Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
I think there are different levels of 'theft' in the Piracy world, depending on the media downloaded and the use. I'll look at the ones I do download for illustration: Music there's 3 cases: - the music I try and don't like. no loss there at all, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place (because I don't buy stuff without knowing I like it, never have never will. and a single on a radio is not enough to warrant purchase) and don't keep it. A legal alternative would be using the lastfm, myspace, whatever streaming services.. but I listen to 95% of my music on the move (not car) so that's actually not a workable option for me, with teh current technology. it's a good direction though. - the music I try, love, and as a result go to gigs. Going to just 1 gig will get more money in the band's pocket than buying all of their albums. that's without counting that I might buy merchandise and the CDs/Vinyls too. And unless they suck live will go to several gigs over the years. So net result is a lot more money for the artist (since that would have been 0 otherwise not having heard them). - the music I try, kind of like but not quite enough to fork out £30 for a gig ticket. now I might or might not buy the CD, probably not. so that one, yeah I steal.
on average though, the music artists (and yes I say artists, not the music company, I couldn't care less about them) as a whole have a significant net profit from my downloading compare to me not downloading. I also don't think I'm atypical..the large increase in profit of live shows (and difficulty on getting tickets) is a sign of it.
TV this one doesn't have the same derivative revenue potential but then there's absolutely NO money lost from my downloading. not a penny. so can't be stealing. I don't pay for my TV anyway and I wouldn't (I pay a TV licence but that happens if I watch or not.). I mentally switch off commercials just like I do on the net, if I see them at all (rarely watch live TV as I'm rubbish at keeping to a schedule). If I was one of the persons that get their TV watching monitored, then I'd make an effort, but as I'm not, it makes NO difference whatsoever to anyone that I do watch a program on British TV or through the Internet. nobody can tell the difference. Plus there's lots of TV that never even makes it here, so would never even see it.
If TV networks were allowing overseas people to subscribe to some good quality download/stream for a reasonable fee (more/same as a DVD boxset is not reasonable for what is effectively a rental. $10-15 per full season for example would be), then I'd consider paying it for some shows at least.
Movies I'll be honest and admit this one is more straightforwardly a steal. that said, I hardly do it these days, for exactly the same reason I don't go to the cinema or buy DVDs.. I've lost interest. whatever the media, my downloading has always been proportional to my legal purchase: the less I download, the less money I spend on it.. because it means I have less interest in the media in general. For years I didn't go to gigs, didn't buy CDs, and hardly downloaded any music. I did a LOT of films both legal and illegal though (got over 500 DVDs, legal. Some of them even bought after watching a download, the rest after seeing at the cinema). Now it's the reverse, I have been to the cinema twice last year (a lifetime record low..by a very large margin!), not bought a single film and downloaded only a handful that I haven't even got around to watch.
Now, the unlimited rental systems are a fairly decent legal alternative, though they don't fit well with my particular viewing pattern (it's not because I have a particular film in hand that I'm in a mood to watch it that day/week) A commercial online (stream/DRMd) unlimited rental system would be ideal (when I master again enough interest in films..).
Games I don't play very much and never bothered to get my PS1, PS2 or Xbox chipped. used to trade PC games 15 years ago, but even then didn't play that much. just got a wii, I softmoded so I can use downloads, got a few, bought a few.. but £40-50 for a game is pretty ridiculous so I would hardly ever buy anyway (like I hardly ever bought PS/XBOX games even though I could use pirated ones either) Rental I might use at least to try out, except there's none around here. Spending some cash on hardware though (will get the GHWT band package once they release RB2 here) and will likely on some tracks for RB.
I know games are expensive to make, but unlike music/films which are fairly cheap these days, the cost of legally buying I think is a huge factor in piracy even for the people far more interested than I am. Maybe with the huge revenues they're getting theses days, cost will start to go down.. I think online rental is starting to emerge/be considered so that might be a solution for them.
