Limewire shut down

[Dupin]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

[____]

Wait how would they still make money?

1. They shutdown a sharing network, sue for damages and win.

2. Find another network that has "replaced" the previous one

3. Go to #1

 

 

Although finding networks they can actually go after in court.. totally different issue entirely.

[Racheya]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

[Dupin]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

The filthy rich bosses who allowed the artists to be good in the first place by publishing, sponsoring, and promoting their work, you mean?

 

Regardless, some of the money goes to the artist if you buy, which is still better than none of the money from pirating.

 

It's worth noting (HAH I so punny) that it's not realistically possible for huge amounts of money to go to the artist, especially if it's not a very famous one. Producers have to be able to still make profit off of an artist that may not sell many albums, and you have to think about production costs. I'm not sure these images of "filthy rich executive bosses" that everyone uses to defend their pirating ("Stick it to Da Man, man") are really accurate.

[Racheya]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

The filthy rich bosses who allowed the artists to be good in the first place by publishing, sponsoring, and promoting their work, you mean?

 

Regardless, some of the money goes to the artist if you buy, which is still better than none of the money from pirating.

 

It's worth noting (HAH I so punny) that it's not realistically possible for huge amounts of money to go to the artist, especially if it's not a very famous one. Producers have to be able to still make profit off of an artist that may not sell many albums, and you have to think about production costs. I'm not sure these images of "filthy rich executive bosses" that everyone uses to defend their pirating ("Stick it to Da Man, man") are really accurate.

I fail to see how the publishing industry MAKES a good artist. A good artist will be naturally good, have developed their own talents and such... they may not have been as 'successful' as they were before being purchased by a media giant, but they'll still be good.

 

What do the publishing companies do? They advertise, publish and promote... but bands and artists can do that ALL THEMSELVES with the internet. You'll find some brilliant musicians who are self-published online and are making it big. Not super-stardom millionaires, but they're living off their music without a big corporation behind them.

 

No matter what these companies actually do, they couldn't give a toss about the musicians they promote - they just want more money. It's a simple fact.

[Dupin]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

The filthy rich bosses who allowed the artists to be good in the first place by publishing, sponsoring, and promoting their work, you mean?

 

Regardless, some of the money goes to the artist if you buy, which is still better than none of the money from pirating.

 

It's worth noting (HAH I so punny) that it's not realistically possible for huge amounts of money to go to the artist, especially if it's not a very famous one. Producers have to be able to still make profit off of an artist that may not sell many albums, and you have to think about production costs. I'm not sure these images of "filthy rich executive bosses" that everyone uses to defend their pirating ("Stick it to Da Man, man") are really accurate.

I fail to see how the publishing industry MAKES a good artist. A good artist will be naturally good, have developed their own talents and such... they may not have been as 'successful' as they were before being purchased by a media giant, but they'll still be good.

 

What do the publishing companies do? They advertise, publish and promote... but bands and artists can do that ALL THEMSELVES with the internet. You'll find some brilliant musicians who are self-published online and are making it big. Not super-stardom millionaires, but they're living off their music without a big corporation behind them.

 

No matter what these companies actually do, they couldn't give a toss about the musicians they promote - they just want more money. It's a simple fact.

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism. The world runs on personal interest, and refusing to pay for music won't change that.

 

As far as whether or not publishing companies are actually helpful, niether of us can really say because we wouldn't have heard of the good artists we've never heard of :ugeek: I will say, however, that you need money to make more money. Without good instruments and recording equipment, you can't make good music. Without advertising, you won't have the publicity to sell en masse.

 

Oh, and that last sentence is rather silly. How could you know the inner thoughts of the music publishing industry, even if it was one solid entity? I will agree that music companies want money, though - that's called profit, and it makes a venture worthwhile.

[Sam]

If they did give a damn about their musicians they would embrace change to how music is sold to consumers, instead of remaining stubborn and old fashioned.

[Alg]

Back in the day if you bought a cassette and gave it to your friend you werent beaking the law. Now adays if i bought a mp3 file off itunes and tried to share it in the same way I could get in a lot of trouble

If I loan a friend a cassette, I can't listen to it until I get it back from him. There's still only one copy, if the one that doesn't have the copy wants to listen to it, he'll have to buy it.

If I copy an mp3 for a friend, we can both listen to it whenever we want, and neither of us has to buy a(nother) copy because we have it.

 

Not that it matters, the whole digital piracy organization-thing as it is is not a single guy copying an mp3 for his one friend.

[DaN]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

 

There is a fundamental rule of marketing and that is A product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore loss due to piracy = $0

 

Suing people is a very lucrative business model, entire businesses have sprung up for the sole purpose of suing people on behalf of content owners. The film and music industry has also given birth to allot of organised crime based on the notion of stopping piracy. There are criminal syndicates out there who attack pirate servers for a fee..

 

Piracy really does no harm to music and film and they know it. But they don't want to admit it because then they could not sue innocent people.

[Dupin]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

 

There is a fundamental rule of marketing and that is A product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore loss due to piracy = $0

Suing people is a very lucrative business model, entire businesses have sprung up for the sole purpose of suing people on behalf of content owners. The film and music industry has also given birth to allot of organised crime based on the notion of stopping piracy. There are criminal syndicates out there who attack pirate servers for a fee..

 

Piracy really does no harm to music and film and they know it. But they don't want to admit it because then they could not sue innocent people.

I disagree. Unless you are some sort of Godless infidel, you would pay money for good music. With pirating, you don't have to. Therein lies the harm to the industry.

 

Yes, when it's offered for nothing the value is nothing. But if it were not underpriced, you would be paying money for it, in some way or another.

[Will H]

If they did give a damn about their musicians they would embrace change to how music is sold to consumers, instead of remaining stubborn and old fashioned.

 

This guy speaks the truth. Satisfying the customer comes first in capitalism, and the profits come when you achieve that. The way music is sold is wrong in this day and age and the industry is refusing this truth. People are moving away from listening to music as albums and singles ('particles') and are instead making playlists ('waves'). People have been 'shuffling' their music since the dawn of the mp3 player and the iPod nearly a decade ago, and you would have thought that the industry would have noticed by now. Customers should be subscribing for their music as a whole, and the money is distributed according to what they listen to.

[Danqazmlp]

If they did give a damn about their musicians they would embrace change to how music is sold to consumers, instead of remaining stubborn and old fashioned.

 

This guy speaks the truth. Satisfying the customer comes first in capitalism, and the profits come when you achieve that. The way music is sold is wrong in this day and age and the industry is refusing this truth. People are moving away from listening to music as albums and singles ('particles') and are instead making playlists ('waves'). People have been 'shuffling' their music since the dawn of the mp3 player and the iPod nearly a decade ago, and you would have thought that the industry would have noticed by now. Customers should be subscribing for their music as a whole, and the money is distributed according to what they listen to.

 

 

Do you mean the thing that many companies currently embrace called Spotify?

[Skull]

Lol at everyone justifying their piracy. I just want free [cabbage] and I'm not afraid to say it. If it wasn't for downloading, I'd listen to the music on youtube, myspace, where ever the hell I could find it like I did before I knew how to actually obtain it for free.

 

People who don't want to pay are never going to, no matter what you do to them. The record industry can either continue what they're doing now, stop caring about the pirates, or come up with a radically new method of distribution, like p2p music sharing based on a small monthly fee.

[Skeptical]

I could do small monthly fee, if I knew that almost all of the money would go to the artist.

[Dupin]

I could do small monthly fee, if I knew that almost all of the money would go to the artist.

What about the people running the distribution program, the people who did the advertising, the people who sponsored the artist, and the people who payed for the great equipment he has?

[Skeptical]

I could do small monthly fee, if I knew that almost all of the money would go to the artist.

What about the people running the distribution program, the people who did the advertising, the people who sponsored the artist, and the people who payed for the great equipment he has?

 

I said almost. P2P requires amazingly little infrastructure, and I don't think music should be influenced by advertising the way it is.

[Alg]

A number of good bands make it through word-of-mouth-esque advertising.

 

To be honest I rarely see ads for music anymore. I must be watching the wrong things.

