why paying for movies/games/audios?

[wesmdow]

because independent labels, small distributors, and artists who aren't top50 pop stars are losing their livelihoods.

elektra, do you work? if so - presumably you don't mind not getting paid for your work. i would be very happy if you would give me your paychecks. is that ok with you? can i expect your next paycheck to be transferred to my account?

no? then why exactly should the people behind the scenes suffer just because you like to steal? let me rephrase the post and see if it makes any more sense.

I don't understand why people buy CDs when you could just steal them from shops.

do you steal from shops? no? if so, why not? is it just because you might get caught, or do you feel that stealing is inherently wrong?

Madonna isn't going to go broke because some teenagers downloaded her latest album. but that local indie band who play great innovative music will never have a chance, because people don't like to pay for their work. that awesome DJ who produces great tunes is going to watch their work go down the pan because kids with thousand-dollar computers and expensive cable internet connections simply take their music without paying. if you're happy listening to mindless top 50 pop rubbish, then by all means go ahead, because music will only ever be stifled by the processes which ensure that only mass-marketed shit makes money. i've watched record labels, artists and distributors go out of business because people don't buy CDs, especially in smaller genres. these people are NOT out to become pampered rock stars. they are NOT trying to rip off kids to buy themselves a limo. they are usually in the business because they love the music and they want to promote new talent. if you're happy to look these people in the eye and tell them they shouldn't get paid for what they do, then by all means go ahead. but don't expect to hear any new or exciting music.

it shits me to tears when people bitch about buying CDs. most people spend more on drugs in a week than they do buying CDs in a year. most people use a faster computer with a faster internet connection to download stolen music than the people who make the music in the first place.

no, music is not all about money. and no, artists are not all pampered wannabe divas. and no, it is not reasonable to expect artists to starve just because you think it's ok to be a thief.

let me rephrase again:

I can't understand why people would want to go to work when they could easily break into elektra's house and steal their money.

make sense now?

im an artist, and i would personally be THRILLED if i saw my artwork on someones PC desktop, EVEN if they stole it. this is me pesronally--again--but i dont feel like people making art should be making it for the purposes of money, that defeats the purpose of ART.

music, in my opinion, is art. if an artist is making music for a living and they cant get live gigs/whatnot to pay the bills, then they need to pick a new career path. no one said it was easy. being a successful artist is extremely glamorous and so it should a highly sought-after, difficult to acquire job.

the way music WORKS is changing--there is less money to be made off of CDs in general now. the marketplace is different than it has ever been, and IMO this is just evidence of an evolution of the art-form.

 

[BruceLeet]

Fuck the man, fuck the commercial film/music industry. save your money buy your self a T3 internet connection and SHARE IT ALL! :-D

sharing music is not stealing!!

If you are only making music for money, stop making music. just be happy that some one wants to listen to your stuff

If someone makes a copy of my art and spreads it around FANTASTIC!! i'd be more than happy that people were enjoying it.

 

[alasdairm]

If someone makes a copy of my art and spreads it around FANTASTIC!! i'd be more than happy that people were enjoying it.

the difference is that you feel you have the right to make that choice for yourself yet you want to deprive another artist of the right to make the same choice for themselves. why?

alasdair

 

[frizzantik]

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!

I understand perfectly how it's not a good situaiton for content creators to be in.

However, like i said, we are dealing with a new paradigm-- a whole new way of dealing with property. In a world where works can be duplicated perfectly, they no longer have value based on anything but the intrinsic worth the consumer of that work assigns to it.

 

[alasdairm]

right - but if they assign a worth of zero to it, why do they want it in the first place? they're exercising doublethink.

what's actually happening, as far as i can tell, is that the work does have value but, for one reason or another, they are not prepared to actually stump for it. i.e. they want something of value for nothing but they lie to themselves and others to rationalise it.

i think that there's a parallel with tivo, media pcs, etc. we're getting to - or have arrived at - a stage where technology allows us to ignore adverts within content. that's great but if advertiser income dries up, producers will have to seek more direct ways of being paid for their content. people will still end up paying and they'll direct anger towards the producers for 'charging' for something they used to get 'free'.

some smart person will come up with a system which makes everybody happy and they'll be a millionaire. obviously i'm oversimplifying but 'something for nothing' is going to be a problem for somebody and the people who think they're gaining or getting one over on the system/man/whatever will end up paying in the end.

alasdair

 

[frizzantik]

what's actually happening, as far as i can tell, is that the work does have value but, for one reason or another, they are not prepared to actually stump for it. i.e. they want something of value for nothing but they lie to themselves and others to rationalise it.

of course that occurs. I have many mp3s that I feel I should pay for, and other ones I wouldn't pay a cent for. That being said, even most of the works I do find valuable I wouldn't have purchased at $1+ per song.

I feel a moral obligation to pay for the works I enjoy, but like I said, expecting everyone to pay based soley on their moral obligation is unrealistic. I mean when one owes a few bucks to some creator they've never met, and that creator doesn't even know the money is owed, it's not particularly urgent matter for most people, even if they do feel a twinge of guilt. However, that feeling of guilt is far less than if they had physically stolen something, and so naturally they will argue against those who call them theives.

If there was a system in place that allowed everyone to pay what they really felt the work was worth, more people would be willing to pay. Of course you will still get the people who will not pay no matter what.. but they were never a potential sale anyways

 

[SA]

'something for nothing' is going to be a problem for somebody and the people who think they're gaining or getting one over on the system/man/whatever will end up paying in the end.

alasdair

Walmart mania is a good real world example of this. A couple of decades of everyone wanting to pay peanuts for truckloads, without the slightest regard for consequence, has resulted in the world's richest and most productive nation to (almost) lose its production base and thus its livelyhood.

Back to music... I feel sorry for electronic music producers. They are probably the worst paid of all in the music world, because they have the worst following - not in numbers, but in quality, morals. We've gotten so used to downloading samples, tracks, sets, that buying is not even in our vocabulary any more. And if you try to point out that it's stealing, you are now labelled as the village nut. We can thank ourselves for killing - slowly, through starvation - our favourite music genre's creative geniuses. Just like the next Einstein may be sitting somewhere in an impoverished village in India or Zaire, undiscovered due to our arrogant indifference, so may the next Jean Michel Jarre, or Sasha, or ten Digweeds be hanging up their headphones after months/years of trying to make ends meet, but failing due to our indifferent arrogance of demanding their toils for free.

 

[SA]

I feel a moral obligation to pay for the works I enjoy, but like I said, expecting everyone to pay based soley on their moral obligation is unrealistic. I mean when one owes a few bucks to some creator they've never met, and that creator doesn't even know the money is owed, it's not particularly urgent matter for most people, even if they do feel a twinge of guilt.

That is why the law has to protect those creators, so that their pay is not based on people's guilt or moral obligation, but on the law. At your job, do you get paid out of moral obligation, or out of guilt? No, you get paid because it's the law. The creators of these works should be protected the same way your own compensation for work is protected. It's often hard to see a double standard when yours is the side which benefits the most.

 

[frizzantik]

i think people have this concept that just because you can produce an hour's worth of music every few years, they deserve to be compensated like royalty. cry me a fucking river if you can't make a living selling your music.. the only reason why anyone has that expectation is because of music superstars who have an entire money making machine behind them. Without marketing and exposure of a major label, you're not going to be able to live off album sales, even if everyone who ever heard your album paid for it.

that is really only specific to music and not filesharing in general, but still this whole idea of how all of the sudden there will be no more great musicians because nobody wants to pay for a recording is laughable

 

[frizzantik]

That is why the law has to protect those creators, so that their pay is not based on people's guilt or moral obligation, but on the law

the law does protect them, but those who enforce the laws have little ability to track, let alone take action on the millions of what are in effect minor financial disputes.

