"Because it highlights the pirate lie they are taking stuff because there is no free, or cheap alternative. When it comes to writing and recording hip-hop, there ABSOLUTELY is."
Okay, that's a fair point against that argument.
Now that we've established that what he did was immoral, perhaps you'd like to explain why you think what he did is at all comparable to blocking a major part of his distribution model?
"I repeat.
You can make kick ass hip-hop using Reaper $60.
There's a whole slew of free or cheap plug-ins that even the highest paid artists in the industry use. Why? because they just happen to be good."
I repeat.
I don't see why that matters.
How does the existence of alternatives make his pirating the good stuff any more harmful?
"You have a guy like Dan Bull being supported by the the British tax payer (unemployment benefits), making music by ripping off someone else's work (the software companies he pirated). then asking for sympathy because his Pirate bay promo was blocked."
Because I'm sure the British taxpayer would much rather that he spent their tax dollars on music programs instead of getting one for free.
And the difference between a website being blocked and a program being pirated is that the people using the website are actually inconvenienced.
The unnecessarily abrasive anon above raises a good point. Dan Bull doesn't seem to be bragging that his music is Waves-produced. Other possible motives would include wanting the best software, rather than something that just gets the job done, or maybe he honestly thought that he needed Waves to make good music, both of which would be consistent with him not bragging that he made his music on Waves. Regardless of his reasons, I don't see why it's a bad thing to pirate something that you can't buy. Do you have any reason for that beyond that he didn't need it?
It might not excuse the illegitimate purposes, but it does mean that the thing with the legitimate purposes isn't solely illegitimate. Perhaps the purposes should be handled, rather than the tool?
Pirating something that otherwise would limit you to a certain number of installs or hardware upgrades before you have to go back and beg the company to use the thing you bought, crashes your computer, or noticeably reduces the performance of the thing you'd purchased is indeed more ethical than pirating something with a legal version that does none of those things. I don't see how that is unprincipled.
My point is that the opportunity this guy is taking to go it alone would not exist if the major industry players had their way. That is (a poorly executed attempt at) directly harming a musician that never had any kind of contract with them.
On the other hand, your problem with Dan Bull is at best a minor ethical concern, where you think he should've gotten a different free program instead of the free program he did get. Since that would have exactly the same effect on everyone involved except Dan Bull, I don't see how it is at all comparable to trying to block a website.
"Your logic does not depend upon the ability to pay."
Yes, it does. I think that pirating something you can afford, if the form the legal offering takes isn't crippled by one of the more malevolent forms of DRM, is unethical. What I can't wrap my head around is the idea that pirating something you can't afford is wrong. Yes, there are other options, just like the kid's sibling I mentioned above could find another toy to play with, but I don't see why not taking the other options matters.
"If you honestly don't need something to get where you want to go, but you take it against someone else's wishes, how on earth does it mean the person taking it isn't entitled and in the wrong?"
Because if you honestly couldn't buy it, no one is being hurt. Any claims to the contrary have exactly as much moral authority as a child whining when one of their siblings decides to play with a toy that they weren't using.
Okay, I'll take your word for that. I clearly don't know as much about music production as you do.
Still, I have to ask why you seem to think that he was in the wrong for pirating something that he had already paid for or for pirating something that he could not pay for. Neither instance represents a lost sale, since in the first case the sale had already happened, so I'd say he was indeed entitled to that program, and in the second the sale could not have happened whether or not he pirated it.
Did you consider that the total cost of the plugins would have been thousands of pounds, not each individual plugin?
Did you consider that the very next sentence states that he did not have the money to pay for those things even if he were so inclined, so nothing was lost by any party?
Did you consider that the only time he said "entitled" in there was when he was talking about how the British music industry doesn't get money from the Promo Bay, so you're not actually turning anything around here?
Did you consider that asking people to buy your music isn't the same thing as being a cheerleader for free music?
Did you consider anything beyond whether or not you could find a sentence to twist to match your preconceptions?
Our time-out corners are already overcrowded enough as it is without adding bureaucrats and corrupt businessmen to them, and spanking wouldn't work because all the lawyers we'd be punishing would probably be able to find a way to have it labeled cruel and unusual. The best option looks to be taking away their toys until they learn to play nicely.
While this is true, it's possible that it was because of the sale, rather than being the inevitable result of anyone putting their book out for $1 from the start. If there was a lot of publicity around the price drop, then that almost certainly contributed.
Absolutely correct. This is why bookstores keep their books behind locked cases. If anyone could just grab a book and start reading without paying for it first, the store would never make a sale.
A cover of a song is as much a reproduction of that song as this is a reproduction of Assassin's Creed.
SOCAN sounds like it's exploiting the uncertainty in the law that this article is discussing. The point here is that it's ridiculous to consider a cover infringing, not that it doesn't happen.
