To all of you piraters, what would you do?

I've always heard all of you guys talking about how the mpaa, and riaa reacts to people illeagly downloading movies and music, well if you were working in these industrys, what would you do?

Originally posted by mirello
I've always heard all of you guys talking about how the mpaa, and riaa reacts to people illeagly downloading movies and music, well if you were working in these industrys, what would you do?

Embrace it, market it, and foremost, don't fight it.

The iPod was marketed, and is now one of the leading MP3 players and downloading source on the internet. RIAA is doing the same thing they did when the audio tape recorder came out. They freaked out, threw around a million lawsuits, and got nowhere.. except a really bad image of being really greedy.

They can't fight the mp3 genre.. its just impossible. It's like trying to fight the entire internet. If they close down one source, theres quite literally 50 other sources to download from... IRC, bittorent, firesharing programs, newsgroups.. just too many sources... so why fight it any longer? It's quite obvios they're getting no where.

Except, again, looking really greedy.

"If you're selling water in the desert, and one day it starts to rain, you don't appeal to the government to outlaw rain! You sell something else." - Ian Clarke (paraphrased)

I do work in the entertainment industry (or rather, did), both pre and post production in the music, gallery, and catalog photography spheres. I'm also an artist, so I have to deal with the concepts of ownership and fair use as it relates to my intellectual property.

If people want to take my work without paying for it, that's fine. Artists should never need more lawyers than criminals, and I just count myself lucky that the work is getting read.

On the other hand, if people want to take my work and claim it as their own, I'll get the fire ready, you choose the pokers. That nonsense pisses me right off.

But that's a whole different thing. These musicians should be happy that their fans dig their sound.

All this talk of dollars and rights, it's patently un-enlightened, especially coming from the so called 'rebels' of rock and roll and hip hop.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

The day profits, made from the sweat of the working class, are used to help the working class, is the day I'll pay for # I can get for free...

Steal it, take it back, it was stolen from you in the first place...



AP&F...The true nature of man...


"I'd rather die at 43 eating hamburgers then be 80+ eating saleds"

Hmmm I'd like to see if you still feel this way when you are 42...

And what's a "saled"?

[edit on 11/8/2005 by ANOK]

I would have to give up fighting it, there is no way they can win. They've made efforts, like adding exclusive things to CD's and DVD's in order to draw people towards buying them. I think this is good because the product gets better and the reason it's getting better is due to these "illegal" downloads. I still buy movies and cd's as well as download too so it's not as if they're not getting any of my money.

These artists still get paid millions of dollars, so do producers and the like. They should be more concerned on whether their art is affecting people, reaching people, and more important things than dollars and cents. I do feel bad for those unfortunate enough to be laid off due to loses taken in these industries, maybe if they paid the people at the top a bit less and shared the wealth.

To me the real artist isn't the one that wrote and performed the song. the real artist is the person that wrote the software to turn that song into an MP3.

This is how bands should make their money: The band gigs all over. A friend buys their CD at their show. He likes the music. He copies the CD and gives it to his buddy...his buddy likes it...his buddy makes a copy and passes it to a friend. Soon, 5 of the first guys friends like the band and are going to make sure they go see them live when they come to town. They pay the $15 to see the band, they buy a $25 t shirt at the show, and a $5 bumper sticker.

Screw record companies. Bands should make their money by live shows. The music should be free, the band should make their money off the tickets and schwag they can sale at the show.

The music industry did it to themselves. Remember the old 45 records? You used to be able to hear a song that you liked and go down to the record store and buy a 45 with that song and one other on it. The price was fairly reasonable as well. Well that went the way of the Dodo. Before the internet music services started a few years ago you had to buy the entire album in order to get one song. I'm not going to pay from $15 to $25 dollars just to get one song when I can get it for free. The other thing that they did wrong is the price gouging on CDs. Remember the commercials the cassette would cost $7.95 to $13.95 while the CD was $12.95 to $18.95. It is cheaper to produce a CD than it is a cassette. If I hear enough songs to know that I am going to like an album then I'll buy it. I have bought several albums after listeng to downloaded songs. I have heard enough that I have liked to justify the investment in the CD.

Another issue that I think is driving the illegal MP3 market is close to what JIMC5499 said. So many aritsts write a good song that becomes a hit, then they scrounge together 7 more crap songs to fill a CD to get it in the record stores as fast as possible. People know this and are tired of paying 20 bucks for one song.

EDIT: Correct spelling

[edit on 8/12/2005 by DCFusion]

Anok says:

The day profits, made from the sweat of the working class, are used to help the working class, is the day I'll pay for # I can get for free... Steal it, take it back, it was stolen from you in the first place...