 

[alasdairm]

Of course you will still get the people who will not pay no matter what.. but they were never a potential sale anyways

i think this is one of aspects of this debate which irks me the most. because they are not a potential sale, they're somehow entitled to the product free?

it's so backwards it's funny. almost.

obviously it's hard for me to confirm this so this is nothing more than a hunch - take that as you will. i think there's a lot of mistruth here too - many people, when challenged, roll out this argument. in reality, they actually are a potential sale, they just don't have the balls to admit it and this is a convenient excuse to hide behind. ymmv.

alasdair

 

[SA]

Without marketing and exposure of a major label, you're not going to be able to live off album sales, even if everyone who ever heard your album paid for it.

That's a bit extreme. You're saying that if one of dr seuss' productions got downloaded 1,000 times (a low number for a popular item) and he charged a buck for each d/l, that he couldn't make a living out of his works?

this whole idea of how all of the sudden there will be no more great musicians because nobody wants to pay for a recording is laughable

Can you please point out where and by whom that was said? "No more" means none. Stretching it a bit, aren't you, frizzantik?

 

[SA]

the law does protect them

You wouldn't think so reading this thread (and every other thread on the subject).

 

[frizzantik]

I feel sorry for electronic music producers. They are probably the worst paid of all in the music world, because they have the worst following - not in numbers, but in quality, morals. We've gotten so used to downloading samples, tracks, sets, that buying is not even in our vocabulary any more.

These are the same morals which gave rise to one of the most popular forms of music in America today: hip-hop.


And the electonic music producer who has never ever used an unlicensed sample or pirated a bit of software is truely a rare bird.. so don't feel too sorry for them

 

[frizzantik]

Can you please point out where and by whom that was said? "No more" means none. Stretching it a bit, aren't you, frizzantik?

And saying the next Einstein will be left in the jungles of Africa due to file sharing isn't stretching it?

 

[SA]

Hey, it was either that or Mwenze Hamalengwa! I thought you'd identify better with Einstein.

 

[anhalonium9]

---->"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."

like...um...dude, its not the artists that even have any say in pricing or marketing....it's the record labels. corpor-fucking-rations. you are paying for a massive marketing machine that has nothing to with art. most artist see very very little of the PROFITS made from their art. musicans usually don't even own the rights to their own "art". ask any musican who been around and they will tell you that the whole industy is fixed to exploit the musician. to get a record out you virtually have to sign everything away. and once you do, they fucking own your ass. even the big, big stars get absolutely fucked by the labels. signing a record contract is akin to slavery. FACT. you should rethink everything you know. it sounds great, but the whole foundation of what you believe is flawed. it's really not even worth discussing at this point. nothing you say can EVER convince me you are right, and i'm not going to waste my time trying to MAKE someone believe what i believe. and i'm sure you feel the same way. maybe we should start a war?

but, go ahead. it was a big mistake to try to take down pirate bay, not only did it have no effect, but it made us stronger.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



random pertinent quote:

"Giant corporations govern, even though they are mentioned nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. So when corporations govern, democracy is nowhere to be found. There is something else: when people live in a culture defined by corporate values, common sense evaporates. We stop trusting our own eyes, ears, and feelings. Our minds become colonized."

taken from http://www.poclad.org/

to elaborate. once our minds become colonized with corporate values and ideals, we no longer think for ourselves. we become mouthpieces.

also, if you even take the time to read what the above link has to say, you might realize that there is a differnce between corporations (rec labels) and ppl (artist/musicans). when you buy a CD or itune or wtf, how much goes to the actually artist. very little.

a sad FACT.

but hey, i really don't mean to harsh on you. your prolly a cool person and i respect that you stand up for what you think is right. unfortunately, it's an illusion.

and i am willing to admit i not right all the time. sometimes there are holes in my logic. i am human.
but i have a pretty good sense of what is really going on.

