Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Mine wrote:
I never said it was supposed to be. I repeat i wonder how relevant for the recording companies is to sue people, that's the only point I'm making regarding the discussion.
Honestly, i think it has helped quite a bit. Go find the old thread by, i think it was "Watch the Flames", although that was in regard to movies, but the principle is the same. If i recall, he got sued for illegal downloads... and that made me stop for a very long time, and even now its a stretch to say i download even 1 song a month.
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:14 pm Posts: 3213 Location: chicken shaped country in europe Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
Mine wrote:
I never said it was supposed to be. I repeat i wonder how relevant for the recording companies is to sue people, that's the only point I'm making regarding the discussion.
Honestly, i think it has helped quite a bit. Go find the old thread by, i think it was "Watch the Flames", although that was in regard to movies, but the principle is the same. If i recall, he got sued for illegal downloads... and that made me stop for a very long time, and even now its a stretch to say i download even 1 song a month.
It may have stopped you but the phenomenon is all but declining. Think about Oink and what happened after it was closed.
_________________ IMHO J/K Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Mine wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
Mine wrote:
I never said it was supposed to be. I repeat i wonder how relevant for the recording companies is to sue people, that's the only point I'm making regarding the discussion.
Honestly, i think it has helped quite a bit. Go find the old thread by, i think it was "Watch the Flames", although that was in regard to movies, but the principle is the same. If i recall, he got sued for illegal downloads... and that made me stop for a very long time, and even now its a stretch to say i download even 1 song a month.
It may have stopped you but the phenomenon is all but declining. Think about Oink and what happened after it was closed.
You're probably right. And like ive indicated in the thread. I dont have a huge problem with downloading music illegally, just call it what it is. Dont pretend. Be honest about what it is you're doing.... It just drives me crazy to see music become part of this entitlement culture we live in- My Kid deserves to be on the football team, I deserve to be promoted, I should be able to call 911 because Burger King forgot the pickles on my Whopper.
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:14 pm Posts: 3213 Location: chicken shaped country in europe Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
Mine wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
Mine wrote:
I never said it was supposed to be. I repeat i wonder how relevant for the recording companies is to sue people, that's the only point I'm making regarding the discussion.
Honestly, i think it has helped quite a bit. Go find the old thread by, i think it was "Watch the Flames", although that was in regard to movies, but the principle is the same. If i recall, he got sued for illegal downloads... and that made me stop for a very long time, and even now its a stretch to say i download even 1 song a month.
It may have stopped you but the phenomenon is all but declining. Think about Oink and what happened after it was closed.
You're probably right. And like ive indicated in the thread. I dont have a huge problem with downloading music illegally, just call it what it is. Dont pretend. Be honest about what it is you're doing.... It just drives me crazy to see music become part of this entitlement culture we live in- My Kid deserves to be on the football team, I deserve to be promoted, I should be able to call 911 because Burger King forgot the pickles on my Whopper.
I agree.
_________________ IMHO J/K Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
I think I'm the only one that has actually addressed finding some kind of solution to all of this.
For one, I think the whole concept of property needs to be changed. And thus, the concept of stealing as well. If you have one of something, someone takes that something, and then you both have one of that something, it should not be considered stealing. Before the computer age this didn't make any sense nor did it matter, because there was no digital information.
The proper concept of stealing, in my mind, is if someone has one of something, someone else takes it, and then the first person no longer has it.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
I think I'm the only one that has actually addressed finding some kind of solution to all of this.
For one, I think the whole concept of property needs to be changed. And thus, the concept of stealing as well. If you have one of something, someone takes that something, and then you both have one of that something, it should not be considered stealing. Before the computer age this didn't make any sense nor did it matter, because there was no digital information.
The proper concept of stealing, in my mind, is if someone has one of something, someone else takes it, and then the first person no longer has it.
This doesn't really work in terms of things like patents though. If I have a great idea and you take it, it doesn't matter that I still have it, because you have it too and can exploit it.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:54 am Posts: 10731 Location: The back of a Volkswagen
Buffalohed wrote:
I think I'm the only one that has actually addressed finding some kind of solution to all of this.
For one, I think the whole concept of property needs to be changed. And thus, the concept of stealing as well. If you have one of something, someone takes that something, and then you both have one of that something, it should not be considered stealing. Before the computer age this didn't make any sense nor did it matter, because there was no digital information.
The proper concept of stealing, in my mind, is if someone has one of something, someone else takes it, and then the first person no longer has it.
Well that's just arguing semantics. One might not consider it "stealing" but it's definitely copyright infringement. I know you think we should revise how we look at intellectual property, and I agree, but I think we should reexamine it in cases of fair use, not in cases of distributing full albums and songs.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
I think I'm the only one that has actually addressed finding some kind of solution to all of this.
For one, I think the whole concept of property needs to be changed. And thus, the concept of stealing as well. If you have one of something, someone takes that something, and then you both have one of that something, it should not be considered stealing. Before the computer age this didn't make any sense nor did it matter, because there was no digital information.
The proper concept of stealing, in my mind, is if someone has one of something, someone else takes it, and then the first person no longer has it.
Just as the art itself may not be tangible, what the artist loses, in most cases, is opportunity. If you already have the album, what is the impetus to go buy it?
You arent taking the art- You are taking their opportunity to maximize their compensation for their efforts/skills.
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:44 pm Posts: 775 Location: כאן Gender: Female
I think that the entertainment industry at large is missing the point; everybody's doing it, even people who believe it is stealing. Nothing, short of shutting down the internet, will stop online piracy at this point. The longer they wait around with their thumbs up their arses, weeping about the millions lost in revenues and swatting at flies (i.e- TPB and it's ilk), without actually coming out with a viable business model that can harness this chaos... the harder it'll become to get people to be willing to pay for entertainment again. It's adapt or die, there's no way around it.
Oh and just to bring some class into this thread~
_________________ "Nobody knows what's wrong with themselves, and everyone else can see it right away."
i still buy albums. spent 50 dollars for record store day on saturday but i download a ton more. though as has probably been said already in here, its lead me to countless shows and album purchases i otherwise wouldn't have made.
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
zeb wrote:
Pegasus only reads a book or sees a film once.
mostly, yes. the vast vast majority of films and books are only seen/read once by each person, even if they like it...the vast majority of albums are listened to dozens of times by each person. that's what I meant and why the free sampling model for music makes sense where it doesn't for other media.
_________________ 2009 was a great year for PJ gigs looking forward to 2010 and: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen, Berlin, Arras, Werchter, Lisbon, some more US (wherever is the Anniversary show/a birthday show)
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:17 pm Posts: 1313 Location: still here
The strange thing is, I could never download a book and read it digitally. I just love to hunt for books, I love the smell and the looks, and to hold it in my hands and take it with me where ever I want. Sometimes I even feel like buying a book I already have but where the cover is different and I really like it. I don't have that with cd's at all. With vinyl it's a little less but I never play vinyl anymore. I occasionally still buy DVD's. But music is just become far more what it really is, a sound with no form attached to it. A part of the senses that you can obtain whenever you want, however you want. I do go to concerts though and buy t-shirts of a band but hardly ever do I buy a cd. With the rise of Internet that's just something that happened. People don't download music to purposely hurt the artist. I guess that's what record companies and the industry don't understand or want to understand and accept and adapt to.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum