Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I do see your point about the added benefits of corporate sponsorship... and that is very true of the past. However, there are many new ways for artists to get their works out to fans. I don't think that the traditional label method is better than the new self-promotion for many artists.
And I still stand behind my belief of exploitation of artists... especially the fad-of-the-hour artists that the labels gloss-up and toss out for mass consumption. I don't like that music, so I don't buy or pirate it. But they are the uneducated (in the ways of business) artists that are suckered in by promises of fame & glory. I remember reading somewhere that artists were so indebted to the label when they first sign on and do their first album that they actually don't see a thing for sales for quite a while, and then it's only a trickle.
You can argue all you want about the added benefit of being promoted, but if all you're going to get is a pittance, what's the point? And if you're in it for the art, then why pay someone else to show your art? Just record it for yourself and your friends or play it at the coffee shop on the corner. Basically: if you sign with an artist, you expect to sell your wares. Under those traditional contracts, you didn't get paid much at all, while the label is raking in the lion’s share of the profit (yes, profit, not just gross sales). That’s exploitation in my book.
All of that is for CDs... between tickets and merchandise,
artists do make more money touring than they do from album sales.
Sorry if all that seems rushed, but I'm trying to get out the door and didn't want you to think your points weren't worth replying to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
Dropping the numbers since we're done with #1
I was drawing the comparison between pirates and paying customers (of CDs) to show where support comes from. Now, granted, I was giving a comparison to CD purchasers who don't go to shows and I know that there are those who do. The point I was making was that pirates are not about trying to defraud musicians and just get all they can for free.
I also wanted to illustrate that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'm supporting the artists more than the label is since all the money (or most, damned Ticket Master) goes to the artist, not the label. Simply put, artists see more money from us supporting pirates than from their own labels.
I guess I'm looking in the wrong place for bootlegs. :\ Maybe I can find a copy of the Rockula Soundtrack at a flea market.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
1) I'm glad we're on the same page on that one :) Although I do admit that I have pirated a couple of Disney’s in the past because of that limited release BS they pull on their movies. Screw the Disney Vault >:( I wanted my 9 & 10yos to see Fantasia and Fantasia 2k recently. I think it just became available now. But because of my anger at Disney, I'll delete the files before I'll buy a ligit copy.
2) Most 'pirates' actually do more to support artists than the people who just pick up a CD every now and then. Now, before anyone asks, I don't have any hard evidence of this... just the understanding that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'll do more to support that artist than someone who goes to FYE and buys the same album and just listens to it.
Now I would have a problem of people who would go download a bunch of songs and burn them to CDs to be sold as bootlegs; but honestly, I've never seen that happen.
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
You've just succinctly illustrated the overlooked difference between the post-9/11 Nationalism that actually happened and the "patriotism" that it's incorrectly labeled as. I'm glad to see that a lot of that gloss is rubbing of and people are seeing that our reaction was/is knee-jerk at best and mindlessly-destructive at worst.
It's because of the 'win win win!" mentality that we allowed so much of our basic rights to be taken away from us before we knew it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
1) At the risk of continuing into the rhetorical and hypothetical, what if it never becomes available? You've already pirated and thus broken the law haven't you?
There are a few CD's (such as the Rockula soundtrack... yes, I liked it. :p ) that are tied up in litigation over copyright ownership that I'd very much like to get my hands on. There just happens to be no source that I can find to download them, legitimate or otherwise (some pirate I am. Heh). So if I happen to download it, are you saying that it'd be ok someday when I pay for it later? While that makes good ethical sense, I doubt the law would really be on your side for it.
2) I've read and heard about artists who didn't understand the situation they were getting into with particular labels and the abuse they suffered since. Young artists with "Jukebox Hero" going through their head are very easy to capture with promises of money and glory. A) I know there are three sides to every story, and I don't take the artists' stories on face value. B) Is it their fault that they got into the situation? yes. But I'm not going to support an industry that treats its artists like sweatshop workers... Just like how many people won't buy clothes made in actual sweatshops.