Translation: I am a thief.

The music was not 'stolen from' anyone except the producers; certainly not from the parasites who attempt to justify this theft!

Someone called on his experiences and emotions, combined those with his talent, and put together words and music to create something unique and new. This new thing came from the writer. There is no 'working class' involvement.

Then other people took that song and arranged and performed it, pumping their emotions and interpretation to it, further increasing its value. This new thing came from the musicians. There is no 'working class' involvement that was not paid for.

Finally, these authors and musicians contracted with another group of people to distribute and sell it to anyone who wanted to exchange their property (money) with the first group's property (a created, performed, and distributed song). This new thing came from the producers, A&R people, and the packagers. There was no 'working class' involvement that was not paid for.

Anyone who downloads music without the permission of the owners of that music is a thief.

I realize that a lot of people are simply too lazy or dishonest to want to do the right thing and compensate creators for their creations. Some of them make up justifications such as "stealing from the working class" or the "musicians are overpaid" or "everyone else is doing it".

All those arguments do is make them into a liars and a hypocrites as well as thieves.

What losers their parents must have been, to have failed their children and society is such a way!

Someone called on his experiences and emotions, combined those with his talent, and put together words and music to create something unique and new. This new thing came from the writer. There is no 'working class' involvement.

Then other people took that song and arranged and performed it, pumping their emotions and interpretation to it, further increasing its value. This new thing came from the musicians. There is no 'working class' involvement that was not paid for.

Finally, these authors and musicians contracted with another group of people to distribute and sell it to anyone who wanted to exchange their property (money) with the first group's property (a created, performed, and distributed song). This new thing came from the producers, A&R people, and the packagers. There was no 'working class' involvement that was not paid for.

I agree with everthing you've said so far.

Anyone who downloads music without the permission of the owners of that music is a thief.

Until they pay for it or discard it.

There's a loophole as well. See, I had a book with over 200 CDs in it that got stolen in Chicago. I certainly wasn't prepared to replace them, so I downloaded them.

If you were the judge, would you put me away for 20 years?

I realize that a lot of people are simply too lazy or dishonest to want to do the right thing and compensate creators for their creations. Some of them make up justifications such as "stealing from the working class" or the "musicians are overpaid" or "everyone else is doing it".

What about the creators who don't do it for the compensation? Are they more noble?

In any case, let's talk about sales losses. The two links below are from this site, that has a well-sourced argument against file sharing as the principle woe of the recording industry. The first link is a UNC study of the REAL effects of file sharing on industry revenues. The second link shows rolling stone's top acts list - bottom line of that article is that the guys selling the most CDs are nowhere near the top of the list. The shows man, the shows, not to mention merchandising.

www.unc.edu...

Link

Then you look at the fact that cassettes are cheaper than CDs, and you start to wonder, how the hell can that be? Is it because consumers are getting gouged by the same greedy labels that exploit their own artists? Yup.

Independent music has never been money driven, beyond the subsistence level, and the people losing any sort of money at all are named stars, not the up and comers. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and the more people who hear your good music, no matter how, the more people who will buy it.

The main downloaders are broke folks anyhow, so nobody is losing money, and if anything, the artists are making net profits when you consider file sharing in the light of 'free publicity.'

I have personally known two bands who tried as hard as they could to get people to download their music for free, Gandalf Murphy and the Slambovian Circus of Dreams and Saliva, just to get the name out, bring people into the shows, soften the ground the lay tracks for a tour, and sell schwag on their website. If it weren't for the internet, and file sharing, those guys would be limited to the local area. [For the record, the second band's is name is in limbo now, because they got sued by some #ty musicians who cared more about money than music. The band using the name I have nothing to do with, I think they're terrible.]

All those arguments do is make them into a liars and a hypocrites as well as thieves.

Well, I'd rather tend to agree, but since I feel you've lumped some honest folks in there unfairly, I'm gonna have to say "Them's fightin' words!" How about a grudge match on this topic?

What losers their parents must have been, to have failed their children and society is such a way!

Oh, it's on!

Good art doesn't need the law to be popular, it gives birth to trends that make hundreds of times more money than CD sales.

Off_The_Street--

People said the same thing you are saying during the early days of the VCR and the cassette recorder.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to call other people liars, thieves, and bad parents, then so be it. But if you have ever recorded a television program on VCR without first procuring written permission from the network, you are guilty of the same crime. I suggest you calm down a little bit and stop being such a jerk about it

As for me, I have no compunctions against downloading music. The artists are able to live exorbitant lifestyles at the expense of their listeners, and the activities of my fellow thieves and I have yet to affect this fact.