Next time they'll probably be caught too, if they get any kind of exposure. The wonderful thing about Kickstarter is that scams have to withstand scrutiny for at least month before they get any money.
If doing nothing produces a more positive result than doing something, then yes, you're supposed to do nothing, no matter how bad inaction makes you feel. This'll have as much effect on human trafficking as blocking The Pirate Bay has on piracy.
Now, if you have the technical knowledge to find out where the people advertising on the site are, or you have some other way to contribute positively, then by all means try to make law enforcement's job easier. But the situation is not as simple as "doing something is better than doing nothing".
Unfortunately Americans don't decide where America's budget goes. The point where Congress listens to average citizens calling its bullshit is somewhere around half of DC standing in front of the capital building chanting about how stupid it's being.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re:
Okay, that's a fair point against that argument.
Now that we've established that what he did was immoral, perhaps you'd like to explain why you think what he did is at all comparable to blocking a major part of his distribution model?
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Excuses excuses
You can make kick ass hip-hop using Reaper $60.
There's a whole slew of free or cheap plug-ins that even the highest paid artists in the industry use. Why? because they just happen to be good."
I repeat.
I don't see why that matters.
How does the existence of alternatives make his pirating the good stuff any more harmful?
"You have a guy like Dan Bull being supported by the the British tax payer (unemployment benefits), making music by ripping off someone else's work (the software companies he pirated). then asking for sympathy because his Pirate bay promo was blocked."
Because I'm sure the British taxpayer would much rather that he spent their tax dollars on music programs instead of getting one for free.
And the difference between a website being blocked and a program being pirated is that the people using the website are actually inconvenienced.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Logic
On the post: Ongoing Patent Fights Mean Startups Are Now Wasting What Little Money They Have At The Patent Office
Re: What if we also eliminated business structure?
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Dan the Pirate
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
On the other hand, your problem with Dan Bull is at best a minor ethical concern, where you think he should've gotten a different free program instead of the free program he did get. Since that would have exactly the same effect on everyone involved except Dan Bull, I don't see how it is at all comparable to trying to block a website.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
Yes, it does. I think that pirating something you can afford, if the form the legal offering takes isn't crippled by one of the more malevolent forms of DRM, is unethical. What I can't wrap my head around is the idea that pirating something you can't afford is wrong. Yes, there are other options, just like the kid's sibling I mentioned above could find another toy to play with, but I don't see why not taking the other options matters.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
Because if you honestly couldn't buy it, no one is being hurt. Any claims to the contrary have exactly as much moral authority as a child whining when one of their siblings decides to play with a toy that they weren't using.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
And what, exactly, do you think this guy was doing when the companies you're defending blocked the site that he was using for promotion?
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Re: Re: Entitled?
Still, I have to ask why you seem to think that he was in the wrong for pirating something that he had already paid for or for pirating something that he could not pay for. Neither instance represents a lost sale, since in the first case the sale had already happened, so I'd say he was indeed entitled to that program, and in the second the sale could not have happened whether or not he pirated it.
On the post: Dan Bull Shares His Thoughts On The Pirate Bay Being Blocked Right After Helping His Music Get On The Charts
Re: Entitled?
Did you consider that the very next sentence states that he did not have the money to pay for those things even if he were so inclined, so nothing was lost by any party?
Did you consider that the only time he said "entitled" in there was when he was talking about how the British music industry doesn't get money from the Promo Bay, so you're not actually turning anything around here?
Did you consider that asking people to buy your music isn't the same thing as being a cheerleader for free music?
Did you consider anything beyond whether or not you could find a sentence to twist to match your preconceptions?
On the post: Ongoing Patent Fights Mean Startups Are Now Wasting What Little Money They Have At The Patent Office
Re: Business
On the post: Paulo Coelho Ebook Sales Jump Way Up Thanks To $0.99 Sale
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Points Out That What The Authors Guild Wants And What Authors Want Are Two Very Different Things
Re: Re: Re: Rental
On the post: How Can You Tell If Uploading Your Cover Song To YouTube Is Infringing? You Can't
Re: Reproduction?
SOCAN sounds like it's exploiting the uncertainty in the law that this article is discussing. The point here is that it's ridiculous to consider a cover infringing, not that it doesn't happen.
On the post: Online Communities Bust Kickstarter Scam
Re:
On the post: Misguided Senators Propose Plan To Make It Harder For Law Enforcement To Track Down Human Trafficking Online
Re: Re: I agree...but also disgree
On the post: Misguided Senators Propose Plan To Make It Harder For Law Enforcement To Track Down Human Trafficking Online
Re: I agree...but also disgree
Now, if you have the technical knowledge to find out where the people advertising on the site are, or you have some other way to contribute positively, then by all means try to make law enforcement's job easier. But the situation is not as simple as "doing something is better than doing nothing".
On the post: FBI Stops Yet Another (Yes Another) Of Its Own Terrorist Plots; This Time: Anarchists!
Re:
Next >>