So I'm sure those pennies the sweatshop workers are being paid is better than nothing, but that hardly justifies supporting the industry.
"I have always said that the content has tremendous value."
That made me think about the anonymous accusation again...
By insisting that the only legitimate distribution of content (especially music) be in the hands of the industries which produce CDs and DVDs etc... Doesn’t that mean that the recording industries and their supporters feel the vessel (distribution method) is more important than the content?
Trolling, logical fallacies, and a hypocrisy... HAT TRICK!!
And why is your opinion any more important? At least Mike's is informed and based on an understanding of the original intent of copyright law and the free-market economy.
Yours however is based on the same mindless protect-our-monies blather that we hear from the recording industry trying to keep little plastic disks a form of currency.
All we ever hear from you is "You are so wrong LOLOL!!!1!11" while Mike actually takes a moment to explain his opinion with fact and case law.
So I ask you, please remind us again why anyone would give a flying fuck about how YOU think the business of music should be conducted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
"Anyway, I was responding to someone saying that they would download if the price were more reasonable."
If I may interject... and remember, this is my opinion... I would buy directly more often if two things happen... 1) those rare can't-find-them-legitimately songs are made available and 2) if I knew that the money went directly (or at lease MUCH more) to the artists. I LOVE to support musicians... but I don't like to support the record labels that use and abuse them.
If I knew the money was going to the artist, I would be more willing to pay even more than $1/song.
I don't think they look the same at all. The only thing similar is that they both have EEEEXTREEEEM TRYBAL INKZ (that's 'extreme tribal ink' for those who don't speak/read Extreme)all over them. And just about everything marketed to the... which letter are we on for generations now?... use excessive (sorry... 'Extreme') amounts of that crap too. So how is a competitor an infringer and a clothing manufacturer with the same design elements not?
Because American politicians and representatives have proven beyond doubt by practice that they truly have law and order in their hearts and would never do anything for personal gain that might be against the law or represent a threat to our democratic republic form of government.
Yup. Sure does give me the warm fuzzies just thinkin about it!
I think we've gone far beyond the 'moron in a hurry' and well into the stoned-outta-his-head-stoner test. Which is funny because a SOHHS wouldn't care which he has... they're both edible.
When will it become prohibitively costly in penalties for these frivolous lawsuits to be filed?
Re: Re: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
"You bring up the idea that the "industry" is just telling the feds which sites they want taken down, and the feds follow orders. I don't think it's like that at all. I think the "industry" points out sites they don't like, and then the feds do their own investigation to decide independently which sites to go after. That's what the press release said anyway, and I've no reason to think otherwise."
I hate the feeling of tinfoil on my head as much as the next (sane) person. And I agree that it's rarely as bad as the theorists would have us believe. However...
You say that the government looks at sites the industry points out and then runs their own investigation. Ok... but how much sway would the industry's money has on what the government sees when it looks into it?
I'm not saying that's the case. I am saying that there better be some damned good transparency and disclosure of evidence if the government wants to avoid whacking the conspiracy-hornet's nest with a big ol' stick.
"I see this line of defense all the time on this blog, and I'm going to tell you right now, it won't work."
Your expert opinion is noted and filed appropriately.
"Stick to it all you want, but the courts will laugh at you if you do."
We'll just have to see won't we? And the courts have already decided in similar situations like this in the past. I'm tired of arguing case laws, so feel free to go back and read all the discussions on previous posts. I’m not going to be dragged back into that argument again. Go ahead and bring up Arcara vs Cloud Books since I know you're dying to. I'll dismiss it as already argued down to my satisfaction.
"We all know what's happening on these sites."
No, you have your judgementalist opinion of what's going on with these sites. And the fact that people who also share that over-zealous opinion are the ones telling the government to "sick'em!" is what's scary.
But you know, you're right. Let's all operate on what we "all know". We “all know” that all government officials are corrupt, so why don’t we get rid of them all. We “all know” that Catholic priests are really child molesters, so let’s get rid of them too. And hey, those black people in run-down neighborhoods… we “all know” that they are all hardened thug criminals, so hell, let’s just KILL them. See how silly such generalizations are?
