dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
Tylerdurden said:
vs.
Tylerdurden said:
have you two met?
:D
-
Life Advice & Visual Arts
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules 🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌 📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸 -
LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari
why paying for movies/games/audios?
- Thread starter Slay
- Start date
vs.
have you two met?
:D 
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
sort of. it's certainly more of a problem with electronic music. but small independent labels, distributors, bands and artists will suffer and you know it. people who download download, no-one checks how wealthy or popular a band is before downloading their music!
...
dr seuss said:
Pegasus
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 8,073
I would pay you for an album, as I can see my hard earned money is going to good use (if I really like your music, that is ). However, when this new Radiohead album comes out, I'm not going to buy it. I love 'em and all, but my money isn't going to benefit them. Hell, I wonder if they would see even a few cents of that money. My hard earned, short in supply money.
). However, when this new Radiohead album comes out, I'm not going to buy it. I love 'em and all, but my money isn't going to benefit them. Hell, I wonder if they would see even a few cents of that money. My hard earned, short in supply money.
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
and i would give you a demo with a couple of tracks on it for free (provided you like it, of course )
)
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
nah, i've got a surfeit of self-righteous hyperbolic indignation, that's all
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
SillyAlien said:
With respect, because I generally agree with you and Dr Suess:
Bootlegging a live performance, and thereby creating a recording of that performance, is quite different from copying a pre-existing recording. If I understand correctly, there's a debate in the US courts at the moment over whether bootlegging is illegal. Because you're not copying a creative work that already exists - you're creating a new work. I'm pretty sure that you can't copyright a performance. [Will look into this, but it's late and I'm tired
]Now, plenty of venues and/or bands make it a condition of entry that you don't bring recording equipment, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it's illegal. (It's the same as museums, which prevent people from photographing works of art, and insist instead that you buy postcards/reprodutions).
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
On the main topic: most musicians aren't rich. Sorry. As others have said, unless you're only downloading multi-million sellers, then you're taking money from people. You should pay for music because you like the music, and respect the people who made it, and want to see them fairly rewarded for what they've done.
Now, there are arguments that the current music industry model is all wrong (c.f. Wilco's Jeff Tweedy and Prof Larry Lessig 'Music is Not a Loaf of Bread'; see also various articles on Techdirt.com). These people are postulating a world where the music itself is given away free, as a promotional outlay to encourage people to buy concert tickets, or in a model where people pay extra for things like fan club memberships, access to the artists, lyric sheets, liner notes, that sort of thing - but get the music itself for free.
Now this could happen, and quite possibly will. But we aren't there yet. So it's really disingenious and unfair to make up excuses for not buying the records. Because if the band don't sell, they don't get paid. Bottom line.
On the other hand: not all downloading is bad. What about downloading to try before you buy? Or because you want to hear the album before it's released? I've got Wilco, Flaming Lips, etc for that reason, and I still bought the CD. Ditto I tried Magnetic Fields, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Arcade Fire, and many more - albums that I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't downloaded them to see what they were like. And I've been to gigs by artists that I wouldn't have bothered with, if I couldn't demo the music.
But but but......it should only be for a limited time. Download, see if you like it, and if you do - support the artist somehow. Most of them will never be rich.
If you can't afford to buy music, well - that's really your problem. We all have things in life that we can't afford. I'd quite like a private jet. But the capitalistic system that we work in that keeps me oppressed (maaaan!) means that I can't. Doesn't mean I can go out and steal one....
Now, there are arguments that the current music industry model is all wrong (c.f. Wilco's Jeff Tweedy and Prof Larry Lessig 'Music is Not a Loaf of Bread'; see also various articles on Techdirt.com). These people are postulating a world where the music itself is given away free, as a promotional outlay to encourage people to buy concert tickets, or in a model where people pay extra for things like fan club memberships, access to the artists, lyric sheets, liner notes, that sort of thing - but get the music itself for free.
Now this could happen, and quite possibly will. But we aren't there yet. So it's really disingenious and unfair to make up excuses for not buying the records. Because if the band don't sell, they don't get paid. Bottom line.
