Don't copy that floppy 2 (propaganda)

www.youtube.com...
o goody i wanted to see this,its a antipiracy ad or something,and if you though the first one was lame...just see this,yea sure all firms and govs can infect and spy on us but we are criminals for copying,instead of buying for a ridiculous price an album just for one song that is an mp3 of 192 stone age quality
shame that the song is really catchy i would play it in my car if it wasnt against everything i stand for and all of human rights.
i got two words for you dp...... PEER'2'PEER
geek...

ps.. a comment on youtube
" my 6 yr old little sister seen me watch this and said this the dumbest # evar. lol. im going to download a hot pink car just for her. "

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Stillalive]
another comment
" This video asserts that copying intellectual property is illegal, but does not address the fact that many people are morally and ethically opposed to these copyright laws. I am a computer scientist, and the very concept of intellectual property in the information age is laughable. Showing people being assaulted by a SWAT team for copying data is only going to galvanize the public to overturn these laws."


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Stillalive]

and another comment
"I love how the girl in the video is complaining about not being to get record sales because of the copying. Too bad most music artists make JACK SQUAT from record sales and only make real money from concert tickets. If you give the stuff away for free, more listening, which means more likely more concert fans. F the labels."
just a simple reminder for you guis to look at something like this that is newsworthy instead of paying attention to alex jones thread another week and dumbing my thread into ignorance

Wow. Um, that is certainly propeganda at it's finest..

I work in the software industry developing solutions for corporations. I deal with these sorts of things all the time and I have to say that IP only works if you have taken some "standard" and modified it to fit the needs of a customer. Anything else might as well be open source.

I feel the same way about music. I have been involved int he RTF and Music industry at various points in my past and it is very true.. the artists get diddly squat from CD sales or online music sales. They get almost all of their revenue from live performances, merchandise sales (depending on their contract), and advertisement spots. RIAA and MPAA get the money from the media sales. Given that they are a bunch of evil crooks, I have no quams with anyone depriving them from their unearned money.

Remember "it's not just a copy, it's a crime" because you are ripping off executives with jets.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Remember "it's not just a copy, it's a crime" because you are ripping off executives with jets.

Somehow they forgot to mention that part.

Sometimes I actually like being alive in this time and age. For every double standard, every lie, every illusion that gets ripped apart, the world becomes a little better. Some people arent taking the crap anymore and are using the Internet as the platform to shine light on the darkness.


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]

I liked this one a lot

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32a250cd3103.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Grey Magic]

The video is laughable. But:

Originally posted by Stillalive
another comment
" This video asserts that copying intellectual property is illegal, but does not address the fact that many people are morally and ethically opposed to these copyright laws. I am a computer scientist, and the very concept of intellectual property in the information age is laughable. Showing people being assaulted by a SWAT team for copying data is only going to galvanize the public to overturn these laws."

Yes, and I'm sure he'll still be saying that when he stops getting paid for his work.

You can be as "morally and ethically opposed" as you like, it's still illegal, and you all know it.

Now, if you want to complain about the record companies taking all the profit, that's a perfectly valid complaint...

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Clickfoot]

If you are talking movies or music, the real crime is their accounting practices that make sure nothing makes a 'net' profit, but the movie and music company executives make sure they get their up front.

Such laws are not laughfable, but dependent on mediums and the $$ of who you up against. Good luck and take care, I'm on your side!

reply to post by Grey Magic


The funny thing about that is all audio tapes sold (in the U.S., at least) have a hidden 'tax' paid to the music industry because they 'know' people will use the tapes for recording music. It's the same with blank cd's and dvd's. a 'music cd' will cost more than a 'data cd' even though they are the same thing technically.

You also notice in the video that they don't make a distinction between a personal copy, and a bootleg that is sold for profit.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I came here to say the exact same thing roger, thanks for expressing my very sentiments so eloquently!

I was in a couple of rock bands for over a decade and cd sales are really only good for making fans and spreading your music around.....indeed, we only ever got paid for playing shows, and especially off of our merchandise. The merchandise is what keeps most bands going.

Originally posted by Clickfoot
You can be as "morally and ethically opposed" as you like, it's still illegal, and you all know it.