It would really depend on why you were in the industry, if you were in it to showcase you're talents, and enrich the lives of people with what you have to offer, you would more than likely embrace it. I would probably look at it that way.
However, if you were in the industry to make money, then you would do whatever you could to take all you can from it, such as sue, or combat it with things such as the iPod and legal fire sharers such as Napster.

There is a South Park episode which deals with online piracy well. It mocks mainstream artists who are against it by showing them in situations that were caused by people downloading the music and not buying. Britney Spears only has a 2nd class private jet instead of a first class, Matallica's Lars can afford to build a huge pool, but sadly does not have enough money to make it out of solid gold. Point being that even though they are losing money, they are still making more than enough!

I do not really have any sympathy for so called artists, but i do for the normal unseen people working in the industry, that is where it gets complicated. If only labels and studios didn't screw the consumers to the ground, it could be a lot better for everyone.

Parallellogram says:

If it makes you feel better about yourself to call other people liars, thieves, and bad parents, then so be it. But if you have ever recorded a television program on VCR without first procuring written permission from the network, you are guilty of the same crime. I suggest you calm down a little bit and stop being such a jerk about it

I don't record stuff from TV; when I had a VCR I used it to play tapes I rented. I now use a CD and a DVD player to play music and videos I buy or rent.

And are you saying I'm a jerk because I call a thief a thief? Would I be less of a jerk if I called a dog a dog or a Democrat a Democrat or a child molester a child molester? Or am I a jerk because you don't like the truth?

As for me, I have no compunctions against downloading music.

So you're a thief and you have no shame of it. Ho-hum.

The artists are able to live exorbitant lifestyles at the expense of their listeners, and the activities of my fellow thieves and I have yet to affect this fact.

That's a cheap cop-out, and you know it. How much money a person has does not impact whether he has a right to dispose of his property as he sees fit.

Wyrde One says:

In any case, let's talk about sales losses. The two links below are from this site, that has a well-sourced argument against file sharing as the principle woe of the recording industry. The first link is a UNC study of the REAL effects of file sharing on industry revenues. The second link shows rolling stone's top acts list - bottom line of that article is that the guys selling the most CDs are nowhere near the top of the list. The shows man, the shows, not to mention merchandising.

I have a better idea:

Let's not talk about sales losses. Let's talk about the principle of the thing, which says that taking a person's property without mutually agreed-upon compensation or without his permission ...

...is stealing.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Off_The_Street]

Wyrde says:

Well, I'd rather tend to agree, but since I feel you've lumped some honest folks in there unfairly, I'm gonna have to say "Them's fightin' words!" How about a grudge match on this topic?

Sold, but don't try to bring in The Matrix for help; I'm planning on hiring him as my consultant LOL!!

U2U me, we haven't chatted in a while anyway!

Dunk

If I were in the RIAA I would stop screwing over musicians. These agents and corporate suits steal everything from the artists. Think about it, a cd costs you 20 dollars. That money goes to pay for the agent, the laywers, the marketing execs, the owner of the company, the limosuines, the mansions, the private jets, the caviar, the store you bought it in, the graphic designer, the factory workers, the factory owner and if there's anything left over it goes to the musician.

What musicians should do is bypass the music industry and directly market to the fans who're downloading the music. Make a reasonable price per song or another method of payment. Increase merchandising and go on tour. The reason people still "steal" music is because they can either pay 20 dollars for a cd or pay 99 cents a song (there're generally 20 songs on a cd). These days a band can handle it's own distribution and marketing.

I only consider it "stealing" if the musician himself says it is. Metallica sucks

Ack! Double post, hours apart. (forgot I hit the button before I went to drink beers on the porch.)





[edit on 12-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Oh no, because of d/l music I only made 4.7 million instead of 5.2 million!!!!

Anyways, take control, make a MP3 player so you make more money off of them then you would if they bought the cds.

O_T_S--

It seems you and I have very different opinions on quite a few matters; ultimately, I suppose, the issue of contention is whether or not the laws and precepts of our society are for the better, or indeed if they are valid at all. You maintain that they are, whereas I am of the opinion that they are in large part not so.

Neither of us will ever convince the other that he is wrong, and that is beautiful. But one of us gets lots of free stuff, and that is even more so.

And are you saying I'm a jerk because I call a thief a thief? Would I be less of a jerk if I called a dog a dog or a Democrat a Democrat or a child molester a child molester? Or am I a jerk because you don't like the truth?