^What, really? I didn't know that. You're not the only one in that situation. <_<

So you want to tell people how to run their business? That doesn't really sound fair.

Oh, but in capitalism, it is. If a company wants to survive, they must adapt to the market- Not try to force the market to adapt to them.

The opinions I see in this thread are freakin ridiculous. I had no idea that people were still so absorbed in downloading stuff... It's just media, why not pay for it? I dont understand...do you really need 6000 songs and 200 movies on your coputer?

Excellent question. When you go to a record store and buy a CD or Vinyl, you are paying for physical media. You can't reproduce that physical media for a cost of much less than a cent (If you count the electricity that the file operation uses, which isn't even done by the media company). What about production costs, then? Concerts, of course. Just like physical media, you can't infinitely reproduce the experience of seeing a band or musician live. The media companies are producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. It's a little bit like this: Imagine a company that makes boats. Instead of selling the actual boats, they sell boat rides for so much money that people start sneaking on. They're producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. You could say that selling the boats themselves is more like what media companies are doing now, but it gets my point across: They're selling the wrong thing.

Excellent question. When you go to a record store and buy a CD or Vinyl, you are paying for physical media. You can't reproduce that physical media for a cost of much less than a cent (If you count the electricity that the file operation uses, which isn't even done by the media company). What about production costs, then? Concerts, of course. Just like physical media, you can't infinitely reproduce the experience of seeing a band or musician live. The media companies are producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. It's a little bit like this: Imagine a company that makes boats. Instead of selling the actual boats, they sell boat rides for so much money that people start sneaking on. They're producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. You could say that selling the boats themselves is more like what media companies are doing now, but it gets my point across: They're selling the wrong thing.

I really didn't catch onto that, what are you suggesting they sell?

^What, really? I didn't know that. You're not the only one in that situation. <_<

So you want to tell people how to run their business? That doesn't really sound fair.

Oh, but in capitalism, it is. If a company wants to survive, they must adapt to the market- Not try to force the market to adapt to them.

The opinions I see in this thread are freakin ridiculous. I had no idea that people were still so absorbed in downloading stuff... It's just media, why not pay for it? I dont understand...do you really need 6000 songs and 200 movies on your coputer?

Excellent question. When you go to a record store and buy a CD or Vinyl, you are paying for physical media. You can't reproduce that physical media for a cost of much less than a cent (If you count the electricity that the file operation uses, which isn't even done by the media company). What about production costs, then? Concerts, of course. Just like physical media, you can't infinitely reproduce the experience of seeing a band or musician live. The media companies are producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. It's a little bit like this: Imagine a company that makes boats. Instead of selling the actual boats, they sell boat rides for so much money that people start sneaking on. They're producing the right thing but selling the wrong thing. You could say that selling the boats themselves is more like what media companies are doing now, but it gets my point across: They're selling the wrong thing.

What should they sell then if it's not music? :?

The opinions I see in this thread are freakin ridiculous. I had no idea that people were still so absorbed in downloading stuff... It's just media, why not pay for it? I dont understand...do you really need 6000 songs and 200 movies on your coputer?

Well honestly, the recording industry needs to get with the times. Music is too expensive, especially since you get someone to make it for you once, put it in to a playable format once, then have unlimited copies of the song. They also hate selling online, and streaming services don't last long nor are they available in my country. On top of that I rarely find any music I'd be interested in at any near by music store. Adding to the fact that I don't have a credit card makes for an impossible time to buy music I like. Not to mention they are expensive.

 

Well honestly, the recording industry needs to get with the times. Music is too expensive, especially since you get someone to make it for you once, put it in to a playable format once, then have unlimited copies of the song. They also hate selling online, and streaming services don't last long nor are they available in my country. On top of that I rarely find any music I'd be interested in at any near by music store. Adding to the fact that I don't have a credit card makes for an impossible time to buy music I like. Not to mention they are expensive.

 

And me not having a million dollars makes it impossible for me to buy the cars that I like.

 

I fail to see what your financial inadequacy has to do with anything.

 

You act like everyone has the right to own music/movies/games. You don't. Its a product like anything else. And if it is too expensive for you then you are just going to have to not buy it.

Okay. Say I can't afford the music or games - there's no possible way I would be able to buy them - what is the harm in me downloading them then? There's no loss at all to the industry the only harm is... oh wait.... there is none.

It's actually better that you do download them if you can't afford it. Free advertising. No corporation sees it that way though, unfortunately.

Okay. Say I can't afford the music or games - there's no possible way I would be able to buy them - what is the harm in me downloading them then? There's no loss at all to the industry the only harm is... oh wait.... there is none.

If everyone thought like you, you wouldn't be getting any new proprietary/copyrighted software/music/movies etc.

And as i've already explained, if the label doesn't sell music (physical or digital), they won't pay for your favorite bands to come and play live either.

 

Edit: I should also say that illegal downloading doesn't really affect bands like Maiden, Metallica or Mötley Crüe, since the labels know there is extreme interest in them and they already have enormous sums of money. It does however effect smaller bands like Opeth or Amon Amarth hugely.

 

E2: I also wonder if you pro-illegal downloaders view downloading music any different from downloading software or movies. Or are they all your right to have?

Okay. Say I can't afford the music or games - there's no possible way I would be able to buy them - what is the harm in me downloading them then? There's no loss at all to the industry the only harm is... oh wait.... there is none.