Laws are supposed to be based on peoples common conception of what is good and bad. If the governments create really oppressive laws, will you still follow them just because they are laws? Then you are a sheep, unable to think and question authority when its needed.

In the United States, people are afraid of their government. In France, the government is afraid of its people. France shows how it should be in a healthy society. USA is a sick country. 1776 a certain man tried to make sure your country would never end up like it has. But he failed, because his laws were based on the assumption that people would be able to recognize when tyranny was present.

Obviously they cant anymore.


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]

So then why do not artists independently distribute and organize their own tours based on download traffic? People in the Jacksonville, FL area not hitting up the music, then don't schedule a date there?

Right, because promotion and tracking such things take money and infrastructure to know and plan. Just because the exec make huge amounts (far more than they should in many cases) does not mean that they do nothing for the money.

There are indeed lots of local acts that are very good out there that never receive a record contract because they just do not have the following to risk a national release. They may sell very well, but then again they may not and it would become cost prohibitive to do the heavy promotion required to increase the album sales.

By pirating successful artists, less sales are available for acts that could have had a contract and done well with minor promotion in various markets. Thus less acts are signed by labels as a consequence.

Microsoft makes a boatload of money, but it also employs a boatload of crappy programers that would eventually landed jobs with Lucas Arts or EA games. I would far rather they keep them contained there, where we can avoid them than to have my hard drive melt on an opening kick off of Madden 2009.

Originally posted by Clickfoot
You can be as "morally and ethically opposed" as you like, it's still illegal, and you all know it.[edit on 12-9-2009 by Clickfoot]

Looks like a case of "appeal to authority". When a law exists that the mass public does not find acceptable, lawful, or constitutional, we can give up liberty for safety or revolt against it. Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right"
-Thomas Jefferson

Morals do matter when it comes to the law, sir.

reply to post by Stillalive


Just a little correction to what you said. It's not most artists that make squat from record sales. Most major label artists make squat from record sales. The recording industry has evolved to the point where over 90% of artists are on either indie labels or their own labels. They DO make money off their sales.

As an indie artist myself, my opinion is this:

-copying major label artists is good; hopefully this will make the majors fall and we can finally get a healthy industry going: All major label artists sound alike, while the indie market is extremely creative and geared toward creativity and art, not cash.

-copying indie label artists is OK, only if you intend to buy the albums further down the road, or if you just want to hear what they sound like before deciding whether or not you'll buy the product.

-copying any copyrighted product to resell it is definitely bad: these are the people the authorities should be after.

Oh, and as for copying music, mp3's sound good only for music that's made electronically (no actual musicians playing). When I play my guitar and recorded in CD quality, there's alot missing (analog recording didn't have this problem). When you downgrade this to mp3, it just gets worse. I've personally heard mp3's where half of the recording couldn't even be heard. If you like the music, get the CD. And invest in a good analog stereo system...

Originally posted by Copernicus
Laws are supposed to be based on peoples common conception of what is good and bad. If the governments create really oppressive laws, will you still follow them just because they are laws? Then you are a sheep, unable to think and question authority when its needed.

Originally posted by Trevlac
Looks like a case of "appeal to authority". When a law exists that the mass public does not find acceptable, lawful, or constitutional, we can give up liberty for safety or revolt against it. Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

Right. So you both think that somebody who writes computer software is not entitled to be paid for it.

That is, after all, what the video, and my quote before you started blathering on about 'sheep' and the constitution, is about.

I'm sure 'the mass public' wants everything for free, but the world doesn't work like that.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Clickfoot]

Originally posted by Clickfoot
Right. So you both think that somebody who writes computer software is not entitled to be paid for it.

That is, after all, what the video is about.

My beef was with the music industry and how the artists dont get payed. I dont want to support that system.

As for other software, well, personally Ive been using free software for years. Linux (Ubuntu) with free tools for creating web applications and videos. I dont pay a dime. Paying for software belongs to the Windows world. Linux applications these days are absolutely amazing.

Its only a matter of time before paying for software will fail as a business model. Instead paying for support and service is a better model. Canonical who is behind Ubuntu makes all their money from support and it goes well. Trying to prevent digital stuff from being copied in this day and age is mission impossible.

