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 6789>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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 10:54
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

 




Clap  This ^
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 26 2010 at 11:05
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

 

best post so far and it should essentially end this thread


No it shouldn't. The analogy is nice, but it's not really applicable.

In one case we have technology facilitating the ability of people to take something currently regarded as property by our legal system.

In the other case we see a technological expansion which allows information which is common knowledge, unowned, generally in the public domain, to be more easily accessible to people. The lack of scarcity brought about causes the price to drop to zero for someone providing the information.

The two cases are very different.

Really the discussion is about whether intellectual property can legitimately be claimed as property.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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 11:11
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

 

best post so far and it should essentially end this thread


No it shouldn't. The analogy is nice, but it's not really applicable.

In one case we have technology facilitating the ability of people to take something currently regarded as property by our legal system.

In the other case we see a technological expansion which allows information which is common knowledge, unowned, generally in the public domain, to be more easily accessible to people. The lack of scarcity brought about causes the price to drop to zero for someone providing the information.

The two cases are very different.

Really the discussion is about whether intellectual property can legitimately be claimed as property.

it isn't ok and it isn't legitimate but it isn't going away it is too big to be stopped and the industry does often exaggerate the consequences in an attempt to prevent it but there isn't really a solution that will stick. and the files sharing problem now in another decade will have been almost certainly replaced by something even harder to combat and even bigger piracy is something that is always in the music industry and they have always had to deal with it but as technology has improved it has gotten easier to pirate, in the 70's you could record to tape other peoples L.Ps and when CD's came along it was even easier to make copies of more CD's which was later replaced by the even easier copying option of MP3 CD's then filesharing took over so it will be replaced eventually and probably with something even easier so the industry just has to adapt 
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 26 2010 at 11:12
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

 

best post so far and it should essentially end this thread


No it shouldn't. The analogy is nice, but it's not really applicable.

In one case we have technology facilitating the ability of people to take something currently regarded as property by our legal system.

In the other case we see a technological expansion which allows information which is common knowledge, unowned, generally in the public domain, to be more easily accessible to people. The lack of scarcity brought about causes the price to drop to zero for someone providing the information.

The two cases are very different.

Really the discussion is about whether intellectual property can legitimately be claimed as property.

it isn't ok and it isn't legitimate but it isn't going away it is too big to be stopped and the industry does often exaggerate the consequences in an attempt to prevent it but there isn't really a solution that will stick. and the files sharing problem now in another decade will have been almost certainly replaced by something even harder to combat and even bigger piracy is something that is always in the music industry and they have always had to deal with it but as technology has improved it has gotten easier to pirate, in the 70's you could record to tape other peoples L.Ps and when CD's came along it was even easier to make copies of more CD's which was later replaced by the even easier copying option of MP3 CD's then filesharing took over so it will be replaced eventually and probably with something even easier so the industry just has to adapt 



Ok?

I didn't make a value judgment. I'm personally currently torn on IP issues. I was just stating that the post by no means ended the conversation, and then I tried to point out the differences between the two scenarios.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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 11:14
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

 

best post so far and it should essentially end this thread


No it shouldn't. The analogy is nice, but it's not really applicable.

In one case we have technology facilitating the ability of people to take something currently regarded as property by our legal system.

In the other case we see a technological expansion which allows information which is common knowledge, unowned, generally in the public domain, to be more easily accessible to people. The lack of scarcity brought about causes the price to drop to zero for someone providing the information.

The two cases are very different.

Really the discussion is about whether intellectual property can legitimately be claimed as property.

it isn't ok and it isn't legitimate but it isn't going away it is too big to be stopped and the industry does often exaggerate the consequences in an attempt to prevent it but there isn't really a solution that will stick. and the files sharing problem now in another decade will have been almost certainly replaced by something even harder to combat and even bigger piracy is something that is always in the music industry and they have always had to deal with it but as technology has improved it has gotten easier to pirate, in the 70's you could record to tape other peoples L.Ps and when CD's came along it was even easier to make copies of more CD's which was later replaced by the even easier copying option of MP3 CD's then filesharing took over so it will be replaced eventually and probably with something even easier so the industry just has to adapt 



Ok?

I didn't make a value judgment. I'm personally currently torn on IP issues. I was just stating that the post by no means ended the conversation, and then I tried to point out the differences between the two scenarios.

i wasn't implying that you were on the side for or against it i was stating my opinion on the matter maybe i should have been a bit clearer 
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 26 2010 at 11:17
My bad. The quoting made me think it was directed at me in some way.
"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 26 2010 at 11:33
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

 

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.