 

The harm is that you are enjoying the product without paying for it. You don't just get free acess to something you would have never bought anyway.

 

The cable company doesn't give me free cable if I would have never bought cable.

 

Theres no reason to let some people enjoy something for free while demanding that other people pay for it.

 

And you're honestly trying to say that if free downloading was impossible, you wouldnt spend a cent more than you currently do on media? I don't buy that for a second. If you own a damn computer to download things with, and have internet service, you can afford to buy a 10-20 dollar movie/CD

And you're honestly trying to say that if free downloading was impossible, you wouldnt spend a cent more than you currently do on media? I don't buy that for a second. If you own a damn computer to download things with, and have internet service, you can afford to buy a 10-20 dollar movie/CD

Ah yes, i've always found this interesting.

For example, i was out playing a golf course last weekend where i'm not a member so i had to pay 20 for something that lasted about 5h. And same goes for the pub, a night out, 20-35 (crazy prices for pints). Yet people don't feel like paying for something that lasts a life time (basically).

When you have $20 to spend on pretty much everything for an entire summer, you tend to prioritize what you spend it on. So no, I wouldn't buy 90% of the music I download. It also doesn't help that I have no way to buy things online nor do I have a car to get to a store to buy it in person.

 

That being said, I don't think piracy is the way to go. If I could afford $20 an album I'd probably buy my music. Not only to support the artist and help the economy or whatever, but because I'd much rather have a legitimate physical copy.

 

And you're honestly trying to say that if free downloading was impossible, you wouldnt spend a cent more than you currently do on media? I don't buy that for a second. If you own a damn computer to download things with, and have internet service, you can afford to buy a 10-20 dollar movie/CD

If free downloading was impossible, I wouldn't listen to music. Simple as that. As for movies, I've tried torrenting before and I always run into errors so I can't watch pirated movies. Even with this being the case, I don't go to the movies or buy a DVD unless somebody is paying for me.

I FOUND A WAY TO STOP PIRACY FOREVER!

 

All computer operating systems remove copy and paste commands.

 

Someone give me my medal.

Bill approved ... can anyone tell me what this actually means ? As in, it's already part of law now ? link

 

Seriously, USA ? What's wrong with you ?

Bill approved ... can anyone tell me what this actually means ? As in, it's already part of law now ? link

 

Seriously, USA ? What's wrong with you ?

Damn fools.

As long as the senate doesn't pass it.

Does that really surprise anyone? The bill will most likely pass the Senate as well because it helps corporations. Like I said, the USA is a Corporate State.

Lots of things pass the House that don't pass the Senate. Being optimistic here for once, it shouldn't pass.

Bill approved ... can anyone tell me what this actually means ? As in, it's already part of law now ? link

 

Seriously, USA ? What's wrong with you ?

Wait what? I thought that was different from the piracy thing? Or is it all on the same bill? Skimming through that article I don't see anything about pirating.

Bill approved ... can anyone tell me what this actually means ? As in, it's already part of law now ? link

 

Seriously, USA ? What's wrong with you ?

Wait what? I thought that was different from the piracy thing? Or is it all on the same bill? Skimming through that article I don't see anything about pirating.

Didn't even see that, maybe he meant to post in this thread?

That bill is even worse.

 

Haha, this is very funny. Bandwidth just got upped from 100GB [50 peak, 50 offpeak] to 120GB [60 peak, 60 offpeak]. I think you already know what I'm going to do .. :grin:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

 

 

EDIT: Naaaw, just gonna be "pirating".

So software creators can now be in deep [cabbage] if their users abuse their products...? Doesn't sound fair at all. Limewire is a legitimate program, but a majority of users abuse it for illegal filesharing of copyrighted music. So are sites like Zamzar, but a lot of people are using it to rip copyrighted audio off youtube videos.

 

Here's a relevent quote from someone in the music industry who is against abusive legal action on file sharing: David Draiman, lead vocalist of Disturbed. (source:wikipedia)

Draiman became involved in the music file sharing controversy by publicly speaking out against the RIAA's lawsuits against file sharing individuals, despite the fact his record label is a member of the RIAA. Draiman commented, "This is not rocket science. Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet. For the artists, my ass...I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection." Draiman also told NYRock: "[i'm] Very positive about the internet, Napster. I think it's a tremendous tool for reaching many more people than we ever could without it. When you release music you want it to be heard by people...Nothing is going to do that better than Napster. I can't tell you how many kids have come up to me and said, 'I downloaded a couple of tunes off Napster and I went out and bought the album.'...I don't really make money off of record sales anyway."

I really didn't catch onto that, what are you suggesting they sell?

What should they sell then if it's not music? :?

Merch, concert tickets, special edition physical media (Ala Nine Inch Nails).

What are your chances as an indie artist compared to a signed artist?

"[i'm] Very positive about the internet, Napster. I think it's a tremendous tool for reaching many more people than we ever could without it. When you release music you want it to be heard by people...Nothing is going to do that better than Napster. I can't tell you how many kids have come up to me and said, 'I downloaded a couple of tunes off Napster and I went out and bought the album.'...I don't really make money off of record sales anyway."

 

Exactly how I feel about music. Money should be a pleasant side effect to making good music, not the motivation behind it.

 

Besides, when you think of all the fans, it's probably better for marketing that music be made because the musician wanted to express his 'heart and soul' rather than wanting to 'manufacture a product'.