On the other hand: not all downloading is bad. What about downloading to try before you buy? Or because you want to hear the album before it's released? I've got Wilco, Flaming Lips, etc for that reason, and I still bought the CD. Ditto I tried Magnetic Fields, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Arcade Fire, and many more - albums that I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't downloaded them to see what they were like. And I've been to gigs by artists that I wouldn't have bothered with, if I couldn't demo the music.
But but but......it should only be for a limited time. Download, see if you like it, and if you do - support the artist somehow. Most of them will never be rich.
If you can't afford to buy music, well - that's really your problem. We all have things in life that we can't afford. I'd quite like a private jet. But the capitalistic system that we work in that keeps me oppressed (maaaan!) means that I can't. Doesn't mean I can go out and steal one....
psychetool
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
^^^^
If millions of other people had the ease and means to steal jumbo jets without consequence they would do it. =p You're not even really stealing a jumbo jet, you're just making a copy of it. Whatever, you have your ideas and i'v got mine. I'll continue to fill up gigs upon gigs of HD space with days of music while you pay $20 for each CD. Enjoy your lost thousands upon thousands of dollars for something you could have gotten free.
If millions of other people had the ease and means to steal jumbo jets without consequence they would do it. =p You're not even really stealing a jumbo jet, you're just making a copy of it. Whatever, you have your ideas and i'v got mine. I'll continue to fill up gigs upon gigs of HD space with days of music while you pay $20 for each CD. Enjoy your lost thousands upon thousands of dollars for something you could have gotten free.
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
if you come up with a cure for cancer, can i steal it and sell it myself?
after all, it's not like it's anything other than a copy. i'm not physically stealing anything....
good for you! i hope you sleep well at night.
who pays $20 for CDs? i find it strange that someone smart enough to download 'gigs upon gigs' of music seems unable to type 'buy cheap CDs' into google
i will do
it's great to have a bunch of full-quality, 44.1khz 16-bit red book CDs, with original artwork. i could have gotten it for free, but hey - integrity comes at a price. enjoy your next system upgrade!
frizzantik
Bluelight Crew
most people who violate copyright do not resell the works. Accepting money for a service you did not provide is definitely stealing, but if no money is exchanging hands, there is no actual money lost. only potential money lost.
It's actually too bad medicine can't be duplicated like music.. if some company invented a cure for AIDS, and then someone else copied it and gave it away for free, that would be awesome.
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
ok - let's pretend i take your cure for cancer (or something less useful to humanity, like a super viagra for elderly men). instead of selling it i merely give it to everyone in the world free of charge.
now suppose you spent $10,000 developing your superviagra.
would everything still be peachy? i doubt it!
well, generic drugs operate along those lines (but still not completely free).
SA
Bluelight Crew
Sim0n, I agree only that this is currently a grey area. The problem with grey areas is that when they are exploited on such a massive (by volume) level, the balance is shifted outside the grey and the side being displaced fights back to regain either equilibrium, or outright dominance. Whether it's the displaced side that is doing the fighting back or someone on their behalf (like the RIAA) matters not. What matters is that a grey area, through the advancing/abusing side's own stupidity (i.e. us), will soon disappear.Sim0n said:Bootlegging a live performance, and thereby creating a recording of that performance, is quite different from copying a pre-existing recording. If I understand correctly, there's a debate in the US courts at the moment over whether bootlegging is illegal. Because you're not copying a creative work that already exists - you're creating a new work. I'm pretty sure that you can't copyright a performance. [Will look into this, but it's late and I'm tired
Now, plenty of venues and/or bands make it a condition of entry that you don't bring recording equipment, but that doesn't mean necessarily that it's illegal. (It's the same as museums, which prevent people from photographing works of art, and insist instead that you buy postcards/reprodutions).
Whether it is a live concert or a live broadcast, the performance is there for a one time delivery only. The reason you don't see dozens of handycams at that concert is because the event can only be recorded under licence, for future paid rebroadcasting. Whether you pay for that broadcast (or that performance) by buying tickets or subscribing to air/net time or the event is sponsored by a multitude of companies via ads, banners, other presence, the bottom line is that particular performance is getting paid for. When you record that performance without licence and then reproduce that recording and distribute it (bootleg), you dilute the future compensation value of same performances. Not only do you affect the compensation of the performer, but all support, venue and prompoters involved.