To come back to the general, all in all, I think that: - most of the industries grossly exaggerate the loss though Piracy since far, very far, from all the pirated items would have ever been purchased anyway. And in some cases, particularly with music, actually far increase the associated, more lucrative, revenues. - the people that actively engage in a particular media piracy are the people that have the most interest in that media. Attacking them is attacking your most dedicated customers and risk alienating them entirely. - there are a part of the pirates that will always want everything free, but then you're really not losing anything from them anywa. But many/most people will be willing to pay a reasonable price for something that they like distributed the way that fit their need. They might use the free system to try things, but stick with it because the paying system doesn't fit them. The fact that legal downloads have taken off, despite the fact that, to me, it's a crap system with lesser quality, high prices, and at the time DRM, shows that there are ways to still make money if it fits the way the consumer wants things. The one size fit all models are alienating a large chunk of cunsumers.
Finding that right, possibly individual, combination of price/quality/convenience should be what the media industries should concentrate.
_________________ 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)
Last edited by Pegasus on Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Pegasus wrote:
I think there are different levels of 'theft' in the Piracy world, depending on the media downloaded and the use. I'll look at the ones I do download for illustration: Music there's 3 cases: - the music I try and don't like. no loss there at all, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place (because I don't buy stuff without knowing I like it, never have never will. and a single on a radio is not enough to warrant purchase) and don't keep it. A legal alternative would be using the lastfm, myspace, whatever streaming services.. but I listen to 95% of my music on the move (not car) so that's actually not a workable option for me, with the current technology. it's a good direction though. - the music I try, love, and as a result go to gigs. Going to just 1 gig will get more money in the band's pocket than buying all of their albums. that's without counting that I might buy merchandise and the CDs/Vinyls too. And unless they suck live will go to several gigs over the years. So net result is a lot more money for the artist (since that would have been 0 otherwise not having heard them). - the music I try, kind of like but not quite enough to fork out £30 for a gig ticket. now I might or might not buy the CD, probably not. so that one, yeah I steal.
on average though, the music artists (and yes I say artists, not the music company, I couldn't care less about them) as a whole have a significant net profit from my downloading compare to me not downloading. I also don't think I'm atypical..the large increase in profit of live shows (and difficulty on getting tickets) is a sign of it.
TV this one doesn't have the same derivative revenue potential but then there's absolutely NO money lost from my downloading. not a penny. so can't be stealing. I don't pay for my TV anyway and I wouldn't (I pay a TV licence but that happens if I watch or not.). I mentally switch off commercials just like I do on the net, if I see them at all (rarely watch live TV as I'm rubbish at keeping to a schedule). If I was one of the persons that get their TV watching monitored, then I'd make an effort, but as I'm not, it makes NO difference whatsoever to anyone that I do watch a program on British TV or through the Internet. nobody can tell the difference. Plus there's lots of TV that never even makes it here, so would never even see it.
If TV networks were allowing overseas people to subscribe to some good quality download/stream for a reasonable fee (more/same as a DVD boxset is not reasonable for what is effectively a rental. $10-15 per full season for example would be), then I'd consider paying it for some shows at least.
Movies I'll be honest and admit this one is more straightforwardly a steal. that said, I hardly do it these days, for exactly the same reason I don't go to the cinema or buy DVDs.. I've lost interest. whatever the media, my downloading has always been proportional to my legal purchase: the less I download, the less money I spend on it.. because it means I have less interest in the media in general. For years I didn't go to gigs, didn't buy CDs, and hardly downloaded any music. I did a LOT of films both legal and illegal though (got over 500 DVDs, legal. Some of them even bought after watching a download, the rest after seeing at the cinema). Now it's the reverse, I have been to the cinema twice last year (a lifetime record low..by a very large margin!), not bought a single film and downloaded only a handful that I haven't even got around to watch.
Now, the unlimited rental systems are a fairly decent legal alternative, though they don't fit well with my particular viewing pattern (it's not because I have a particular film in hand that I'm in a mood to watch it that day/week) A commercial online (stream/DRMd) unlimited rental system would be ideal (when I master again enough interest in films..).
Games I don't play very much and never bothered to get my PS1, PS2 or Xbox chipped. used to trade PC games 15 years ago, but even then didn't play that much. just got a wii, I softmoded so I can use downloads, got a few, bought a few.. but £40-50 for a game is pretty ridiculous so I would hardly ever buy anyway (like I hardly ever bought PS/XBOX games even though I could use pirated ones either) Rental I might use at least to try out, except there's none around here. Spending some cash on hardware though (will get the GHWT band package once they release RB2 here) and will likely on some tracks for RB.
