Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Piracy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPiracy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
harmonium.ro View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 15:35
What has that do with with Steven Wilson's article? I'm pretty sure that Wilson was talking exclusively on his behalf, and was not generalizing. Smile
Back to Top
Nathaniel607 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 374 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 15:53
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

You guys should read Steven Wilson's most recent editorial. It ends like this: So given the choice between someone listening to my music for free or not hearing it at all, I’ll take the first option every time. 

But Martin Orford said here in Prog Archives:

Quote  think it was probably the third or fourth death threat that did it. I get pretty angry when I see people with blog sites not only reviewing my work but also giving it away free via a Rapidshare link as well. Naturally I do my best to report those sites and close them down, and I have received quite a lot of abuse and threats for doing so. I conclude from this that musicians like me and the new breed of Internet music fans are now bitter enemies, and I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like. 

Plus Steve Wilson isn't the only one with right to allow his music to be downloaded for free, remember that the producers invest money in the band, take the risks and they are affected.

And at the end, I don't care what people think about sales, the musician and producer own the copyright of an album just as the car dealer owns a Ferrari, but I don't see people claiming that Ferrari should be for free because hey can't pay for one, but I see people saying they download for free because they don't have money.

Iván




Orford has the right to be angry, but still; other artist manage. And he says "I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like.". That's a bit silly. A lot of people still buy albums. Loads of people don't ever download. He's generalizing just a little bit. But still... death threats? A lot of people are complete arseholes.

Also, there's quite a big difference between getting a free ferarri and free music. When you take a Ferarri, another one doesn't automatically appear; it's an actual thing - there's not infinite of it, like there is with music. Not that that means you SHOULD be able to get it for free; it just illustrates the difference. Plus there's loads of music I want to listen to - I couldn't possibly it all, but I don't even want a Ferarri lol (other than to sell then buy more music). But yeah, in the end, it's right. The final, undeniable point is that people shouldn't illegally downlod music.
My Last FM Profile
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 16:35
Originally posted by FruMp FruMp wrote:

Originally posted by cphil cphil wrote:

The illegal distribution or copying of recordings , books etc. It is much more than that, it is CRIMINAL. the millions who do it without blinking an eye , steal from artists but cry crocodile tears when someone breaks into their houses and take their stuff. progbands don't have top 10 hits , so they are hurt the most by unlawful piracy .


Piracy is fantastic, it's given power back to the consumer. It would probably be a bad thing if the entertainment industry wasn't focused on shoveling out mountains of sh*te for mass consumption.

I'm not a hypocrite I give away my music for free.
Sorry chief, that's not an example of not being a hypocrite.
 
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 16:37
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:


Also, there's quite a big difference between getting a free ferarri and free music. When you take a Ferarri, another one doesn't automatically appear; it's an actual thing - there's not infinite of it, like there is with music. Not that that means you SHOULD be able to get it for free; it just illustrates the difference.
We're done here. Thanks for your input, no need for you to say any more.
What?
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 17:06
Old news but has anyone discussed Lars Ulrich yet? I wonder if he will one day be vindicated. People were falling over themselves to call him asshat of the century at the time, but it turns out he was right. And he suffered SERIOUS abuse over it, much worse than Orford I'm sure.
 
Yeah and big loss for the notion of "infinite music" Nathaniel.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 17:25
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

 


Orford has the right to be angry, but still; other artist manage. And he says "I have better things to do with my life than to waste the next three or four years making free music for a bunch of people I don’t like.". That's a bit silly. A lot of people still buy albums. Loads of people don't ever download. He's generalizing just a little bit. But still... death threats? A lot of people are complete arseholes.

He's talking about the people who not only download his music, but copy it and make it available to others, I read in sites like Prog Not Frog (Illegal downloading site, where they share what is not theirs) "Greg Walker kills music", only because the guy invested a lot of money in Prog bands that nobody cared about, and he wants to protect his investment.

He doesn't need to like this people, they are STEALING from him.

Still, I don't necessarily agree with this, but I understand the position of Orford.

Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

 Also, there's quite a big difference between getting a free ferarri and free music. When you take a Ferarri, another one doesn't automatically appear; it's an actual thing - there's not infinite of it, like there is with music. Not that that means you SHOULD be able to get it for free; it just illustrates the difference. Plus there's loads of music I want to listen to - I couldn't possibly it all, but I don't even want a Ferarri lol (other than to sell then buy more music). But yeah, in the end, it's right. The final, undeniable point is that people shouldn't illegally downlod music.

Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari.

Iván
            
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 17:28
I know I had to think twice when one of my favourite bands, Elbow, considered quitting over the downloading. After 18 years together they finally broke big in 2008 with fourth album The Seldom Seen Kid and were horrified to realise they weren't making much more money at all despite being mainstream popular and it seemed downloading was to blame. It was easier to sell-out gigs but revenue from CD sales was if anything lower. I think they've now decided to carry on but it shows that good bands really do suffer from it.
Back to Top
Nathaniel607 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 374 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 17:59
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_ Ivan_Melgar_ wrote:

Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari.


Right, look. I'm NOT saying it isn't stealing. I'm NOT saying it isn't wrong. I'm just saying that analogy is flawed. When you steal music, you don't stop that person for selling his CD to someone else. When you steal a Ferarri, it's gone.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

We're done here. Thanks for your input, no need for you to say any more.


Unhappy

Why'd you have to be like that? I'm not saying it isn't bad; it's talking someone's creative creation that they deserve money for and getting it for free. I just don't like it when people use that anallogy; they aren't really comprable.

Meh. It seems this thread's just starting to garner me hate from some people... I'm not on the side of "download everything and it'll be okay". Obviously this is stupid. If you take everything, no one will make it any more. It's silly. You've got to pay for creative goods like books, cds, movies - or else civilization would collapse. Albums and books are funded by those who buy them. Artist can't afford to make no return on them.

But like this article I've linked to before definitely shows - http://www.cracked.com/article_18513_5-insane-file-sharing-panics-from-before-internet_p1.html - (it's humourus, but cracked use sources) this is not a new thing. People have always been stealing intellectual property, the owners of said intellectually property have always been complaining about losing funds regarding said intellectual property. There's just a new medium doing now. Sure, it's probably on a bigger scale than home taping, but record companies we reporting lost billions then as well.

The only thing I'm against is people labelling downloaders all as heartless, labelling them as single-handedly destroying the industry when it is probably the downloaders keeping it afloat. The downloading could go, and it would make things better.

See, the thing is - and I've said this about a million times - downloading is bad. There's no question to this. But this kind of thing has always been happening in one form or another. Anyways... I'm not sure I want to stay on this thread. I think my position is fairly clear.

EDIT;

Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Yeah and big loss for the notion of "infinite music" Nathaniel.


What the hell's this about? There is infinite music! Just like there is infinite of anything convertible into a digital format. Books, movies, CDs. Can all be copied as many times - they won't ever run out. They are a post-scarcity product. (They aren't literally infinite as no one would be able to past it for and infinite amount of time, but they are never-ending.) That's the whole reason copyright laws exist, pretty much. All products used to be scarce - you payed for them because there wasn't a lot of them (ie, you bought a book because a guy had some and you wanted it. As opposed to there are loads of them, you are just paying for the experience). But as soon copying technology came along (the printing press), laws had to be drawn up, because, as a resource, they were worth nothing. They need to be giving artificial value, or creative value, as they could no longer be valued by the fact there wasn't much of them. There was a big argument about this when the eBook was invented. Since eBooks are just a digital file, libraries could just buy one book from the author (effectively removing the need for publishers) then just copy it for everybody. They needed to enforce arbitrary limits on copying the book, and the books lifespan (the files delete themselves after x amount of time or x amount of reads).





Edited by Nathaniel607 - October 25 2010 at 18:21
My Last FM Profile
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 19:35
http://www.freewebs.com/montypythonworld/Text%20-%20Crimson%20permanent%20assurance.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rqKn9yxQ1pQ/TEPe4X3xXFI/AAAAAAAAL6c/VwSoUVCCO60/s400/crimsonpermanent.jpg


Edited by Slartibartfast - October 25 2010 at 19:36
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 21:06
Also, anybody who thinks the nature of music has *anything* to do with the downloading problem is deluded. People would quite cheerfully also acquire clothing and food or any other goods whatsoever for free though it injured other parties if they could do so without risking prosecution. (In many places where the law is not quite what it could be, this is indeed what happens if you doubt me.) If you think they wouldn't you're just silly.

