Does the hunt on piracy piss off anyone else here?

[Betamax001]

live is the only thing that cannot be downloaded. This is something the pirates simply cannot offer.

Well you can download the live albums or DVDs...and boots float around occasionally...but your point remains valid ; )

"It's like you took what was in my mind and made it sound much more intelligent!"

[Erik_Twice]

This is where people should put money towards bands. Not to the corruption that is the record industry.

The "industry" being "corrupt" doesn't make it fine to break the copyright law. If you don't like it, don't buy it but don't pirate it either. You are not protesting by doing it.

Also you are nobody to decide how much or how less the artists should receive, the only ones that can decide that are the publisher and the artists themselves. You can't got to someone else and tell them how much they should earn in their job.

I too would not care that people didn't buy my music. I'd just care that people listened to it and enjoyed it.

But that doesn't apply to others, at all. You can't say "I would want this so you MUST want this too". You are telling others that they can't earn a living of arts because you think it's something "free and marvelous". That doesn't make sense.

What you think it's irrelevant. They do not want you to download their songs, why do you do it?

I mean, accept it's wrong. You amy still do it or whatever you like, but accept it's wrong.

[Niode]

Regarding the amount of money bands earn, I am friends with the father of the guitarist/singer of a popular english rock band (I don't want to disclose the name in fear of getting into trouble). I'm not pulling this information out of my ass. I know about what record companies do to bands and how being signed to a label isn't suddenly a licence to print money which a lot of people think. Bands who are signed earn practically nothing from CD sales. The earn it all from touring which is something the pirates can't offer.

What I'm trying to say is that piracy or no piracy, bands would earn the same amount of money regardless, and it doesn't come from record sales. In the bands that I have met and the bands that I have seen interviewed over this issue, a surprising amount will say that they see the record as a way of getting their name out rather than a source of revenue. Therefore it could be argued that a band would see the exact same results if they just released the album for free. Case in point Nine Inch Nails. Trent Reznor has released his music for free for quite a while now. Radiohead managed to pull off a similar stunt with in rainbows, offering their music for potentially free, you could pay whatever you want. It was a massive success. Giving people an incentive for paying a certain amount by offering them a limited edition version with extras of the album in physical form when it came it out to retail.

I just don't see that piracy truly affects the sales of albums as much as the record industry wants. I especially don't subscribe to the argument commonly used to defend their actions. I don't believe that every album a person downloads means they are going to buy it should they have no alternative (piracy). That is insane, and calculating damages based on this flawed methodology is practical extortion.

Regarding the legality of it, recording TV onto a HDD isn't illegal, recording music from radio on cassette/HDD isn't illegal. So can anyone explain to me why copying some 1s and 0s from somebody else's computer is so different. It's just a transmission of data the same as the other two so why is one illegal and the others not. Does that not appear flawed?

[noiseredux]

I'm glad somebody started a thread on this subject. We haven't had one before, so we won't be repeating ourselves with responses and arguments resulting in a threadlock.

[Luke]

Wow.

Doesn't look like this thread is going anywhere.

[fastbilly1]

As long as the punishment fits the crime, it is fine. If I get busted for the music I dont legally own, I will pay, that is just how it goes. Now it is when the you are sued for $3000+ per song, that is beyond my comprehension. They claim it is lost revenue for distribution, but if I dont share music or use standard P2P networks, I dont see how they can justify that.

Right now all I have learned from watching this is that if I go rob a bank, Ill be in jail less than I would be if I get caught uploading a movie. That is simply foolish in my book. It leads me to think that if this doesnt change, their may be a rise in real piracy over digital piracy.

[Niode]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Take this for example: http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Administ ... e17478.htm

650k for 24 songs? Um, what? That just doesn't make sense.

[Luke]

As long as the punishment fits the crime, it is fine.

That definitely seems to be the argument here. Unfortunately, the punishment rarely fits the crime. Murder someone you hate by shooting them at point blank range will land you anywhere from 10-life. Murder someone you hate while drunk driving could land you probation-5 years. What a world we live in.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"- Gandhi

[Erik_Twice]

. In the bands that I have met and the bands that I have seen interviewed over this issue, a surprising amount will say that they see the record as a way of getting their name out rather than a source of revenue.

Well, they choose that method, why are you punishing the companies that offer those methods? If they bands don't think that method is so good, why do they choose it? They are not forced to it.

If they didn't like that "way of getting out their name" then why the hell did they choose it? Perhaps it isn't as bad as it seems? I mean either you or the band are being hypocrital here.

It's also easy to say that the evil company is sucking your blood after it helped you to get to the top with it's adverstising. Nobody forced those bands to accept the contracts, they could have promoted themselves, but they chose to rely on the evil company.

So, yeah.

Regarding the legality of it, recording TV onto a HDD isn't illegal, recording music from radio on cassette/HDD isn't illegal. So can anyone explain to me why copying some 1s and 0s from somebody else's computer is so different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp. ... udios,_Inc.

It's not different. The problem is that you can't enforce when you are recording for time-shifting and when you are recording for other matters.


I agree that the punishment for piracy is disproportionate though. However I do not share the idea that Justice is punishment. At all.

[fastbilly1]

I figured as much Luke. Now all those future novels where corporations run the governments fully doesnt seem all that out of reach.