I know games are expensive to make, but unlike music/films which are fairly cheap these days, the cost of legally buying I think is a huge factor in piracy even for the people far more interested than I am. Maybe with the huge revenues they're getting theses days, cost will start to go down.. I think online rental is starting to emerge/be considered so that might be a solution for them.
To come back to the general, all in all, I think that: - most of the industries grossly exaggerate the loss though Piracy since far, very far, from all the pirated items would have ever been purchased anyway. And in some cases, particularly with music, actually far increase the associated, more lucrative, revenues. - the people that actively engage in a particular media piracy are the people that have the most interest in that media. Attacking them is attacking your most dedicated customers and risk alienating them entirely. - there are a part of the pirates that will always want everything free, but then you're really not losing anything from them anywa. But many/most people will be willing to pay a reasonable price for something that they like distributed the way that fit their need. They might use the free system to try things, but stick with it because the paying system doesn't fit them. The fact that legal downloads have taken off, despite the fact that, to me, it's a crap system with lesser quality, high prices, and at the time DRM, shows that there are ways to still make money if it fits the way the consumer wants things. The one size fit all models are alienating a large chunk of cunsumers.
Finding that right, possibly individual, combination of price/quality/convenience should be what the media industries should concentrate.
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
edzeppe wrote:
Wow, my mind is totally changed!!!
yeah, because that was the aim..
_________________ 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: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Pegasus wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
Wow, my mind is totally changed!!!
yeah, because that was the aim..
The fact is, the art is not yours. It is not yours to obtain based on YOUR ethical standards and beliefs. How that artist chooses to distribute their work is their choice. Its their product. No amount of justification changes that...
and as i said before- People that take time out of their lives to post on a music based message board are the ones passionate about music, and willing to support bands in other ways.. so for them to say "well i buy the albums and go to the shows" is entirely meaningless, because unfortunately we are a very very small part of the population.
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
edzeppe wrote:
Pegasus wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
Wow, my mind is totally changed!!!
yeah, because that was the aim..
The fact is, the art is not yours. It is not yours to obtain based on YOUR ethical standards and beliefs. How that artist chooses to distribute their work is their choice. Its their product. No amount of justification changes that...
and as i said before- People that take time out of their lives to post on a music based message board are the ones passionate about music, and willing to support bands in other ways.. so for them to say "well i buy the albums and go to the shows" is entirely meaningless, because unfortunately we are a very very small part of the population.
but since they want me to pay for it, it's MY choice as a consumer to accept their model or not...and let them know that I'm still interested in their product even if not in the way they distribute it.
And anyone that goes and find the music (or any other media) to download IS interested in music in the first place ...it's not hard to find but neither does it come to you unsolicited... the time you spend looking for it, finding out exactly what to download, someone that's not interested simply doesn't do it.
_________________ 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: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am Posts: 91597 Location: Sector 7-G
The whole premise of illegally downloading music and justifying it by going to concerts is ridiculous. That's like saying I'm buying this TV from the electronics store and because they're making a decent profit from that it's ok to steal a DVD or two on the way out.
Not that best analogy because the items don't translate well but the point is the same. Buying one product or service at a high price/rate of proft does not give you a green light to steal less expensive items from the same seller.
_________________ It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
zeb wrote:
edzeppe, which of the record labels or movie studios do you work for?
None. I download music illegally... but i dont claim some bullshit justifications. I know its stealing.
pegasus wrote:
but since they want me to pay for it, it's MY choice as a consumer to accept their model or not...and let them know that I'm still interested in their product even if not in the way they distribute it.
And anyone that goes and find the music (or any other media) to download IS interested in music in the first place ...it's not hard to find but neither does it come to you unsolicited... the time you spend looking for it, finding out exactly what to download, someone that's not interested simply doesn't do it.
WHAT?! Because you dont accept their business model, its your choice to work outside of it, even if that means stealing something. You know you are supposed to pay for it, but because you dont agree with it, its yours for free? Illegally downloading music doesnt let anyone know you're interested in it. I highly doubt you email the record label to say "hey, i just downloaded your song for free that i was supposed to pay for, and i am really interested in your product, but not paying for it. If you were not accepting their business model as a consumer, you simply would not use the product- not just take it on your own terms.