Tylerdurden
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,217
dr seuss said:vs.
have you two met?
HAHA Seuss, no I don't necessarily support that viewpoint, I was just adding timber to the fire.
This is perhaps more pertinent to the "buy or not to buy" debate:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Last edited:
anhalonium9
Bluelighter
The Pirate Party Election Manifesto 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Preface
The election program of the Pirate Party consists of various nautical charts, describing what we want to do in each of the areas within the Pirate Party policies. These charts are divided in sections based on deadline and what is to be done on a Swedish and on a European level.
As an introduction to these charts, we describe our ideology and our main policies.
Protected integrity in an open society
The development of technology has made sure Sweden and Europe stand before a fork in the road. The new technology offers fantastic possibilities to spread culture and knowledge all over the world with almost no costs. But it also makes way for the building of a society monitored at a level unheard of up until now.
In no time, the monitoring state has advanced its positions strongly in Sweden. This development threatens equality and safety before the law, and nothing indicates that it even adds to security. The Pirate Party believes this is the wrong way to go.
The right to privacy is a corner stone in an open and democratic society. Each and everyone has the right to respect for one’s own private and family life, one’s home and one’s correspondence. If the constitutional freedom of information is to be more than empty words on a paper, we much defend the right for protected private communication.
The arguments for every individual step towards a monitoring society may sound very convincing, but we only have to look at the recent history of Europe to see where that road leads. It is less than twenty years since the fall of the Berlin wall, and there are numerous other terrible examples. To claim that it’s only those with something to hide that has anything to fear is simply lacking knowledge of history, and lacking courage.
We have no problem with police monitoring and spying on suspected criminals. That is exactly what the police is suppose to be doing. But routinely monitoring ordinary citizens hoping for something suspicious to turn up is not only a gross violation of the privacy of honest people. It is also a waste of valuable police resources.
We have to pull the emergency break on the train running towards a society we don’t want. Terrorists can attack our open society, but only governments can disband it. The Pirate Party wants to ensure that this doesn’t happen.
Private communication and file sharing
A driving force behind the current monitoring hysteria is the entertainment business, which wants to prevent people from file sharing copyrighted material. But to achieve this all private communication must be monitored. To know what ones and zeros make up a movie, the ones and zeros has to be analyzed. It is the same sort of ones and zeros that is sent, regardless of if it makes up a piece of music, or a letter to a doctor or a lawyer.
Therefore society ha to choose: do we want a possibility to trustingly communicate over the Internet to exist?
If your answer is yes, it means that also those that shares copyrighted material can use these possibilities.
If you answer is no, it means that you abolish the right of information, the right to mail secrecy and the right to a private life.
There are no other answers.
It is not possible to claim that society should allow mail secrecy for certain purposes, but not for others, since it is impossible to separate the different cases without breeching the secrecy. It is the same types of ones and zeros being used, and only by opening the message, it is possible to see what it contains.
The current copyright legislation can not be combined with freedom of information and protected private communication. Since the fundamental principles of the open, democratic society is more important than conserving old business models within the business of entertainment at all costs, copyright has to fold.
But this is not negative. A reformed copyright legislation, expressing a balance between different interests in society instead of being an order form from the large media companies, has its own benefits. It is a possibility for Sweden and Europe, not a threat.
The spreading of culture and knowledge is a positive thing
Thanks to the Internet it is today possible for everyone with a computer to take part of a fantastic treasure of culture and knowledge.
Instead of being limited to a cultural canon decided from above, the youths of today has access to the music, theater and pictures of an entire world. This is something we should embrace, not something we should try to forbid. File sharing is good for society and its people.
All non-commercial acquiring, using, bettering and spread of culture should be actively encouraged. The Internet is filling the same function today as popular education did a hundred years ago. It is something positive and good for the development of society.
The copyright legislation must be changes so that it is made perfectly clear that it only regulate use and copying of works done for commercial purposes. To share copies, or in any other way spread or use someone else’s work, should never be forbidden as long as it is done on an idealistic basis without the purposes of commercial gain.