Edited by Textbook - October 25 2010 at 21:06
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 21:12
I doubt you.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 22:23
 
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_ Ivan_Melgar_ wrote:

Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari.


Right, look. I'm NOT saying it isn't stealing. I'm NOT saying it isn't wrong. I'm just saying that analogy is flawed. When you steal music, you don't stop that person for selling his CD to someone else. When you steal a Ferarri, it's gone.


But they can bring you to book for using it without paying for it.  Copyright infringement.  The legal position is crystal clear, why are you beating around the bush?  I will tell you where the grey area comes in.  What happens if you lend your CD to a friend?  This was discussed here before and it was agreed that you would be wrong not to stop your friend from making a copy of the CD instead of simply listening to it and giving it back. But how do YOU stop him from making a copy?  That's not in your hands.  If I pick a brand new book, flip through it a few times, hate it and give it to people who collect recycled paper items, it MIGHT make its way into the hands of pirates who may then print illegal copies of it and sell it at dirt cheap prices.  But these things happened before, I don't remember so much resentment back in the day.  

I may have misunderstood Steve Wilson's quote there but piracy is certainly not unique to the music business and if anything it should hurt the movie industry even more (speaking of which, VCRs back then actually allowed you to make copies of movies being broadcast on TV...you'd never need to watch the broadcast of that movie again, so the TV channels stood to lose).   But movie stars still make lots of money, a good movie still fills the halls.  At least here, we have had two movies that ran to packed houses for a whole month or more which doesn't generally happen now with the increased number of releases and multiplexes.  J K Rowling's books sold tons of copies in spite of piracy.  There were huge crowds at leading bookstores here on the day of the launch of the seventh (isn't it?) nook because kids wanted to be the first to get the last Wink Harry Potter book.  That is an important insight:  music has not been able to capture the imagination of a large audience sweeping across tastes for a long time. Personally, I blame this squarely on excessive segregation and sub-culturalization of tastes because of which audiences are too fragmented for a really large number to listen to ONE album or ONE artist.  Listening to a piece of music that's not your cup of tea won't kill you, but that's where too many people come from and, oh, they have been encouraged to over time by music magazines, 'experienced listeners', even bands in some cases Wink.   A good story is still a good story and a good movie is still a good movie, as simple, but a good song is...no, wait, is it grunge?  Dance pop? Metal?  "It may not be for me then." Wink  As an aspiring writer, I am aware that there are formats within books and preferences likewise as well and the same holds good for movies. But from my experience of talking to people either in person or on the internet, people of different tastes watch the same film or same book and have similar views much more often than is the case with music.

 As for bands enjoying popularity but not necessarily making a lot out of album sales, it's just a case of "they will listen because and only because it's for free". If they had no other way than to buy the album, they probably wouldn't.  For the last time, none of this is in any way to justify downloading because what is illegal is illegal. I am simply saying that the real and larger problem lies elsewhere. 
Back to Top
Anthony H. View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2010
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 6088 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 22:32
I'm not going to touch this thread with a twenty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 22:46
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


And at the end, I don't care what people think about sales, the musician and producer own the copyright of an album just as the car dealer owns a Ferrari, but I don't see people claiming that Ferrari should be for free because hey can't pay for one, but I see people saying they download for free because they don't have money.


All I'm going to say is that if I could make an identical copy of a Ferrari and leave the original in the lot and drive away with the new copy, I would.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 22:48
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

  For the last time, none of this is in any way to justify downloading because what is illegal is illegal.

Um....what?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 23:06
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

 

All I'm going to say is that if I could make an identical copy of a Ferrari and leave the original in the lot and drive away with the new copy, I would.

It would equally be a felony, because the design, symbols and specifications are trademarked.

When I worked in Volvo, a company was sued because they created exact copy of the buses with symbols and all characteristics.

Even worst, the person from inside or outside the company who provided you the specifications will be in serious trouble, exactly the same as the guy who places music that he doesn't own in a blog..

Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 25 2010 at 23:08
            
Back to Top
Nathaniel607 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 28 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 374 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2010 at 23:47
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

 
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_ Ivan_Melgar_ wrote:

Is exactly the same, it's property of a third person that you are taking for free and using it....This is stealing just as if you took a Ferrari.


