i tend to agree.I'm kinda in captainballs corner on this one, if an industry can't stop something so blatantly reducing their bottom line, then it's really hard to feel sorry for them.
alasdair
i tend to agree.I'm kinda in captainballs corner on this one, if an industry can't stop something so blatantly reducing their bottom line, then it's really hard to feel sorry for them.
Are you serious?
That's awfully presumptuous. The majority of stuff on youtube never generates actual revenue for the artists because its no different from the source of torrents: random people putting their music collections online. Does your righteousness make you examine every single song on youtube thoroughly to make sure its been properly sourced and permitted? For the sake of your soul do you only enjoy youtube videos that have followed all the necessary guidelines? If not, then you are helping to violate copyright laws in some way shape or form and have no room to talk. Your main argument is that you are still playing catch-up from your heyday as a limewire user, and so therefore everyone else must consume music at the same pace as you?
A car is ones own property. A piece of data is not.
on pirating games:
if more companies would go the steam route and reduce the price of older games, i think they would sell more of them. as it stands, if you buy a game used, the publishers/developers get nothing. they should probably do the same thing with music and movies too. same thing if you release a shitty movie/game/album, reduce the price, you might sell a few more units.
i think what i was getting at is a criticism of art as a profit. kind of like human services, i don't think the two should mix.
here's a question: is art a human service?
I don't believe that art can not be a business.