Unfortunately, the legislation has developed in quite the opposite direction. On July 1, 2005, a million ordinary Swedes were suddenly turned into criminals over night, simply because they download movies and music. This doesn’t only hurt our possibilities to take part of culture. In the long run it undermines the trust of our entire judicial apparatus. This development has to end.
In a similar fashion, patents are used to inhibit the spread and use of knowledge, which hurts society as a whole.
Medical patents make people in poor countries die for no reason. It twists the priorities in research and makes the costs for medications a problem in every health care budget.
Software patents inhibit technical development within the info tech area and presents a serious threat against small as well as mid-sized businesses and individual developers. They run the risk of putting the power over the Internet completely in the hands of a small number of multi national businesses.
We want to release knowledge, and have specific suggestion on how to avoid the negative consequences that the patent system means.
Sweden and Europe has everything to gain from choosing the path of openness
---------------------------------------------------
Preface
The election program of the Pirate Party consists of various nautical charts, describing what we want to do in each of the areas within the Pirate Party policies. These charts are divided in sections based on deadline and what is to be done on a Swedish and on a European level.
As an introduction to these charts, we describe our ideology and our main policies.
Protected integrity in an open society
The development of technology has made sure Sweden and Europe stand before a fork in the road. The new technology offers fantastic possibilities to spread culture and knowledge all over the world with almost no costs. But it also makes way for the building of a society monitored at a level unheard of up until now.
In no time, the monitoring state has advanced its positions strongly in Sweden. This development threatens equality and safety before the law, and nothing indicates that it even adds to security. The Pirate Party believes this is the wrong way to go.
The right to privacy is a corner stone in an open and democratic society. Each and everyone has the right to respect for one’s own private and family life, one’s home and one’s correspondence. If the constitutional freedom of information is to be more than empty words on a paper, we much defend the right for protected private communication.
The arguments for every individual step towards a monitoring society may sound very convincing, but we only have to look at the recent history of Europe to see where that road leads. It is less than twenty years since the fall of the Berlin wall, and there are numerous other terrible examples. To claim that it’s only those with something to hide that has anything to fear is simply lacking knowledge of history, and lacking courage.
We have no problem with police monitoring and spying on suspected criminals. That is exactly what the police is suppose to be doing. But routinely monitoring ordinary citizens hoping for something suspicious to turn up is not only a gross violation of the privacy of honest people. It is also a waste of valuable police resources.
We have to pull the emergency break on the train running towards a society we don’t want. Terrorists can attack our open society, but only governments can disband it. The Pirate Party wants to ensure that this doesn’t happen.
Private communication and file sharing
A driving force behind the current monitoring hysteria is the entertainment business, which wants to prevent people from file sharing copyrighted material. But to achieve this all private communication must be monitored. To know what ones and zeros make up a movie, the ones and zeros has to be analyzed. It is the same sort of ones and zeros that is sent, regardless of if it makes up a piece of music, or a letter to a doctor or a lawyer.
Therefore society ha to choose: do we want a possibility to trustingly communicate over the Internet to exist?
If your answer is yes, it means that also those that shares copyrighted material can use these possibilities.
If you answer is no, it means that you abolish the right of information, the right to mail secrecy and the right to a private life.
There are no other answers.
It is not possible to claim that society should allow mail secrecy for certain purposes, but not for others, since it is impossible to separate the different cases without breeching the secrecy. It is the same types of ones and zeros being used, and only by opening the message, it is possible to see what it contains.
The current copyright legislation can not be combined with freedom of information and protected private communication. Since the fundamental principles of the open, democratic society is more important than conserving old business models within the business of entertainment at all costs, copyright has to fold.
But this is not negative. A reformed copyright legislation, expressing a balance between different interests in society instead of being an order form from the large media companies, has its own benefits. It is a possibility for Sweden and Europe, not a threat.
The spreading of culture and knowledge is a positive thing
Thanks to the Internet it is today possible for everyone with a computer to take part of a fantastic treasure of culture and knowledge.
Instead of being limited to a cultural canon decided from above, the youths of today has access to the music, theater and pictures of an entire world. This is something we should embrace, not something we should try to forbid. File sharing is good for society and its people.
All non-commercial acquiring, using, bettering and spread of culture should be actively encouraged. The Internet is filling the same function today as popular education did a hundred years ago. It is something positive and good for the development of society.
