piracy - Page 2

***Tessar*** · 10-20-2004, 11:13 PM

I know I'll be ridiculed for feeling this way, because I have before, but I am completely against Kazza and downloading songs from online that aren't on the official site.

I'm considering trying to be a professional singer for a living, and I know I would be highly upset if someone took my songs and started handing them out for free. It's like Katya just found out, and a lot of people seem to need to learn this from experience, downloading the music and other things online does hurt the artist, and not only them but retailers--mom and pop music or video stores. Heck, even garage sales

.

Look at it this way: The singers spend all their time and effort on their voice, and you won't spend $14-20 bucks for a quality recording? ONE music lesson costs more than that.

Movie producers spend half-a-zillion dollars making their movies, lead a high-stress life of trying to meet deadlines, and work their butts off filming and making the movie just right, and you won't spend $20 dollars for the DVD or Cassette?

In my opinion if you aren't willing to shell out the money, you don't really want it badly enough to own it. Inflated? What isn’t these days? It’s just a whole lot more dangerous to try to steal gas, or walk into a store and pick something up off a shelf and take it without paying for it.

I know my viewpoint is considered stuck-up, but I do feel very strongly about it. Not paying for a CD, DVD, or downloading a book from online is EXACTLY like taking money from a blind man, because the person who the money should have gone to doesn't know that you're taking the money from them, and they can't stop you. That's the problem: it requires a little honesty.

dawningoftime · 10-21-2004, 12:29 AM

I have to admit, though, that some of the arguements out there are pretty lame. The artists under the record companies and the record companies themselves are groussing about losing money. Now there are two sides to this claim record sales on the secular side of the record companies have been down while sales in Christian music (under the same record companies) have continued to go up despite file-sharing. Now, could it be that the big problem is that the product isn't good, which would account for the slip in sales, and are looking to something to blame it on. This is the break they have been waiting for since the invention of the cassette tape (no kidding). Under federal law a user is allowed to make a personal copy for oneself, however the record companies did not like that, but conceded.

In fact the record companies have gone so far to file with the FCC to block the implamintation of digital radio because the quality of digital radio is good enough that people could record a song off of digital radio and it would be CD quality. My point is people are going to buy the music if they truely like it and the record companies should take the hint that they aren't producing as good a product instead of reverting to childish tactics. In some ways this is no different then when movie companies asked the court to have manufactures of VCRs make it so they could not record movies.

BeardofPants · 10-21-2004, 03:20 AM

I download music, but only as a sneak preview to see if I like it or not. The majority of the time it leads me to buying stuff I may not have ordinarily bought, so it's all good.

Arat-Falathion · 10-21-2004, 03:45 AM

Why is stealing a copyrighted cd less criminal than stealing a car? Isn't it still stealing? Is stealing one thing ok, while stealing the other is not ok? I don't get it.

Guess why cd's are so expensive? because there are way too few who actually buy them compared to those who download them. How can copying a DVD or VHS which is copyrighted be ok? It is illegal!

I'm ok with backuping a DVD, a CD, a VHS, even a program, if you already own it, so that you won't damage the originals. But this is not what I am talking about here.

It is the general attitude that downloading and copying all these things is ok, but why? It is too expensive? If you can't afford it, save money, by stealing them, you only raise the price they have to set on the product to actually make up for all the money they loose to piracy, and that is quite a lot!

I am a musician myself, and it took quite some time before I actually could afford my homestudio. It all started with a tape recorder, and now I'm running a full computer workstation, with all software bought.

Actually it is exactly the same as stealing a car. I can't afford that car, but I still want it, ah, I'll just take it. A software is as equal a production as any car, it is a product for sale...

katya · 10-21-2004, 07:48 AM

Hmm, let's see...if I was a professional musician, what would I think? Actually, I'd feel lucky if I was able to make enough money to live off of. If not, well, that's how it goes. If more people get to hear my songs because of downloading, great. But I'd be a little ticked though if I were really losing out. So I guess, there are pros and cons of both sides, and the factor that decides which side the law should chose, in my opinions, depends on how much exactly musicians are losing. Is it enough that making downoading illegal would help? Or is downloading more of a benefit (to the artist and the bum who's doing the downloading) than a problem? Maybe it's just the abuse that's bad.
As for the morallity, if you're constantly downloading stuff, whole albums, movies, etc. and doing that as an alternative to buying, there's something a little wrong with that. But as I said, I don't think the way I was using downloading was wrong. There's countless songs I downloaded and as soon as I could find the real CD (which could be hard for me. Not to mention when I do find what I want they charge an arm and a leg- 2600 yen (about $26, give or take) for a 7 track CD, two tracks of which were talking), I bought it. Saying downloading one song is wrong is like saying listening to the radio is wrong because you don't have to pay for it. I never used downloading as an alternative to buying something.

As for the artists, they should also realize that art doesn't always make a good profit. It's always been that way. In English class last week we were talking about how in the 1800's or so, an American author who wanted to be published in England wouldn't even make a penny in royalties for books sold overseas. Same applied to British authors wanting to be published in America. But they still did it, because they liked writing and wanted to get their works out, change the writing world, etc.

brownjenkins · 10-21-2004, 08:49 AM

here's a very interesting take on artists making money in the modern world of file sharing... worth a read for a different perspective:

Quote:

There is a lot of controversy about digital media, copy protection, fair use, and internetworking. In most cases from the viewpoint of legislators trying to react to lobbyists, as I understand it, it boils down to one question: How will the artists get paid? My answer is simple: The same way artists have always gotten paid. Let's examine that issue to see how it applies to today's world.

continued here...

***Sister Golden Hair*** · 10-22-2004, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's a serial crack SGH?

There are certian programs and games that you can download from the internet for a trial period. Once your trial period is up, you must purchase that program or game if you wish to continue useing it. When you make the purchase, you are issued a serial number, or registration code that you must enter. There are sites on the web that provide these codes and registration numbers, therefore, preventing you from having to purchase the game or program for your computer. You go to the serial crack site, do a search for the program you want, copy the code, and paste it in the registration box from the trail version. Presto! You have the program or game free of charge.

Shelob's Hubby · 10-22-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

There are certian programs and games that you can download from the internet for a trial period. Once your trial period is up, you must purchase that program or game if you wish to continue useing it. When you make the purchase, you are issued a serial number, or registration code that you must enter. There are sites on the web that provide these codes and registration numbers, therefore, preventing you from having to purchase the game or program for your computer. You go to the serial crack site, do a search for the program you want, copy the code, and paste it in the registration box from the trail version. Presto! You have the program or game free of charge.

I had never heard of this before. It sounds like a grea-er...awful idea.

I'll have to check those sites out just to see how awful they are.

**Nurvingiel** · 10-22-2004, 01:11 PM

Lol SH!

And thanks for that definition SGH. It is odd that the content of such sites is copyrighted, would they be actual copyrights?

I think the "piracy" of on-line music is more akin to photocopying a poem than stealing.

Lady Tinuveil · 10-26-2004, 02:29 AM

I feel like I must bring this up, There is a certian band who I seen in concert in april andI had no idea who they were, but I loved the show. I looked for the cd everywhere, and I couldnt find it except for on the internet. I found out the band & the cd title, and still it was no where to be found. So I found the songs seperatly on a website, and downloaded the album and the way I feel is that if I loved the cd so much, I will pay for their tickets to see them again. And I very much want to... So they will make money that way, & who knows I might pick up the album when I find it

BTW, the band is the Mars Volta
And I cant wait to see them again!

10-21-2004, 12:29 AM	#22
dawningoftime Enting Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 90	I have to admit, though, that some of the arguements out there are pretty lame. The artists under the record companies and the record companies themselves are groussing about losing money. Now there are two sides to this claim record sales on the secular side of the record companies have been down while sales in Christian music (under the same record companies) have continued to go up despite file-sharing. Now, could it be that the big problem is that the product isn't good, which would account for the slip in sales, and are looking to something to blame it on. This is the break they have been waiting for since the invention of the cassette tape (no kidding). Under federal law a user is allowed to make a personal copy for oneself, however the record companies did not like that, but conceded. In fact the record companies have gone so far to file with the FCC to block the implamintation of digital radio because the quality of digital radio is good enough that people could record a song off of digital radio and it would be CD quality. My point is people are going to buy the music if they truely like it and the record companies should take the hint that they aren't producing as good a product instead of reverting to childish tactics. In some ways this is no different then when movie companies asked the court to have manufactures of VCRs make it so they could not record movies. __________________ Audio Editor Last edited by dawningoftime : 10-21-2004 at 12:42 AM.