Yes. They are interested in FREE music. A 14 year old girl is not thinking "I am going to support Britney in other ways, so its okay i am downloading 'womanizer,' because i am going to purchase a t-shirt!" She is thinking "Sweet, i can get 'womenizer' for free." That hardly makes her passionate about music. Hell, even you admitted you download songs that you "kinda like" or a "single on the radio isnt enough"- that means things you are not passionate about are okay to download, but not support in terms of your ridiculous concert analogy. Being interested in a song does not make you passionate.
I also love the notion that people have a RIGHT to try out an album before they buy it. Its a nice thing when they let you, but by know means are you entitled to it. Im sure we all have those CD purchases that we bought on a lark, or cause we liked a single, only to be disappointed. Would you attempt to return it? Is a movie theater obligated to give you money back if the movie is boring? An author has to cut you a check because you spent $30 on a book with a stupid ending? Or should they make their product available to you first, and then just let you pay if you really really like it?
I especially liked the part about how sure, there are legal options to try out the songs (sanctioned in many cases by the artist, record company, etc) but because it is not convienent for your lifestyle, you choose not to do it.
Last edited by Skitch Patterson on Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:54 am Posts: 10731 Location: The back of a Volkswagen
I'll start with the disclaimer that I download music illegally. It's not on a grand scale, but that doesn't make it any less wrong or any less illegal.
That being said, the Pirate Bay guys deserve everything coming to them. What they did was illegal. There is no question about that. You can argue morals all you want, but they made it possible for people to illegally distribute content that they had no right to distribute.
I absolutely agree copyright laws and intellectual property laws need to be revisited and perhaps revised. But, this particular case has nothing to do with why I think we should change those laws. I'm thinking more along the lines of fair use. A woman who posts a video of her baby dancing to a Britney Spears song in the background should not be forced to remove her video from YouTube because Britney's label files a copyright claim. That's fair use. A website offering Britney's full album for download, or even just a few tracks, should absolutely be forced to remove it if the label asks them to. That's not fair use.
Had these guys in Sweden started a blog where they offered a track or two per artist along with reviews and other original content, they most likely would not have been in the crosshairs of the organizations that sent them to jail. In fact, they probably would have been seen as passionate fans providing the highly sought after word-of-mouth buzz most marketers crave.
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:14 pm Posts: 3213 Location: chicken shaped country in europe Gender: Male
I'm thinking about what is actually achievable in practice. It's like if 20 years go labels would be suing kids for making tapes of records they own for their friends. We did that all the time just before downloads became relevant. I just don't think that in practice the record industry is going to achieve much that way. I like owning original CDs etc. but there's no way i can afford buying all the music i like at once when CDs go roughly from 10 to 20€ a piece in Europe. Bands aren't exactly starving. Live music is very popular so artists are supported. Is the record companies that have a problem. The issue is how they're going to resolve it in practice, not whether downloading illegally is right or wrong because i seriously doubt it can be stopped at this point.
_________________ 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:
I'm thinking about what is actually achievable in practice. It's like if 20 years go labels would be suing kids for making tapes of records they own for their friends. We did that all the time just before downloads became relevant. I just don't think that in practice the record industry is going to achieve much that way. I like owning original CDs etc. but there's no way i can afford buying all the music i like at once when CDs go roughly from 10 to 20€ a piece in Europe. Bands aren't exactly starving. Live music is very popular so artists are supported. Is the record companies that have a problem. The issue is how they're going to resolve it in practice, not whether downloading illegally is right or wrong because i seriously doubt it can be stopped at this point.
The whole mix tape thing is a totally different animal in a lot of ways. There is a huge difference between handing a tape to a buddy of an album, and making that album available to literally, MILLIONS of people, and basically advertising its availability.
so what you cant afford all the music you want? There are thousands of luxuries i can't afford. That does not give me the right to take them using my own business models or justifications. If i cant afford something, i dont get to have it.... and besides, in my experience, CD's are one of the few things that have not had a huge price increase in the past ten years, unless you count "For the People" bands outspoken against greed and the wealthy that assemble repackages of 20 year old songs for $150.00.
and you're right. It cant be stopped- but no crime can be- it can be contained somewhat, where some get caught and others dont.