The copyright legislation must be changes so that it is made perfectly clear that it only regulate use and copying of works done for commercial purposes. To share copies, or in any other way spread or use someone else’s work, should never be forbidden as long as it is done on an idealistic basis without the purposes of commercial gain.
Unfortunately, the legislation has developed in quite the opposite direction. On July 1, 2005, a million ordinary Swedes were suddenly turned into criminals over night, simply because they download movies and music. This doesn’t only hurt our possibilities to take part of culture. In the long run it undermines the trust of our entire judicial apparatus. This development has to end.
In a similar fashion, patents are used to inhibit the spread and use of knowledge, which hurts society as a whole.
Medical patents make people in poor countries die for no reason. It twists the priorities in research and makes the costs for medications a problem in every health care budget.
Software patents inhibit technical development within the info tech area and presents a serious threat against small as well as mid-sized businesses and individual developers. They run the risk of putting the power over the Internet completely in the hands of a small number of multi national businesses.
We want to release knowledge, and have specific suggestion on how to avoid the negative consequences that the patent system means.
Sweden and Europe has everything to gain from choosing the path of openness
exactly.dr seuss said:
i think this issue is a very divided one and, in my experience, there's no convincing those who feel it's ok to violate copyright and steal music/software/whatever.
echoing what frizz said, i think the more interesting discussion is how the music industry in general is responding to changing times. i think there are some real opportunities for the middlemen to do some new thinking and create value but it may already be too late. that, and the powerful disintermediating potential of the internet, means we live in interesting times.
i can see a vision of the future where the middlemen are gone and the commercial relationship is a straight line between artist and audience. people continue to steal the music...
alasdair
Last edited:
aside, we've covered this before. related reading:
"Ethics" of Downloading Music?
Discussion of the principles of downloading/piracy
alasdair
"Ethics" of Downloading Music?
Discussion of the principles of downloading/piracy
alasdair
anhalonium9
Bluelighter
Main Entry: dis·in·ter·me·di·a·tion
Pronunciation: "dis-"in-t&r-"mE-dE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the diversion of savings from accounts with low fixed interest rates to direct investment in high-yielding instruments
2 : the elimination of an intermediary in a transaction between two parties
...ppl continue to share the music over the internet. weather it is stealing is a judgement.
in the future plez spinkle liberally with IMOs.
sharing is not stealing
...and ppl will continue to share files just like ppl continue to smoke pot, in defiance of the system.
IMO
props to frizzantik...
Pronunciation: "dis-"in-t&r-"mE-dE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the diversion of savings from accounts with low fixed interest rates to direct investment in high-yielding instruments
2 : the elimination of an intermediary in a transaction between two parties
...ppl continue to share the music over the internet. weather it is stealing is a judgement.
in the future plez spinkle liberally with IMOs.
sharing is not stealing
...and ppl will continue to share files just like ppl continue to smoke pot, in defiance of the system.
IMO
props to frizzantik...
dr seuss
Bluelight Crew
sharing is stealing if it's not yours to share.
unless of course you don't mind me sharing your paycheck with alasdairm
unless of course you don't mind me sharing your paycheck with alasdairm
anhalonium9 said:
are you two related? i think we shoul be told.anhalonium9 said:
seriously, those two points were one sentence apart in your post. your thinking, or communication of such, seems very muddled.
the fact that people act a certain way means we shouldn't discuss it? means we shouldn't try to show them that we think their actions are wrong? what's your point?anhalonium9 said:
the more i think about this, the more the arguments people use to justify their actions seems transparent and ill-considered.
here's another way of looking at it. i feel that when an artist creates something - for example a song - they have the right to set the (initial) price of that song in a free market. if the market decides the song is worth it, they pay the price. if not, they don't. perhaps the artists sells no songs so he drops the price. in that way, the market decides the worth of the song. this process is iterative and also bi- or multi-lateral. seems fair enough to me.
in psychetool's market, the consumer has the right to decide unilaterally that the song has no value and can therefore be copied without giving the artist anything. if this song has no value, why do you want it in the first place?
the fact that you want a copy explicitly places a value on the song. it's doublethink - not to mention arrogance - of the first order.
alasdair