Right, look. I'm NOT saying it isn't stealing. I'm NOT saying it isn't wrong. I'm just saying that analogy is flawed. When you steal music, you don't stop that person for selling his CD to someone else. When you steal a Ferarri, it's gone.


But they can bring you to book for using it without paying for it.  Copyright infringement.  The legal position is crystal clear, why are you beating around the bush?  I will tell you where the grey area comes in.  What happens if you lend your CD to a friend?  This was discussed here before and it was agreed that you would be wrong not to stop your friend from making a copy of the CD instead of simply listening to it and giving it back. But how do YOU stop him from making a copy?  That's not in your hands.  If I pick a brand new book, flip through it a few times, hate it and give it to people who collect recycled paper items, it MIGHT make its way into the hands of pirates who may then print illegal copies of it and sell it at dirt cheap prices.  But these things happened before, I don't remember so much resentment back in the day.  

I may have misunderstood Steve Wilson's quote there but piracy is certainly not unique to the music business and if anything it should hurt the movie industry even more (speaking of which, VCRs back then actually allowed you to make copies of movies being broadcast on TV...you'd never need to watch the broadcast of that movie again, so the TV channels stood to lose).   But movie stars still make lots of money, a good movie still fills the halls.  At least here, we have had two movies that ran to packed houses for a whole month or more which doesn't generally happen now with the increased number of releases and multiplexes.  J K Rowling's books sold tons of copies in spite of piracy.  There were huge crowds at leading bookstores here on the day of the launch of the seventh (isn't it?) nook because kids wanted to be the first to get the last Wink Harry Potter book.  That is an important insight:  music has not been able to capture the imagination of a large audience sweeping across tastes for a long time.



 As for bands enjoying popularity but not necessarily making a lot out of album sales, it's just a case of "they will listen because and only because it's for free". If they had no other way than to buy the album, they probably wouldn't.  For the last time, none of this is in any way to justify downloading because what is illegal is illegal. I am simply saying that the real and larger problem lies elsewhere. 


I realise there is absolutely no justification for what is illegal. Because it's illegal. That's just super-obvious lol. It happens anyways though, and I just believe it's not as bad as certain people make it out to be.

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Personally, I blame this squarely on excessive segregation and sub-culturalization of tastes because of which audiences are too fragmented for a really large number to listen to ONE album or ONE artist.  Listening to a piece of music that's not your cup of tea won't kill you, but that's where too many people come from and, oh, they have been encouraged to over time by music magazines, 'experienced listeners', even bands in some cases Wink.   A good story is still a good story and a good movie is still a good movie, as simple, but a good song is...no, wait, is it grunge?  Dance pop? Metal?  "It may not be for me then." Wink  As an aspiring writer, I am aware that there are formats within books and preferences likewise as well and the same holds good for movies. But from my experience of talking to people either in person or on the internet, people of different tastes watch the same film or same book and have similar views much more often than is the case with music.


This is a completely different subject, but I think it's also an interesting one Smile. I don't think music and books work the same, though I do agree, a lot of people are trapped in so called "bubles" when it comes to music, and only listen to one genre. But I do truly believe some genres are just not for certain people... never got into punk, lol. To be fair, this can go the other way - I know this guy who listens to quite a wide range of music - metal, pop, punk, indie, post-rock - but seems to pick all the crappiest artists out of each and listen to them Smile.

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:


It would equally be a felony, because the design, symbols and specifications are trademarked.

When I worked in Volvo, a company was sued because they created exact copy of the buses with symbols and all characteristics.

Even worst, the person from inside or outside the company who provided you the specifications will be in serious trouble, exactly the same as the guy who places music that he doesn't own in a blog..

Iván



Yes - that is a much better analogy for the illegal downloading of music. Still not great really though, since when you're downloading music you're not claiming it as your own and then selling it Smile, but it's still closer than the whole "steal x real thing" as an analogy. Copyright infringiment is a different felony with different consequences. The guy who copied the buses text - he didn't steal any tangebile thing - he stole an idea. Its a different. Not to say it's better or worse; just different.


My Last FM Profile
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2010 at 10:32
Originally posted by Steven Wilson Steven Wilson wrote:

  As for file sharing, I can’t say I like it that much, and I struggle with the idea that many people now feel an entitlement to steal the work of musicians, something surely unique to this profession.
 

Not quite agree Mr. Wilson.

Without meaning to dismiss the issue of illegal file sharing for musicians, focusing too much on it is shortsighted, even naïve I might say. It’s failing to recognize properly the much larger picture which is the paradigm shift which the internet has brought into human society.

Lots of people might be entitled to claim that the internet has harmed their professions. The amount of “stuff” which we can now have for free is huge and far-reaching in scope.

In the past, if I wanted to plan my next holiday trip to Bhutan (just dreaming) I would have had to go to the bookshop and buy a travel guide. Today I can find anything I need to know on the net.

If I wanted to upgrade the RAM in my desktop and I was not handy with computers I would have had to take it to the technician shop. Today I can find hundreds of free and easy step-by-step guides clearly illustrated with pictures and tips so I can do it myself.

If I wanted a collection of easy and tasty cooking recipes, I would have to buy a cooking book, today I have thousands for free in the net.

If I needed to exchange documents for my business I had to make printouts and send them by post or courier, today I email them.

If I wanted to learn Japanese, I would have to go to a language school. Today if you have a bit of patience and dedication, you can learn for free.

If I wanted to read cinema or theater critics to decide which movie or play I will go to on Sunday I had to buy the newspaper or some magazine, today I have Rotten Tomatoes and thousands of other sites.

If I wanted advice for my garden, which species fit best with my climate, how to grow them etc I had to ask and pay the gardener, today I find tons of info on the net. Or with pet care, I can find out a lot without having to pay to the vet.

I buy a physical newspaper maybe 20 times less than 20 years ago, many days I just read the online edition for free.

If I wanted to know how a certain new regulation will affect my business I had to consult a lawyer. Today I will likely find the answers on the net.

If I had a problem with some machine I had to call the Dealer tech, today I will probably have some troubleshooting guide in the net (probably by the manufacturer itself) which may help me fix a good deal of problems myself.

If I wanted to know the regulations for exporting goods to Russia I had to ask a specialist freight forwarder, today I find it on the net.

The list of “stuff” (information, files, services, knowledge etc) we can today enjoy for free for which we would have had to pay 30 years ago is truly endless. In most cases it has been made possible by adding publicity in form of banners etc, but we also have the amazing phenomenon of the many people who share their knowhow in the net for free in a truly altruistic way, simply because the subject is their hobby, in forums, blogs, self-made webpages or whatever, which might be considered as unfair competition by those in the same profession who still want to charge for their service or work.

Lots of people and professions have been affected by this revolution, and they are having to adapt to it, and the illegal sharing of information is a rather small side effect. Of course I could also copy cooking receipts from the net and put them in some p-2-p network and that could be considered as “illegal downloading of my cooking book” by the cook who wrote them in the first place with the condition that some ad banner was there too. But nobody is gonna care to download that from me because you have them anyway for free already, legally.

Illegal downloading is wrong, but my point is that the music industry must not play the ridiculous role of being the only victim of the digital age. It affects millions of professionals. The music industry, like the others, has to find ways to transform itself and adapt to this new world. Personally I do not know which is the solution the music industry has to follow, but they have to find out.

I just hope we will not need to listen to a 30 seconds ad of washing powder before listening to every music track Confused

 



Edited by Gerinski - October 26 2010 at 10:38
Back to Top
infandous View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 23 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2447 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2010 at 10:48
The illegality is not relevant, as far as I'm concerned because there IS such a thing as unjust laws (in the USA, it used to be illegal for blacks and women to vote for instance).  However, in this particular instance, I think there can be no justification for taking the work of another person without their express permission.  As Dean has stated so well, repeatedly, the creator of the work (in this case music) is the ONLY person who should have a say in how their work is experienced by others.  If that person decides that everyone can hear it for free, that is their decision.  If they decide that everyone should pay a certain amount, that is equally their decision and people who disagree have the option of not experiencing their work.

In other words, if you can't afford it, don't listen to it.  There is no right to hear music, or watch movies, or whatever without compensating the creator(s).  It's very simple.  If you want people to keep creating the music you love, you HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

I hear people all the time, older as well as younger, say "why should I pay for something I can get for free?"   Because if you don't, you won't be able to get it for free anymore (the artist will stop touring and/or stop creating).  In that sense I completely agree with Martin Orford, these people are complete a-holes who have no respect for the artist (whether they think they do or not).  On the other hand, I think Orford went a bit far by implying that all his fans were like this (I don't think he intended it that way, but it sure comes off that way).