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:14 pm Posts: 3213 Location: chicken shaped country in europe Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
Mine wrote:
I'm thinking about what is actually achievable in practice. It's like if 20 years go labels would be suing kids for making tapes of records they own for their friends. We did that all the time just before downloads became relevant. I just don't think that in practice the record industry is going to achieve much that way. I like owning original CDs etc. but there's no way i can afford buying all the music i like at once when CDs go roughly from 10 to 20€ a piece in Europe. Bands aren't exactly starving. Live music is very popular so artists are supported. Is the record companies that have a problem. The issue is how they're going to resolve it in practice, not whether downloading illegally is right or wrong because i seriously doubt it can be stopped at this point.
The whole mix tape thing is a totally different animal in a lot of ways. There is a huge difference between handing a tape to a buddy of an album, and making that album available to literally, MILLIONS of people, and basically advertising its availability.
so what you cant afford all the music you want? There are thousands of luxuries i can't afford. That does not give me the right to take them using my own business models or justifications. If i cant afford something, i dont get to have it.... and besides, in my experience, CD's are one of the few things that have not had a huge price increase in the past ten years, unless you count "For the People" bands outspoken against greed and the wealthy that assemble repackages of 20 year old songs for $150.00.
and you're right. It cant be stopped- but no crime can be- it can be contained somewhat, where some get caught and others dont.
I'm not justifying anything. CDs outside of the US are more expensive though.
_________________ 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'm thinking about what is actually achievable in practice. It's like if 20 years go labels would be suing kids for making tapes of records they own for their friends. We did that all the time just before downloads became relevant. I just don't think that in practice the record industry is going to achieve much that way. I like owning original CDs etc. but there's no way i can afford buying all the music i like at once when CDs go roughly from 10 to 20€ a piece in Europe. Bands aren't exactly starving. Live music is very popular so artists are supported. Is the record companies that have a problem. The issue is how they're going to resolve it in practice, not whether downloading illegally is right or wrong because i seriously doubt it can be stopped at this point.
The whole mix tape thing is a totally different animal in a lot of ways. There is a huge difference between handing a tape to a buddy of an album, and making that album available to literally, MILLIONS of people, and basically advertising its availability.
so what you cant afford all the music you want? There are thousands of luxuries i can't afford. That does not give me the right to take them using my own business models or justifications. If i cant afford something, i dont get to have it.... and besides, in my experience, CD's are one of the few things that have not had a huge price increase in the past ten years, unless you count "For the People" bands outspoken against greed and the wealthy that assemble repackages of 20 year old songs for $150.00.
and you're right. It cant be stopped- but no crime can be- it can be contained somewhat, where some get caught and others dont.
I'm not justifying anything. CDs outside of the US are more expensive though.
Thats nice. I enjoy lemon custard ice cream. Which of course, is just as relevant to the debate at hand as your point.
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
edzeppe wrote:
zeb wrote:
edzeppe, which of the record labels or movie studios do you work for?
None. I download music illegally... but i dont claim some bullshit justifications. I know its stealing.
pegasus wrote:
but since they want me to pay for it, it's MY choice as a consumer to accept their model or not...and let them know that I'm still interested in their product even if not in the way they distribute it.
And anyone that goes and find the music (or any other media) to download IS interested in music in the first place ...it's not hard to find but neither does it come to you unsolicited... the time you spend looking for it, finding out exactly what to download, someone that's not interested simply doesn't do it.
WHAT?! Because you dont accept their business model, its your choice to work outside of it, even if that means stealing something. You know you are supposed to pay for it, but because you dont agree with it, its yours for free? Illegally downloading music doesnt let anyone know you're interested in it. I highly doubt you email the record label to say "hey, i just downloaded your song for free that i was supposed to pay for, and i am really interested in your product, but not paying for it. If you were not accepting their business model as a consumer, you simply would not use the product- not just take it on your own terms.