It was not directed at you.  A few of the responses to my posts have had this "don't try to justify illegal downloading" so I am putting in bold that I am not doing any such thing and if somebody still wants to interpret it that way, more fool me to stop him.

Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

 
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.

It is not really a problem in that sense, as in people have always had 'preference bubbles' with music and it's not going to go away too easily.  There will always be people who prefer lighter stuff, people who want more aggressive music, people who want stuff that goes beyond the boundaries blah blah Wink, so on and so forth.  But this fragmentation has now reached a stage where there are innumerable such bubbles and it is very difficult for a band or artist to bring fans across genres together and appeal to all or most tastes, the way say Beatles could in the 60s.  There hasn't been anybody with really wide appeal since Michael Jackson,  which is where the ability of an artist to entertain a very large audience also seems to have peaked, in retrospect.  In the meantime, the world hasn't remained the same, it has changed.  People have more toys to play with as I said in my first post in this thread and at least here, people now lead much busier lives than they used to.  That means they have less time to begin with for music and then you add the fragmentation to the problem and you find that bands have to appeal to niche audiences, which usually means less money in music.   What would happen without downloads?  Nothing much, more or less the same number of people who buy the albums of smaller bands in the current scenario would have been buying. I can't prove it, this is just conjecture.   

Now, the interesting question is why there isn't so much fragmentation in fiction or cinema, both are art forms with a commercially viable entertainment medium, like music.  One more point, what do I disapprove of is musicians getting into the act with regard to fragmentation and playing out wars like punk-prog in the 70s or glam-thrash in the 80s.  If those were their true feelings, it is laughable.  If it was a cynical stage managed act, then, harsh as these words may sound, I would just like to say they are now paying the price for their cynicism, and, sadly, along with them their more open minded peers.   Then again, I am cynical enough to believe that given typical human tendency, such things would have happened and will happen inevitably.
Back to Top
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 26 2010 at 11:39
People are now taking medical advice from anonymouys internet resources, which is very, very bad Wacko Health is not something to trust in the hands of popular knowledge and "common sense"! Thumbs Down
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 12:12
I guess musicians will need to look for sponsors. You buy an original CD and inside you get a discount voucher for a shoeshop chain, and things like that.
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 26 2010 at 12:28
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

People are now taking medical advice from anonymouys internet resources, which is very, very bad Wacko Health is not something to trust in the hands of popular knowledge and "common sense"! Thumbs Down


Health is not something to be trusted from your dictate either. Let people choose amongst information for themselves.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
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 26 2010 at 12:33
^ LOL
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 26 2010 at 12:49
Originally posted by topographicbroadways topographicbroadways wrote:

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
As Pat says, nice analogy but not applicable.
 
If we just home in on the recipe collection since it going to be a long night if I unpick every thread of this weave one strand at a time. There are indeed 1000s of recipes on the web - some of the anonymous, some of them by named cooks and chefs - if you want a recipe for coq of vin you'll find quite a few and it's pot luck whether you find a good one, a great one or a down right inedible one. If you want a classic Elizabeth David one you're out of luck - what you will find are adaptions - like this one, which is like buying a Beatles album to discover it was recorded by the Beatless. Sure you can find a potentially good one by 2-Michelin starred chef Raymond Blanc, but what you won't find is his entire recipe collection, or even every recipe from one of his many cookery books. If you want the entire Raymond Blanc  "discography" you're going to have to go to Amazon.
 
What?
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 13:23
I never said nor meant that the analogies were the same as illegal file sharing, far from that, they were not even meant as analogies. That they are different things is obvious if only by the fact that all these are legal while illegal file sharing is not.
 
The broad message was "lots of professions have been affected by the consequences of the digital age".
"Consequences" here being whatever, legal and/or illegal. Actually those for whom the "harming consequences" are legal could in some sense have even more right to complain.
The message was that many professionals and business activities are having to adapt to the harming (for their profession) consequences of the internet age, legal or illegal, and they have to find creative ways to survive.
 
If your business is threatened, you have to be creative in finding ways to remain competitive and attractive to the customers.
I'm not a marketing specialist but to put a maybe silly example, maybe a system like the fidelity programs (like frequent flyer miles). Everytime you purchase an original CD you get miles and when you have accumulated x miles you get a free concert ticket for their next tour, or a free merchandising t-shirt, I don't know. Fighting the illegal file sharing is probably needed but they should also look for more creative ways to secure the future of their business activity.
 
 


Edited by Gerinski - October 26 2010 at 13:29
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 26 2010 at 14:02
But there's a fundamental difference if the one is wrong and the other is not.

If a gang of thieves starts looting your store, your business doesn't have to be creative and adapt. In that situation you are entitled to legal protection.