Its time to move on. Open source, freedom to distribute, modify and change software, and all that comes with it, is the future we want. Corporations will have to make that happen to survive and find other ways to get payed. Its the reality of evolution. Evolve or die.

Or would you prefer if the typewriter business would have banned computers?


[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
reply to post by Stillalive

 

Just a little correction to what you said. It's not most artists that make squat from record sales. Most major label artists make squat from record sales. The recording industry has evolved to the point where over 90% of artists are on either indie labels or their own labels. They DO make money off their sales.

As an indie artist myself, my opinion is this:

-copying major label artists is good; hopefully this will make the majors fall and we can finally get a healthy industry going: All major label artists sound alike, while the indie market is extremely creative and geared toward creativity and art, not cash.

-copying indie label artists is OK, only if you intend to buy the albums further down the road, or if you just want to hear what they sound like before deciding whether or not you'll buy the product.

-copying any copyrighted product to resell it is definitely bad: these are the people the authorities should be after.

Oh, and as for copying music, mp3's sound good only for music that's made electronically (no actual musicians playing). When I play my guitar and recorded in CD quality, there's alot missing (analog recording didn't have this problem). When you downgrade this to mp3, it just gets worse. I've personally heard mp3's where half of the recording couldn't even be heard. If you like the music, get the CD. And invest in a good analog stereo system...

I'm part of an indie label called Mystic Slaughterbeast (proof is my profile site link) and I have to say that simply being an artist doesn't immediately grant the opinion you have as ultimate. With that preface, here is how I see it;
-Copying major labels is good. Labels are greedy and most of the artists aren't--they're hacks.
-Copying indie labels is good. Free advertisement. We encourage people to torrent our music, we're even putting into place a way to download all of our albums in high studio quality on the site itself. If people like you, they will buy the CD/shirt/hat/goggles/whatever anyway. I know I do with indie labels like Nox Arcana.
-Copying music and then reselling it is stupid. And anyone who buys it when free music is available is equally stupid.

In closing, when did we stop making art for art's sake and only for capitalism's sake? Who cares if you make money doing what you love? If you're a band that goes on tour, you'll make plenty from tickets (especially if everyone likes you because you let them download the music for free). If you're a project like us, people will donate to you and buy the merchandise. Make art because it's art, not because it gets you a paycheck.

Originally posted by Clickfoot
Right. So you both think that somebody who writes computer software is not entitled to be paid for it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Straw man.

Originally posted by Copernicus
My beef was with the music industry and how the artists dont get payed. I dont want to support that system.

Absolutely, as I said, that's a valid complaint.

Originally posted by Copernicus
Paying for software belongs to the Windows world.

...and the mac world, and the games/console world, and I'm sure other worlds.

Originally posted by Copernicus
Its only a matter of time before paying for software will fail as a business model.

Not likely. And why should it? People who's job it is to write software need to pay their bills too, you know.

Originally posted by Copernicus
Canonical who is behind Ubuntu makes all their money from support and it goes well.

I have honestly not heard of anyone who ever paid for Linux support. I'm guessing they survive with income from elsewhere.

Originally posted by Trevlac
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Straw man.

so you can completely misquote me and when I point that out I'M the straw man.

reply to post by Clickfoot


You are not listening and/or understanding.

There will be new ways to get payed for creating software in the future. You cannot prevent copying in this technological age.

For example, im using a _javascript library that is free to download, and have public support forums for asking questions. But if you want to get really quick and detailed responses directly from the developers, you can pay a small fee to get access to another part of the forum where any questions are answered really really quickly. Great for developing on a quick time schedule and worth every cent.

Its quickly becoming the most popular _javascript libraries on the web.

Oh, and there are many corporations paying for Linux support. They need high quality quick help and dont have time to search the web for it. Much like the example above, paying gets them high quality help.

Google will even release their own operating system soon - completely free and open source. They are not charging for it because they know its pointless. Google are smart and very well versed in the new economy. They practically went from nothing to what we have today in less than a decade.

Evolve or die. Some manage, some dont. Its the way it is.



[edit on 12-9-2009 by Copernicus]