Yes. They are interested in FREE music. A 14 year old girl is not thinking "I am going to support Britney in other ways, so its okay i am downloading 'womanizer,' because i am going to purchase a t-shirt!" She is thinking "Sweet, i can get 'womenizer' for free." That hardly makes her passionate about music. Hell, even you admitted you download songs that you "kinda like" or a "single on the radio isnt enough"- that means things you are not passionate about are okay to download, but not support in terms of your ridiculous concert analogy. Being interested in a song does not make you passionate.
I also love the notion that people have a RIGHT to try out an album before they buy it. Its a nice thing when they let you, but by know means are you entitled to it. Im sure we all have those CD purchases that we bought on a lark, or cause we liked a single, only to be disappointed. Would you attempt to return it? Is a movie theater obligated to give you money back if the movie is boring? An author has to cut you a check because you spent $30 on a book with a stupid ending? Or should they make their product available to you first, and then just let you pay if you really really like it?
I especially liked the part about how sure, there are legal options to try out the songs (sanctioned in many cases by the artist, record company, etc) but because it is not convenient for your lifestyle, you choose not to do it.
actually yes, illegal download do tell record companies that people still enjoy music but are fed up with the way they distribute it. If there was just CD sales drop and no illegal download increase, it'd tell them we don't like your product point.
There's million of people that never listen to music at all or haven't spent a penny on it for years, and not because they get it illegally for free either. so your 14 year old might not be an audiophile, but that doesn't mean she doesn't care, or won't more further down the line... and we ALL started getting into music through illegal copies that our mates passed us... there isn't any difference in principle between a tape/CDR and a download, only in the number of copies you make, but they're just as illegal and just as much theft (hell, here even ripping your own CDs is illegal).
Music is not comparable to a film or book. Because music is a product meant to be used repeatedly and often, not as a 1-off. So the idea of trying it is actually perfectly normal, and has in fact been the model for radio. And no, I can't think of a single album, in the 25 years I've been buying music, I ever bought on the strength of just 1 song without having heard it (and almost always owned a copy of it) before...I'm not an impulse buyer. oh, and there is free sampling of books...that's called a library.
and the point about the legal ways to try was that I acknowledge they're starting to try. It makes no difference to me, though i might try to use some in the future.
the fact is, if it wasn't for illegal downloads, there's very little music I would have bought in the last 5ish years (I actually bought 0 in the 5 before, nor downloaded either), none that I didn't already know, and far less gigs I would have been to as a result. So it might be technically stealing, but I feel pretty guilt free about it.
Now I do find interesting that to you it's plain and simple theft, yet you still do it... Do you also nick CDs form shops? no? why not?
_________________ 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)
Last edited by Pegasus on Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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'm thinking about what is actually achievable in practice. It's like if 20 years go labels would be suing kids for making tapes of records they own for their friends. We did that all the time just before downloads became relevant. I just don't think that in practice the record industry is going to achieve much that way. I like owning original CDs etc. but there's no way i can afford buying all the music i like at once when CDs go roughly from 10 to 20€ a piece in Europe. Bands aren't exactly starving. Live music is very popular so artists are supported. Is the record companies that have a problem. The issue is how they're going to resolve it in practice, not whether downloading illegally is right or wrong because i seriously doubt it can be stopped at this point.
The whole mix tape thing is a totally different animal in a lot of ways. There is a huge difference between handing a tape to a buddy of an album, and making that album available to literally, MILLIONS of people, and basically advertising its availability.
so what you cant afford all the music you want? There are thousands of luxuries i can't afford. That does not give me the right to take them using my own business models or justifications. If i cant afford something, i dont get to have it.... and besides, in my experience, CD's are one of the few things that have not had a huge price increase in the past ten years, unless you count "For the People" bands outspoken against greed and the wealthy that assemble repackages of 20 year old songs for $150.00.
and you're right. It cant be stopped- but no crime can be- it can be contained somewhat, where some get caught and others dont.
I'm not justifying anything. CDs outside of the US are more expensive though.
Thats nice. I enjoy lemon custard ice cream. Which of course, is just as relevant to the debate at hand as your point.
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.