If however technological advances threaten your industry through legal means, then you must adapt.


"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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 14:23
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

But there's a fundamental difference if the one is wrong and the other is not.

If a gang of thieves starts looting your store, your business doesn't have to be creative and adapt. In that situation you are entitled to legal protection.

If however technological advances threaten your industry through legal means, then you must adapt.
 
Yes and no. Strictly speaking you are correct, but it depends on how realistic and effective is the legal protection you require.
 
Let's say that in a certain business, making black money is very easy and very difficult for the justice to catch, so those who work partly in black can operate with rather low official profit margins. If you are 100% legal and have all your business in white, you are taxed more than your competitors and you can not keep sustainable competitiveness. You are entitled to legal protection (they should lock all those who work in black) but you know it's not realistic in practice, as the tax police will never have enough resources. Unless you decide to go black yourself, you have to create a competitive difference which attracts the customers to your cafe even if they have to pay the drinks a bit more expensive than in the cafe at the other corner.
 
Or in a corrupt country where legal protection is scarce, even if theoretically you are entitled for it you may need to be creative in order to survive.
 
The nature of illegal file sharing makes it very hard to fight, this is precisely what the musicians themselves are complaining about, so I'm afraid that besides continuing to seek for improved legal protection they should also look for other ways of improving the competitiveness of the legal music.
 
 
 
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 26 2010 at 15:03
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

But there's a fundamental difference if the one is wrong and the other is not.

If a gang of thieves starts looting your store, your business doesn't have to be creative and adapt. In that situation you are entitled to legal protection.

If however technological advances threaten your industry through legal means, then you must adapt.
 
Yes and no. Strictly speaking you are correct, but it depends on how realistic and effective is the legal protection you require.
 
Let's say that in a certain business, making black money is very easy and very difficult for the justice to catch, so those who work partly in black can operate with rather low official profit margins. If you are 100% legal and have all your business in white, you are taxed more than your competitors and you can not keep sustainable competitiveness. You are entitled to legal protection (they should lock all those who work in black) but you know it's not realistic in practice, as the tax police will never have enough resources. Unless you decide to go black yourself, you have to create a competitive difference which attracts the customers to your cafe even if they have to pay the drinks a bit more expensive than in the cafe at the other corner.
 
Or in a corrupt country where legal protection is scarce, even if theoretically you are entitled for it you may need to be creative in order to survive.
 
The nature of illegal file sharing makes it very hard to fight, this is precisely what the musicians themselves are complaining about, so I'm afraid that besides continuing to seek for improved legal protection they should also look for other ways of improving the competitiveness of the legal music.
 
 
 


What you would then be describing is a failure of policy/protection not of your entrepreneurial decisions.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
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 26 2010 at 15:04
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

^ LOL


I'm glad you've rethought your position and now find it ridiculous.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
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 26 2010 at 15:15
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

^ LOL


I'm glad you've rethought your position and now find it ridiculous.


You are so wise.
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 26 2010 at 15:51
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

 

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

Yes you intrinsically claim you are the owner of a legally bought CD, because only the OWNER of a CD legally bought, can reproduce the music and make a copy for personal use, from the moment you make a copy of the music in a CDR or even in the hard disk of your PC or even listen it fully, you are doing something that only the owner of the CD can do.

Even worst. many people download the music, go immediately to a blog and place the music for anybody to download, something that only the owner of the copyright can do, so as a fact, you're acting as the owner of the music.

The laws are very interesting at this point.

Iván
            
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 16:09
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What you would then be describing is a failure of policy/protection not of your entrepreneurial decisions.
 
Yes that's exactly what I am describing. What I'm saying is precisely that due to the nature of illegal file sharing, it's a bit naive to expect that legal protection alone will solve the musicians problems. I am not saying they should completely give up seeking for legal protection, I am simply suggesting that given how difficult this is in practice, they better work paralelly in trying to make legal music more attractive and competitive.
 
Having sid this, I believe that legal music is already reasonably competitive. If you are middle class living in a developed country, your net salary is likely to be around 10-15 euro per hour (for lazy ones, this is around 15-20 USD or 8-13 UK£). If you want to get a nice pirated CD with artwork etc, if you count the time you spend in searching, dowloading, burning, printing the artwork and cutting it, the cost of the blank CD and ink etc etc, at your hourly rate, you realise that it does not make much sense.
 
If original CD's would be priced consistently around 10 euro as maximum (which unfortunately is not always the case for non-mainstream music), when you compare that with what you have to pay nowadays for a drink in a central cafe in a big city, the price would be fairly reasonable and competitive against illegal downloads.
 


Edited by Gerinski - October 26 2010 at 23:50
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.