Martin Orford August 2009

It's all good and well to be able to pat yourself on the back for not being a "thief", but the problem is that it doesn't address the issues on any sort of pragmatic level where you can work out a solution that actually helps the artists (that's what the "banging your head against the wall" line is all about, Finnforest).

Blithely ignoring or casually dismissing any facts that don't agree with your preconceived view is sadly very common, but it seems to become even more of a personal imperative when your views on the issue are so emotionally charged that you cannot even take in the information or the conclusions they lead to.

The issue here is that when you want to control the internet in order to maintain an outdated business model, you're also on the side of those who would like to control the internet for far more sinister purposes. You can feel that it's theft all you like, but it's not a constructive standpoint, because it doesn't really offer any solutions apart from scorn, derision and heavy-handed sermonizing

Instilling moral behavior and educating those who actually do feel that everything should be free for the taking is important, but studies do show that they are in the minority and that most people still want to pay artists they enjoy. Giving them ways to do that, ways that they can feel are fair and equitable to both them and the creators, is the only way to make any kind of serious dent in illegal file-sharing, short of closing down the internet (either by limiting upload privileges to a very few authorized sources or by turning it into a highly monitored system that would have made the Stasi drool).

If your distaste for what you call thievery is so important to you that you're willing to sacrifice the greatest information technology innovation in human history just to make sure that someone, somewhere isn't freeloading (pun not intended), then I think your priorities are seriously off.


Edited by Teaflax - October 01 2009 at 08:03

I'm really not going to get in to the weeds with you on what happened with the release because you won't understand it as there is a lot that has to do with the SPV insolvency.  The band did not make more money on this release.

In terms of sales it seems IQ was a bad example. That other circumstances has seen to it that the profits didn't match the sales is another aspect; although related to the overall problem.

But as an example of how downloading negatively affects sales of physical CDs it turned out to be a bummer I would say.

Dear Finnforest. Where have I said that I download anything illegal at all? Where have I said that it is justified to enjoy the fruits of others labors without paying for it? In fact, I believe I have explicitly stated the exact opposite several times. Fancy that.

So, you just proved my point there. Nice work.

Excellent!  Then all is well in the world Tea

Finnforest wrote: Excellent!  Then all is well in the world Tea

Well, no, because you're still on the side of "Let's shut down the internet just in case someone gets a free ride".

I don't think that using improper terminology and supporting punitive measures to help maintain an outdated business model is a good idea. Especially not when it is done in the name of the poor artists, when it has been proven over and over again that downloading does not hurt artists on the whole. And not least when Shawn's single attempt to point to an actual fact to support his argument was just shot down in flames.

And no one else in this thread has been able to back up the contention that downloading actually hurts artists as a group. All that's been offered is anecdotal evidence, a tragically myopic view of morals being more important than pragmatism and just plain lies.

And lest it be missed in the reading again: I don't support what I call immoral downloading - simply taking everything for free just because it's there - but I have absolutely no problem with those who do pay for what they enjoy.

Snow Dog wrote: stonebeard wrote: Wilcey wrote: No Stonie, I think the past has proved that people get upset when you say you download thier stuff because you think it's ok in your circumstances, (ie poor or something)    And I think that point is still a somewhat meaningful one, if not the best option. I listen to--and buy, now that I have a decent job--a LOT of music. I could not do that and only listen to what I buy, but the only difference that would make is my lack of music. The artists I'm not already buying from still wouldn't get any profit. But we already "acknowledge" my side of the argument, which I'm well capable of admitting is neither black nor white, but everyone's mind is made up about the matter. "Downloading kills artists." All new information has to be put through that mental filter first.   There are other esoteric reasons why I do indeed think it might be a much better reason not to download, but apparently all that anyone likes to throw around is "Thief!" so I don't feel welcome even trying to help out "the other side." Not a thief...a borrower.

Okay, fair enough, Finnforest. But railing against something that you feel is terribly wrong even though it doesn't impact negatively on the very people on whose behalf you're being angry just feels kind of pointless.

Martin and others can argue that all they want, but the facts prove them wrong.

So, unwarranted resentment and anger, unconstructive demonizing of anyone who doesn't feel the same way and false statements or several well-researched studies, already proven ways to handle the situation as it stands and new pro-active solutions? The choice seems pretty simple to me.

So, you disagree with the facts? Well, that's certainly your prerogative. It just seems like it would make for a pretty difficult life in the long run.