(free market my ass. how is it a free market when corporations are allowed to dictate national and even international policy)

 

[dr seuss]

m an artist, and i would personally be THRILLED if i saw my artwork on someones PC desktop, EVEN if they stole it. this is me pesronally--again--but i dont feel like people making art should be making it for the purposes of money, that defeats the purpose of ART.

good for you man. please, tell me - did you read my posts tho? check out what i said here:

i love music and i love to share music.

if you know me, or bump into me at a party, or ask me nicely, i will send you some music for free. this is partially because i believe music is more than money and partially because i like to share my music with people. i do not think music should ever be a strictly commercial experience.

so we're agreed. there is something higher to art. we both give our art to people because we see a different value scheme at work.

but tell me this - how do you buy food? or are you not a full-time artist?

music, in my opinion, is art. if an artist is making music for a living and they cant get live gigs/whatnot to pay the bills, then they need to pick a new career path. no one said it was easy. being a successful artist is extremely glamorous and so it should a highly sought-after, difficult to acquire job.

i certainly didn't get into music for the glamour, i got into it for the love of music. perhaps that's why i'm so passionate about independent record labels and local talent but regardless - you need to read what i said earlier. are you suggesting that the only way a musician should ever make money is from live shows? in which case, how are all the rest of the people involved in recording music going to get paid?

and furthermore, there's a hole in your argument. if art is a higher entity, then, erm, how can anyone have a 'career' in it? shouldn't it all be free all the time - or is there a special set of circumstances under which art can be a commodity?

anyhoos - the fact remains that what we feel about the sanctity of art is irrelevant at the moment. i mean, if you REALLY believe art should be free, how come you don't have a room full of Gaugin and Dali originals? do you steal CDs from shops? have you ever walked into the Guggenheim and helped yourself?

no? i guessed not.

because the world doesn't work that way right now. there are free collectivist art happenings, and like i said - the VAST MAJORITY of musicians have put far, far, far more into their art than they'll ever get out of it.

can i ask - what do you use to make your art? how much does it cost? and how much are you willing to spend on it?

like i said - i've put close to $10,000 into my studio space. and i know people who've spent triple, quadruple that. these are people (like myself) who will gladly drive 200 miles, carry 50kgs of equipment to a forest somewhere, set up and play a set, then carry it all back to the car and drive home again - for free. if that's not dedication and committment to the music, fuck man, i don't know what is. and you know what sucks? when you're carrying an outboard compressor through the rain and wondering whether your expensive musician's insurance will cover damage at a rave, and some dude proudly tells you they downloaded your album because they believe art should be free.

it's not fair. it's not fair to the record labels who are closing. it's not fair to the artists who are working two jobs. it's not fair to the distributors who are going broke. justify it to yourself however you want, but it doesn't change those facts

 

[Infinite Jest]

im an artist, and i would personally be THRILLED if i saw my artwork on someones PC desktop, EVEN if they stole it. this is me pesronally--again--but i dont feel like people making art should be making it for the purposes of money, that defeats the purpose of ART.

Well, it's fine that you have that opinion (and I applaud you for it) - but you don't have the right to dictate to other artists how THEY should feel if their work is being copied without authorisation. Maybe they need that money to live?

 

[Infinite Jest]

like...um...dude, its not the artists that even have any say in pricing or marketing....it's the record labels. corpor-fucking-rations. you are paying for a massive marketing machine that has nothing to with art. most artist see very very little of the PROFITS made from their art. musicans usually don't even own the rights to their own "art".

So you only pirate music from big artists on major record labels?

Cos the last two albums I bought, the rights are owned by the artist, who licensed them to a record company as part of a distribution deal. So if I downloaded those albums, I'm ripping off the artists - no-one else. In the case of my second link, I'm ripping off guys who've been playing music around my hometown for years, decades even - spending huge amounts of money to buy records so they can DJ for peanuts (or for free, on student radio).

(btw, I agree with your general anti-RIAA/big record company argument. But if you want to take down the big record companies, just stop buying their stuff. Ignore it. Go buy an indie album. Go to emusic.com and get 40 tracks by indie bands (including some real big ones) for $10, not $40 like you'd pay on iTunes. Maybe we need a thread on how to fuck over big record companies )