10-21-2004, 03:20 AM	#23
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	I download music, but only as a sneak preview to see if I like it or not. The majority of the time it leads me to buying stuff I may not have ordinarily bought, so it's all good. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

10-21-2004, 03:45 AM	#24
Arat-Falathion A'mael Dalharen Eldarele Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Norway Posts: 707	Why is stealing a copyrighted cd less criminal than stealing a car? Isn't it still stealing? Is stealing one thing ok, while stealing the other is not ok? I don't get it. Guess why cd's are so expensive? because there are way too few who actually buy them compared to those who download them. How can copying a DVD or VHS which is copyrighted be ok? It is illegal! I'm ok with backuping a DVD, a CD, a VHS, even a program, if you already own it, so that you won't damage the originals. But this is not what I am talking about here. It is the general attitude that downloading and copying all these things is ok, but why? It is too expensive? If you can't afford it, save money, by stealing them, you only raise the price they have to set on the product to actually make up for all the money they loose to piracy, and that is quite a lot! I am a musician myself, and it took quite some time before I actually could afford my homestudio. It all started with a tape recorder, and now I'm running a full computer workstation, with all software bought. Actually it is exactly the same as stealing a car. I can't afford that car, but I still want it, ah, I'll just take it. A software is as equal a production as any car, it is a product for sale... __________________ Atharon, where heroes are born. A constantly evolving forum rpg created by Lief Erikson, Falathion and its players. Last edited by Arat-Falathion : 10-21-2004 at 03:48 AM.

10-26-2004, 02:29 AM	#30
Lady Tinuveil Elven Warrior Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Oregon Hills Posts: 257	~ I feel like I must bring this up, There is a certian band who I seen in concert in april andI had no idea who they were, but I loved the show. I looked for the cd everywhere, and I couldnt find it except for on the internet. I found out the band & the cd title, and still it was no where to be found. So I found the songs seperatly on a website, and downloaded the album and the way I feel is that if I loved the cd so much, I will pay for their tickets to see them again. And I very much want to... So they will make money that way, & who knows I might pick up the album when I find it BTW, the band is the Mars Volta And I cant wait to see them again!

10-20-2004, 11:13 PM	#21
*Tessar* Master and Wielder of the Cardboard Harp of Gondor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: IM IN UR POSTZ, EDITIN' UR WURDZ Posts: 6,433	I know I'll be ridiculed for feeling this way, because I have before, but I am completely against Kazza and downloading songs from online that aren't on the official site. I'm considering trying to be a professional singer for a living, and I know I would be highly upset if someone took my songs and started handing them out for free. It's like Katya just found out, and a lot of people seem to need to learn this from experience, downloading the music and other things online does hurt the artist, and not only them but retailers--mom and pop music or video stores. Heck, even garage sales . Look at it this way: The singers spend all their time and effort on their voice, and you won't spend $14-20 bucks for a quality recording? ONE music lesson costs more than that. Movie producers spend half-a-zillion dollars making their movies, lead a high-stress life of trying to meet deadlines, and work their butts off filming and making the movie just right, and you won't spend $20 dollars for the DVD or Cassette? In my opinion if you aren't willing to shell out the money, you don't really want it badly enough to own it. Inflated? What isn’t these days? It’s just a whole lot more dangerous to try to steal gas, or walk into a store and pick something up off a shelf and take it without paying for it. I know my viewpoint is considered stuck-up, but I do feel very strongly about it. Not paying for a CD, DVD, or downloading a book from online is EXACTLY like taking money from a blind man, because the person who the money should have gone to doesn't know that you're taking the money from them, and they can't stop you. That's the problem: it requires a little honesty.

10-21-2004, 07:48 AM	#25
katya Elven Maiden Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,309	Hmm, let's see...if I was a professional musician, what would I think? Actually, I'd feel lucky if I was able to make enough money to live off of. If not, well, that's how it goes. If more people get to hear my songs because of downloading, great. But I'd be a little ticked though if I were really losing out. So I guess, there are pros and cons of both sides, and the factor that decides which side the law should chose, in my opinions, depends on how much exactly musicians are losing. Is it enough that making downoading illegal would help? Or is downloading more of a benefit (to the artist and the bum who's doing the downloading) than a problem? Maybe it's just the abuse that's bad. As for the morallity, if you're constantly downloading stuff, whole albums, movies, etc. and doing that as an alternative to buying, there's something a little wrong with that. But as I said, I don't think the way I was using downloading was wrong. There's countless songs I downloaded and as soon as I could find the real CD (which could be hard for me. Not to mention when I do find what I want they charge an arm and a leg- 2600 yen (about $26, give or take) for a 7 track CD, two tracks of which were talking), I bought it. Saying downloading one song is wrong is like saying listening to the radio is wrong because you don't have to pay for it. I never used downloading as an alternative to buying something. As for the artists, they should also realize that art doesn't always make a good profit. It's always been that way. In English class last week we were talking about how in the 1800's or so, an American author who wanted to be published in England wouldn't even make a penny in royalties for books sold overseas. Same applied to British authors wanting to be published in America. But they still did it, because they liked writing and wanted to get their works out, change the writing world, etc.