Anyway, I downloaded some stuff many years ago (early 2000, 2001) but came to realize that as a musician myself, if this were my lively hood I would be strongly against this.  So out of RESPECT for the musicians and creators, I decided that the only decent thing to do was to pay for what I want to hear (unless they choose to offer it for free, of course).

By the way, you steal a Ferrari, there are still more Ferrari's in the world, but you are still stealing.  You download someones music without paying for it (when they do not want you to do this) you are also still stealing because this was not the wish of the creator of the music.  You are depriving them of their lively hood, whether you would have bought the music or not (if there were no file sharing).
Back to Top
topographicbroadways View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2010 at 10:53
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Steven Wilson Steven Wilson wrote:

  As for file sharing, I can’t say I like it that much, and I struggle with the idea that many people now feel an entitlement to steal the work of musicians, something surely unique to this profession.
 

Not quite agree Mr. Wilson.

Without meaning to dismiss the issue of illegal file sharing for musicians, focusing too much on it is shortsighted, even naïve I might say. It’s failing to recognize properly the much larger picture which is the paradigm shift which the internet has brought into human society.

Lots of people might be entitled to claim that the internet has harmed their professions. The amount of “stuff” which we can now have for free is huge and far-reaching in scope.

In the past, if I wanted to plan my next holiday trip to Bhutan (just dreaming) I would have had to go to the bookshop and buy a travel guide. Today I can find anything I need to know on the net.

If I wanted to upgrade the RAM in my desktop and I was not handy with computers I would have had to take it to the technician shop. Today I can find hundreds of free and easy step-by-step guides clearly illustrated with pictures and tips so I can do it myself.

If I wanted a collection of easy and tasty cooking recipes, I would have to buy a cooking book, today I have thousands for free in the net.

If I needed to exchange documents for my business I had to make printouts and send them by post or courier, today I email them.

If I wanted to learn Japanese, I would have to go to a language school. Today if you have a bit of patience and dedication, you can learn for free.

If I wanted to read cinema or theater critics to decide which movie or play I will go to on Sunday I had to buy the newspaper or some magazine, today I have Rotten Tomatoes and thousands of other sites.

If I wanted advice for my garden, which species fit best with my climate, how to grow them etc I had to ask and pay the gardener, today I find tons of info on the net. Or with pet care, I can find out a lot without having to pay to the vet.

I buy a physical newspaper maybe 20 times less than 20 years ago, many days I just read the online edition for free.

If I wanted to know how a certain new regulation will affect my business I had to consult a lawyer. Today I will likely find the answers on the net.

If I had a problem with some machine I had to call the Dealer tech, today I will probably have some troubleshooting guide in the net (probably by the manufacturer itself) which may help me fix a good deal of problems myself.

If I wanted to know the regulations for exporting goods to Russia I had to ask a specialist freight forwarder, today I find it on the net.

The list of “stuff” (information, files, services, knowledge etc) we can today enjoy for free for which we would have had to pay 30 years ago is truly endless. In most cases it has been made possible by adding publicity in form of banners etc, but we also have the amazing phenomenon of the many people who share their knowhow in the net for free in a truly altruistic way, simply because the subject is their hobby, in forums, blogs, self-made webpages or whatever, which might be considered as unfair competition by those in the same profession who still want to charge for their service or work.

Lots of people and professions have been affected by this revolution, and they are having to adapt to it, and the illegal sharing of information is a rather small side effect. Of course I could also copy cooking receipts from the net and put them in some p-2-p network and that could be considered as “illegal downloading of my cooking book” by the cook who wrote them in the first place with the condition that some ad banner was there too. But nobody is gonna care to download that from me because you have them anyway for free already, legally.

Illegal downloading is wrong, but my point is that the music industry must not play the ridiculous role of being the only victim of the digital age. It affects millions of professionals. The music industry, like the others, has to find ways to transform itself and adapt to this new world. Personally I do not know which is the solution the music industry has to follow, but they have to find out.

I just hope we will not need to listen to a 30 seconds ad of washing powder before listening to every music track Confused

 


best post so far and it should essentially end this thread
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.414 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.