are uploading tons of content, and especially those who are selling bootlegs etc. and thus profiting off other's work.[/QUOTE]

The proper fine should be MSRP plus legal fees, which the copyright holder had to pay to take you to court.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The proper fine should be MSRP plus legal fees, which the copyright holder had to pay to take you to court.[/QUOTE]

So since the person was a P2P holder, and the song was downloaded say 10,000 times. Then the appropriate fee is $10,000 per song (at the .99 rate) plus legal fees?
 
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']So since the person was a P2P holder, and the song was downloaded say 10,000 times. Then the appropriate fee is $10,000 per song (at the .99 rate) plus legal fees?[/QUOTE]

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. He's doing something illegal everytime he's sharing the song with someone else. So yes he should be fined for each instance. He in turn can countersue and list all 10000 other folks as codefendants to ease the pain.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The proper fine should be MSRP plus legal fees, which the copyright holder had to pay to take you to court.[/QUOTE]

Well I support changing the laws to make it a misdemeanor criminal offense.

Offenders who are caught would just get a ticket like a traffic ticket. It would just come in the mail rather than being written by a cop who pulled someone over.

But I suppose you're right that the fine would still need to include court costs, as those are built into traffic ticket fines as people can dispute them in court instead of paying them.


And I'm only talking about downloaders with that. If you're going with uploaders/p2p'ers the fines would get unrealistic if you try to apply it to everytime a copy of the song was downloaded from their computer by someone else. For that I'd probably just keep it to MSRP +25% + court fees per song on their account. Maybe have some punishment beyond fines for the super active pirates hosting thousands of songs. Community service etc. No point in huge fines that can never be paid by the person being fined.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I swear to god I am going to murder the next non artist who says this. Dmaul works as a criminal justice professor at a university. Ok. From what I can gather he loves his job.......so please ask him why he doesnt work for 0.00 cents each year? Shouldnt sharing his knowledge with new student be enough payment for him?

Let me answer it for you...ITS BECAUSE HE CANT PAY THE GROCERY STORE WITH APPRECIATION. The very second my student loans accepts satisfied pirates as payment I will be very happy to give away all the movies I ever work on.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. I don't do shit for free. If a student wants to learn from me, they can pay tuition and officially take my class. I don't allow students to sit in.

Same if I ever write a book. I'd rather someone not read it, than pirate it. Books don't don much to advance once's academic career--peer reviewed journal articles and landing research grants are really all that matters. So there's really little point to writing a book other than to try to make some money. And that's mostly futile as most academic books sell very poorly.


Anyway, any artist who just wants to have their art enjoyed by others is always 100% free to give it away online, give away cds at shows. No one forces anyone to try to sell their art.

But for those who choose to sell it rather than just give it away, people should respect that and pay for it if they want to own a copy of it. Otherwise they do without or just consume it through the legal free options like radio, streaming radio, the library etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well I support changing the laws to make it a misdemeanor criminal offense.

Offenders who are caught would just get a ticket like a traffic ticket. It would just come in the mail rather than being written by a cop who pulled someone over.

But I suppose you're right that the fine would still need to include court costs, as those are built into traffic ticket fines as people can dispute them in court instead of paying them.[/QUOTE]

Due process allows you to contest any charge bought forth against you. So that's why legal fees have to be included. This is why SOPA is unconstitutional but that's a whole different story. Furthermore, I say legal fees because I do not want for the US gov to foot the bill to litigate these cases. If litigating these cases means that much to these companies they should pay for it. Just my two cents.
 
Yep, that's why I acknowledged that you were right that court fees would have to be included. Just slipped my mind in my first post.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']One last thing and this is the only they that will be a direct statement to camoor (because I was speaking in very general terms earlier) someone asked you this question and you ignored it but I want an answer. With your logic you are stealing this music because it is not up to whatever code you are going by.......how many times if you found content that hit the mark on your scale and gave them their just due and how much was it? Because going by your system you should have paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars over their asking price to at LEAST ONE band so far. You can possible have not found at least 1 group in the years of pirating everything that hit your mark.[/QUOTE]

I don't pirate. I've said this again and again. I listen to internet radio and occasionally youtube a song. I'm not really a collector anyway - I mostly shoutcast/netflix/goozex my way through life.

Personally I go out and see live bands/djs a ton more then most ppl.

[quote name='Soodmeg']I find it hilarious that digital media is the front that you have choose to take this stand...probably has nothing to do with the fact that only in this realm can the average joe hide in almost complete anomaly.[/QUOTE]

Don't be insulting, folks are just staying on topic. If you want to talk about the breadth of the EFF's initiatives or the Occupy movement then open a new thread.

[quote name='Soodmeg']When I worked for NFL Films the camera they used was 67 thousand dollars, the lenses were 10k a each. Then there is the price for someone to build it, fix it when it breaks, operate the damn thing, transport it, the cost of a director to tell the person what to shoot, the price of a producer to make the deals legal for them to shoot whatever they are going to shoot, the price of the legal department to draw up papers, the price of the editing house to have the equipment that takes the footage (again we dont work with shitty youtube video) the price of someone to edit the footage, then the price for a network to run the footage you just spent 2 months making.
And that was for a 30 second tv spot. Times that about 100 for even a real low budget movie.[/QUOTE]

NFL - and how much is the average NFL QB paid for throwing a ball? And how much of the stadium costs are financed by taxpayers? That's another racket, I hate subsidizing entertainment that I have no interest in. Another exploitative industry - another terrible example.
 
I finally found it.

I want you guys to watch this clip of Louie. Starting at the 5 min mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRNCk3YwqE


Do you understand where he is coming from, that the lady is stealing what makes them whole. Pay pirating this music without any regard you are basically saying you have a right to be happy fist pumping, head banging, dancing, snuggling with your boo in the love chair etc etc but my right is limited to only providing you entertainment.

So while you get to talk with your friend about how awesome fast five was or whatever I get to struggle with my bread and water. As the thing I have said this entire time, it boils down you being so selfish that you view your right to happiness and the purist of making a living how you see fit FAR more important than mine.

You are no different than the person on a cell phone at a movie, the person who cuts in line, the person who talks so loud that everyone else has scream, the person who lets their kid run around all willy nilly.

You simple view your life as far more superior to others around you and as long as you are having a good time screw everyone else even if it result in their ultimate end. I am sure you never think about the many bands you broke up before they even go started because they couldnt get any funding.


The final note is, what logic are you using that a 16 year old kid working at Target getting carts and bring them into the store is deemed worthy of payment but making content is not. I dont understand how people are drawing this line. What you are saying is that my entire lifes work is more worthless than even the most minimal of services out there. Last time I checked making a movie was slightly harder than bagging at Whole Foods but you have no problem with them making money but you have a problem with me making the same? I just dont get it.

Again, not directed towards Camoor expect this, you work in IT camoor. You are one of 60 million people who can do that service...in fact its so easy that it mostly get shipped overseas. So explain to me why anyone should even dare pay your salary for anything?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top