"The easiest solution is to not break the law."
I truly hope you're not so naive to think that no innocent person has ever been wrongly accused of a crime. If so, my question of "what about the ones who aren't breaking the law" would be wasted. As much as you may not want to admit it (because it would seriously jeopardize your argument), there are legitimate uses for bittorents... there are legitimate search engines and discussion boards out there that are used for legal and illegal purposes outside the control of the hosts.
I am truly scared that you want to so quickly throw away basic free-speech rights and protections just to stop a few files from being downloaded. Especially since there are demonstrated legitimate uses for not only allowing files to be downloaded, but using these "pirate channels" as a distribution method to get files out to consumers.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
And I still stand behind my belief of exploitation of artists... especially the fad-of-the-hour artists that the labels gloss-up and toss out for mass consumption. I don't like that music, so I don't buy or pirate it. But they are the uneducated (in the ways of business) artists that are suckered in by promises of fame & glory. I remember reading somewhere that artists were so indebted to the label when they first sign on and do their first album that they actually don't see a thing for sales for quite a while, and then it's only a trickle.
You can argue all you want about the added benefit of being promoted, but if all you're going to get is a pittance, what's the point? And if you're in it for the art, then why pay someone else to show your art? Just record it for yourself and your friends or play it at the coffee shop on the corner. Basically: if you sign with an artist, you expect to sell your wares. Under those traditional contracts, you didn't get paid much at all, while the label is raking in the lion’s share of the profit (yes, profit, not just gross sales). That’s exploitation in my book.
All of that is for CDs... between tickets and merchandise,
artists do make more money touring than they do from album sales.
Sorry if all that seems rushed, but I'm trying to get out the door and didn't want you to think your points weren't worth replying to.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
I was drawing the comparison between pirates and paying customers (of CDs) to show where support comes from. Now, granted, I was giving a comparison to CD purchasers who don't go to shows and I know that there are those who do. The point I was making was that pirates are not about trying to defraud musicians and just get all they can for free.
I also wanted to illustrate that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'm supporting the artists more than the label is since all the money (or most, damned Ticket Master) goes to the artist, not the label. Simply put, artists see more money from us supporting pirates than from their own labels.
I guess I'm looking in the wrong place for bootlegs. :\ Maybe I can find a copy of the Rockula Soundtrack at a flea market.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
2) Most 'pirates' actually do more to support artists than the people who just pick up a CD every now and then. Now, before anyone asks, I don't have any hard evidence of this... just the understanding that if I pirate and album then pay to see a show and buy some t-shirts there, I'll do more to support that artist than someone who goes to FYE and buys the same album and just listens to it.
Now I would have a problem of people who would go download a bunch of songs and burn them to CDs to be sold as bootlegs; but honestly, I've never seen that happen.
On the post: TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
It's because of the 'win win win!" mentality that we allowed so much of our basic rights to be taken away from us before we knew it.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
There are a few CD's (such as the Rockula soundtrack... yes, I liked it. :p ) that are tied up in litigation over copyright ownership that I'd very much like to get my hands on. There just happens to be no source that I can find to download them, legitimate or otherwise (some pirate I am. Heh). So if I happen to download it, are you saying that it'd be ok someday when I pay for it later? While that makes good ethical sense, I doubt the law would really be on your side for it.
2) I've read and heard about artists who didn't understand the situation they were getting into with particular labels and the abuse they suffered since. Young artists with "Jukebox Hero" going through their head are very easy to capture with promises of money and glory. A) I know there are three sides to every story, and I don't take the artists' stories on face value. B) Is it their fault that they got into the situation? yes. But I'm not going to support an industry that treats its artists like sweatshop workers... Just like how many people won't buy clothes made in actual sweatshops.
So I'm sure those pennies the sweatshop workers are being paid is better than nothing, but that hardly justifies supporting the industry.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That made me think about the anonymous accusation again...