_________________ IMHO J/K Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:14 am Posts: 241 Gender: Male
Pegasus wrote:
I think there are different levels of 'theft' in the Piracy world, depending on the media downloaded and the use. I'll look at the ones I do download for illustration: Music there's 3 cases: - the music I try and don't like. no loss there at all, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place (because I don't buy stuff without knowing I like it, never have never will. and a single on a radio is not enough to warrant purchase) and don't keep it. A legal alternative would be using the lastfm, myspace, whatever streaming services.. but I listen to 95% of my music on the move (not car) so that's actually not a workable option for me, with the current technology. it's a good direction though. - the music I try, love, and as a result go to gigs. Going to just 1 gig will get more money in the band's pocket than buying all of their albums. that's without counting that I might buy merchandise and the CDs/Vinyls too. And unless they suck live will go to several gigs over the years. So net result is a lot more money for the artist (since that would have been 0 otherwise not having heard them). - the music I try, kind of like but not quite enough to fork out £30 for a gig ticket. now I might or might not buy the CD, probably not. so that one, yeah I steal.
on average though, the music artists (and yes I say artists, not the music company, I couldn't care less about them) as a whole have a significant net profit from my downloading compare to me not downloading. I also don't think I'm atypical..the large increase in profit of live shows (and difficulty on getting tickets) is a sign of it.
TV this one doesn't have the same derivative revenue potential but then there's absolutely NO money lost from my downloading. not a penny. so can't be stealing. I don't pay for my TV anyway and I wouldn't (I pay a TV licence but that happens if I watch or not.). I mentally switch off commercials just like I do on the net, if I see them at all (rarely watch live TV as I'm rubbish at keeping to a schedule). If I was one of the persons that get their TV watching monitored, then I'd make an effort, but as I'm not, it makes NO difference whatsoever to anyone that I do watch a program on British TV or through the Internet. nobody can tell the difference. Plus there's lots of TV that never even makes it here, so would never even see it.
If TV networks were allowing overseas people to subscribe to some good quality download/stream for a reasonable fee (more/same as a DVD boxset is not reasonable for what is effectively a rental. $10-15 per full season for example would be), then I'd consider paying it for some shows at least.
Movies I'll be honest and admit this one is more straightforwardly a steal. that said, I hardly do it these days, for exactly the same reason I don't go to the cinema or buy DVDs.. I've lost interest. whatever the media, my downloading has always been proportional to my legal purchase: the less I download, the less money I spend on it.. because it means I have less interest in the media in general. For years I didn't go to gigs, didn't buy CDs, and hardly downloaded any music. I did a LOT of films both legal and illegal though (got over 500 DVDs, legal. Some of them even bought after watching a download, the rest after seeing at the cinema). Now it's the reverse, I have been to the cinema twice last year (a lifetime record low..by a very large margin!), not bought a single film and downloaded only a handful that I haven't even got around to watch.
Now, the unlimited rental systems are a fairly decent legal alternative, though they don't fit well with my particular viewing pattern (it's not because I have a particular film in hand that I'm in a mood to watch it that day/week) A commercial online (stream/DRMd) unlimited rental system would be ideal (when I master again enough interest in films..).
Games I don't play very much and never bothered to get my PS1, PS2 or Xbox chipped. used to trade PC games 15 years ago, but even then didn't play that much. just got a wii, I softmoded so I can use downloads, got a few, bought a few.. but £40-50 for a game is pretty ridiculous so I would hardly ever buy anyway (like I hardly ever bought PS/XBOX games even though I could use pirated ones either) Rental I might use at least to try out, except there's none around here. Spending some cash on hardware though (will get the GHWT band package once they release RB2 here) and will likely on some tracks for RB.
I know games are expensive to make, but unlike music/films which are fairly cheap these days, the cost of legally buying I think is a huge factor in piracy even for the people far more interested than I am. Maybe with the huge revenues they're getting theses days, cost will start to go down.. I think online rental is starting to emerge/be considered so that might be a solution for them.