[Will H]

If they did give a damn about their musicians they would embrace change to how music is sold to consumers, instead of remaining stubborn and old fashioned.

 

This guy speaks the truth. Satisfying the customer comes first in capitalism, and the profits come when you achieve that. The way music is sold is wrong in this day and age and the industry is refusing this truth. People are moving away from listening to music as albums and singles ('particles') and are instead making playlists ('waves'). People have been 'shuffling' their music since the dawn of the mp3 player and the iPod nearly a decade ago, and you would have thought that the industry would have noticed by now. Customers should be subscribing for their music as a whole, and the money is distributed according to what they listen to.

 

 

Do you mean the thing that many companies currently embrace called Spotify?

 

Yep. I personally use it, I can't remember if I mentioned it earlier in the thread*. If you use it you pretty much never pirate music ever again. Still, this kind of model shouldn't be a niche that only Spotify has, it should be an industry standard. Spotify has a few things that could be improved, and a healthy bit of competition will really set it off. Maybe someone should call Apple?

*I am too lazy to search for it. I don't care.

[Alg]

Unless I'm wrong those of us in the States can't use Spotify.

[Will H]

Unless I'm wrong those of us in the States can't use Spotify.

 

I heard it's coming over to the US pretty sharpish.

 

EDIT: Ok, maybe not sharpish. Seems that Apple (of all people) and some music labels (again of all people) getting a bit huffy about it.

 

DOUBLE EDIT: Ok, seems like this whole thing has been complicated, but it's coming soon.

 

http://www.bloomberg...id=alThNVAN9drE

 

http://www.wired.com.../#ixzz0jJC1Lyge

 

http://erictric.com/...-united-states/

[Furah]

Lol at everyone justifying their piracy. I just want free [cabbage] and I'm not afraid to say it.

 

I'll admit it, I wouldn't pay for music. What I would do, however, is go see that artist live and tell my friends how good that artist is. Provided I could afford to go that is.

[EarthySun]

 

How about $1.29.

 

Heh, my bad. As you can see, I don't buy music often. :lol:

[Furah]

 

How about $1.29.

Hi.

 

It's in AUD, but here's the current price exchange.

[jasignhagj]

Damn, I should have bought some Australian money a few years when it was at .60.

 

In my opinion, the quality of music would likely increase in a business model where everyone pays $5 a month, and the money is distributed based on popularity and unique listeners.

[DaN]

You want free music? Learn to whistle.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

 

Artists deserve to be paid for their work.

I would agree...

 

If every penny of what we paid actually WENT to the artists. Either directly to them or for direct use in helping them continue their work...

 

But alas, it does not. It lines the pockets of filthy rich executive bosses who couldn't give a damn about genuinely supporting artists.

 

There is a fundamental rule of marketing and that is A product or service is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore loss due to piracy = $0

Suing people is a very lucrative business model, entire businesses have sprung up for the sole purpose of suing people on behalf of content owners. The film and music industry has also given birth to allot of organised crime based on the notion of stopping piracy. There are criminal syndicates out there who attack pirate servers for a fee..

 

Piracy really does no harm to music and film and they know it. But they don't want to admit it because then they could not sue innocent people.

I disagree. Unless you are some sort of Godless infidel, you would pay money for good music. With pirating, you don't have to. Therein lies the harm to the industry.

 

Yes, when it's offered for nothing the value is nothing. But if it were not underpriced, you would be paying money for it, in some way or another.

 

Like I said it's only worth what someone is willing to pay.

If someone is not willing to pay for it then it's because it is not worth that much. If they do feel that it's worth the money being asked then they will pay for it.

 

Piracy can't harm the industy due to the rules of economics. If people aren't prepared to pay you for your work it's time to move on and to something else, this applies to all aspects of our society. If my employer was not prepared to pay me what I consider acceptable I would to work for them. If I produce content that people don't find valuable enough to pay for then I'll either stop doing it or work to improve said content.

 

Piracy has no impact on sales I own over 140 DVDs and it is actualyy faster, cheaper and easier to download those movies. Obviously if a movie is not worth paying for then I won't pay for it.