By insisting that the only legitimate distribution of content (especially music) be in the hands of the industries which produce CDs and DVDs etc... Doesn’t that mean that the recording industries and their supporters feel the vessel (distribution method) is more important than the content?
Trolling, logical fallacies, and a hypocrisy... HAT TRICK!!
On the post: DailyDirt: Somewhat Alien Life And Outer Space
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re:
Yours however is based on the same mindless protect-our-monies blather that we hear from the recording industry trying to keep little plastic disks a form of currency.
All we ever hear from you is "You are so wrong LOLOL!!!1!11" while Mike actually takes a moment to explain his opinion with fact and case law.
So I ask you, please remind us again why anyone would give a flying fuck about how YOU think the business of music should be conducted.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
If I may interject... and remember, this is my opinion... I would buy directly more often if two things happen... 1) those rare can't-find-them-legitimately songs are made available and 2) if I knew that the money went directly (or at lease MUCH more) to the artists. I LOVE to support musicians... but I don't like to support the record labels that use and abuse them.
If I knew the money was going to the artist, I would be more willing to pay even more than $1/song.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
epic fail
Hey, let me come over to your house and tell you to get out and go away.
Wow... just.... wow.
On the post: More Extremely Silly Trademark Lawsuits: Mars vs. Hershey Over Totally Different Looking Wrappers
Re:
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
It's not Dead Like Web
On the post: New Judicial Hero: Philip Gutierrez Goes Ballistic On Ridiculous Gov't Prosecutors During Xbox Modding Trial
Video
On the post: Talking About Homeland Security's Domain Seizures
Re:
Yup. Sure does give me the warm fuzzies just thinkin about it!
On the post: Talking About Homeland Security's Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: More Extremely Silly Trademark Lawsuits: Mars vs. Hershey Over Totally Different Looking Wrappers
Re: Re:
I think we've gone far beyond the 'moron in a hurry' and well into the stoned-outta-his-head-stoner test. Which is funny because a SOHHS wouldn't care which he has... they're both edible.
When will it become prohibitively costly in penalties for these frivolous lawsuits to be filed?
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I hate the feeling of tinfoil on my head as much as the next (sane) person. And I agree that it's rarely as bad as the theorists would have us believe. However...
You say that the government looks at sites the industry points out and then runs their own investigation. Ok... but how much sway would the industry's money has on what the government sees when it looks into it?
I'm not saying that's the case. I am saying that there better be some damned good transparency and disclosure of evidence if the government wants to avoid whacking the conspiracy-hornet's nest with a big ol' stick.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your expert opinion is noted and filed appropriately.
We'll just have to see won't we? And the courts have already decided in similar situations like this in the past. I'm tired of arguing case laws, so feel free to go back and read all the discussions on previous posts. I’m not going to be dragged back into that argument again. Go ahead and bring up Arcara vs Cloud Books since I know you're dying to. I'll dismiss it as already argued down to my satisfaction.
No, you have your judgementalist opinion of what's going on with these sites. And the fact that people who also share that over-zealous opinion are the ones telling the government to "sick'em!" is what's scary.
But you know, you're right. Let's all operate on what we "all know". We “all know” that all government officials are corrupt, so why don’t we get rid of them all. We “all know” that Catholic priests are really child molesters, so let’s get rid of them too. And hey, those black people in run-down neighborhoods… we “all know” that they are all hardened thug criminals, so hell, let’s just KILL them. See how silly such generalizations are?
I truly hope you're not so naive to think that no innocent person has ever been wrongly accused of a crime. If so, my question of "what about the ones who aren't breaking the law" would be wasted. As much as you may not want to admit it (because it would seriously jeopardize your argument), there are legitimate uses for bittorents... there are legitimate search engines and discussion boards out there that are used for legal and illegal purposes outside the control of the hosts.
I am truly scared that you want to so quickly throw away basic free-speech rights and protections just to stop a few files from being downloaded. Especially since there are demonstrated legitimate uses for not only allowing files to be downloaded, but using these "pirate channels" as a distribution method to get files out to consumers.
Next >>