To come back to the general, all in all, I think that: - most of the industries grossly exaggerate the loss though Piracy since far, very far, from all the pirated items would have ever been purchased anyway. And in some cases, particularly with music, actually far increase the associated, more lucrative, revenues. - the people that actively engage in a particular media piracy are the people that have the most interest in that media. Attacking them is attacking your most dedicated customers and risk alienating them entirely. - there are a part of the pirates that will always want everything free, but then you're really not losing anything from them anywa. But many/most people will be willing to pay a reasonable price for something that they like distributed the way that fit their need. They might use the free system to try things, but stick with it because the paying system doesn't fit them. The fact that legal downloads have taken off, despite the fact that, to me, it's a crap system with lesser quality, high prices, and at the time DRM, shows that there are ways to still make money if it fits the way the consumer wants things. The one size fit all models are alienating a large chunk of cunsumers.
Finding that right, possibly individual, combination of price/quality/convenience should be what the media industries should concentrate.
I totaly agree with this. The same thing happened when supernova got shut down, everyone went to TPB.
_________________ I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. Richard Dawkins
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Pegasus wrote:
actually yes, illegal download do tell record companies that people still enjoy music but are fed up with the way they distribute it. If there was just CD sales drop and no illegal download increase, it'd tell them we don't like your product point.
There's million of people that never listen to music at all or haven't spent a penny on it for years, and not because they get it illegally for free either. so your 14 year old might not be an audiophile, but that doesn't mean she doesn't care, or won't more further down the line... and we ALL started getting into music through illegal copies that our mates passed us... there isn't any difference in principle between a tape/CDR and a download, only in the number of copies you make, but they're just as illegal and just as much theft (hell, here even ripping your own CDs is illegal).
Music is not comparable to a film or book. Because music is a product meant to be used repeatedly and often, not as a 1-off. So the idea of trying it is actually perfectly normal, and has in fact been the model for radio. And no, I can't think of a single album, in the 25 years I've been buying music, I ever bought on the strength of just 1 song without having heard it (and almost always owned a copy of it) before...I'm not an impulse buyer. oh, and there is free sampling of books...that's called a library.
and the point about the legal ways to try was that I acknowledge they're starting to try. It makes no difference to me, though i might try to use some in the future.
the fact is, if it wasn't for illegal downloads, there's very little music I would have bought in the last 5ish years (I actually bought 0 in the 5 before, nor downloaded either), none that I didn't already know, and far less gigs I would have been to as a result. So it might be technically stealing, but I feel pretty guilt free about it.
Now I do find interesting that to you it's plain and simple theft, yet you still do it... Do you also nick CDs form shops? no? why not?
No illegal downloads arent really tracked, and there is no definitive way to give any sort of numbers. All it says is that you are too cheap to pay for it.
There is no difference between other art/media. A good TV series, movie or book i am very happy to enjoy more than once- just like a good album. I can not think of very many movies that I adored and said "eh, its a 1- off." Great art is great art- no matter how many times you see or hear it. But actually, you are kind of arguing your own point here- its okay to download the songs that you like enough to hear once or twice... NOT the stuff you are passionate about. So the stuff you dont want to pay for is exactly like the books and film you mention.
I dont care that you wouldnt listen to much music if it wasnt for illegal downloads. You are NOT entitled to listen to music. It is not a right. It is not a birth given liberty you were given. If you are too cheap to buy the records, then you get what they give you- it is their product....
And you are being absolutely retarded if you think the vast majority of people that illegally download music use it as a gateway to spend more on music... Thats just not true. You are looking at it entirely from your own perspective as someone passionate about music to spend your free time discussing music with other people just as passionate. Go spend a couple hours in the real world, and you realize 90% of the population dont go to music message boards. They dont wait online for hours to speculate about concert announcements or album details... They dont have the passion to turn a 3 song download into purchasing an entire artists catalog and attend 4 shows. I would venture to say at least 75% of the songs downloaded since the advent of the internet has not resulted in any future album sales or a dime spent in relation to the song downloaded.
I can tell you that you are REALLY missing out on a huge part of owning records if you have never bought one without hearing it all the way first. Its a very exciting thing to buy an album you never heard, maybe because a friend told you to give it a listen, or you like a band they worked with, or just a good "buzz" about them- and actually have it be awesome. Its a far more rewarding feeling than downloading something and liking it.
You seem to be trying to claim you did not want to own music until a passion was built through illegal downloading (like never owning an album without hearing it entirely beforehand).... To me it sure sounds like you didnt care about music until you didnt have to pay for it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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
yeah, because that was the aim.. 
