US and UK vs. Piracy: Have you read this?

[John_C]

Less theory everyone, more evidence please?
I stopped downloading music a year ago because i began to realise how it was damaging some of the artists i most admired. I am now convinced it is bad for the industry as a whole. As yet I see nothing to convince me of the same effect in the film industry.
I don't give a shit about any moral arguments or any attempt to apply deductive logic to a fantastically complex set of interrelated variables. Proper analysis of statistical trends is the ONLY authoritative voice in the mire of self interest and self justification that pervades both sides of this debate.

 

[arv_foh]

but honestly; google is a major source for pirated stuff; google videos, youtube, blogspot, the search engine...

But all that Google is, is simply an index. You can find anything if you look hard enough for it, but just because they are providing a gateway... I dunno. If Google stops doing it one will pop up that does. It's an endless cycle really. I really hope there never comes a day when they allow Google to censor search results beyond the control of the end user (which they do with Safesearch) because that is borderline fascist type stuff right there...

 

[findingthesound]

If they can stop Google be sure they will stop others!
Don't forget google and others make money showing those links... second liability. And technically, it's what may save the industry.
It was the "Far west" until now, maybe internet will become more civic.

Adn about art being free, it's a concept that cannot survive the fact that a human that create art need to eat etc...

Who's the dumb that will pay thousand for studio /advertissement etc... if he can't recoup is money? Only the rich ones?

In reality art is an object made by human as an other object. It's the result of a work, it's just that it isn't a tool or something useful, just somthing that give us feelings.

 

[James Murphy]

I think that there's a confusion between the service one offers and the actual art. Art should NOT be something that you have to pay for, as opposite to the work someone does for it.
From the time an artist finishes his/her work and publish it, it's been given to humanity, that's it, it just belongs to the universe.
Of course, like every other person, artists should get paid, earn a living and all that shit, but they should be paid for the service they offer.
Art is an embodiment of one's soul, it is a statement about something so strong that the artist simply cannot keep for himself.
If you're doing your "art" for the money, you're doing it wrong.

The service an artist offers, tho, IS something that needs to be paid for, but do not confuse it with the art itself, wich is just like love, when you try to buy it, you often find it is just fake and that the peple that gave it to you are just in it for the money.

Buisness is not art and will never be

talk about puerile, ha!... art is protected by intellectual property laws, and for so many good reasons that it's pointless to list them all... because if you can't intuit even a few of them on your own, laying them out in black and white won't help you.

but let's tackle a few, shall we?

so... in your plan of "fairness in the universe", who is it that's paying the artist for this "service" they provide?? and how much are they paying them? how do they decide in advance how much should be paid for the one-time fee? payments for service are one-time fees, based on calculations done in advance to determine how much the labour is worth, are they not? so is the reimbursement for the artist just a one-time fee in your scheme? or is it an ongoing thing based on some subjective judgement of the music's artistic value, such as say... oh i dunno... popularity with the music listening populace?

sure, it's not perfect, but it's all we have... and eventually the truly best art will outlast fads... so again, it's only by commerce that the artists and financiers can be compensated fairly. takes a bit longer than if everything were popular from the start, but this only underscores and reinforces the need for intellectual property rights, rather than reducing it.

no good artists do it "for the money", but someone will make money... because someone has to pay for the art to be made, whether it's the family that pays for the art school. loft apartment, & supplies, or the label that finances a major recording project... that's the way the world goes 'round... so should it not be the artist and the person, if not the same, who pays the bills that receive the returns??

how does the person who paid for the labour get anything back for his/her investment? should it be based on the aforementioned subjective judgement of artistic merit? if that's so, then why would only the financier be the benefactor?? or if he's not to receive any return, what is his incentive to invest anything at all? artistic philanthropy??

what is the artist/s motivation in your scheme? to receive the exact same payment for a masterwork that a hack receives for a mediocre offering? how inspiring!! if not, do we not already have a system that pays on the value returned from the work, by and large??

you seem to live in some fantasy world where music should be a communistic affair... but that type of system has traditionally yielded mediocre results from 99% of it's "workers" (which is what you'd clearly have artists be, for all your whinging on about art being "free" and from "love"), with the noted exception of dissidents, who generally wanted nothing more than to escape such systems.

no, music is only sustainable on a national and international level, as a professional pursuit at any rate, when it's approached as commerce... and traditionally, throughout the history of modern music going back to the days of patronage, the most celebrated art/music has been that for which monetary value was attached and commensurate value was returned to the artists and financiers, moving forward, based on merit as indicated by the subsequent commerce undertaken... this is what has kept the best artists alive and productive.

it's also kept trendy crap alive, but that's an unavoidable consequence after the fact, and neither a primary goal, nor mitigating factor for the best (a subjective term if there ever was one) art. fads will die and true art will survive... but again, this just reinforces the need for compensation-in-perpetuity, rather than mitigating it.

there are a couple things you might want to rethink here...

... your idealistic, but very ill thought-out, vision of music as "Free" - it just hasn't worked out historically... the majority of major music works that have survived to this day from the past were supported by commerce. full stop.

never-mind that you seem to behave as though all this is "each person's decision to make".... no, it's not!! the laws are in place, you either obey them or you break them. eventually, they will be enforced, and we are starting to see this now, hence this thread's original post. the only power you have is the power to decide to follow the current laws or break them... nothing more "idealistic" than that. not saying that breaking the law is always bad.. people often break unjust/unfair laws.. ti's called Civil Disobedience... but you can certainly still land in hot water. anyway, for Civil Disobedience to have any moral weight, it must not harm others... and music piracy most certainly DOES harm others.

the glaring contradiction and fallacy in your argument that you are so epically failing to recognize is that reducing art, and/or the act of it's creation, to the status of a "service" actually lowers it's nobility far more than anyone could insinuate that treating it as a product in a commercial model does. if you can't see that as clearly as the nose on your face, then are either a child with a child's sense of entitlement, or an undereducated (on the subject) adult with a disproportionate sense of his own authority and knowledge on this issue..

... and, regarding your attitude toward the forum regulars and the forum in general thus far - tone down your rhetoric, or you'll find this is not a very welcome place to be... nasty newbies are not tolerated here.

 

[Jackal_Strain]

James is right. I'm off to watch some porn.

 

[James Murphy]

But all that Google is, is simply an index. You can find anything if you look hard enough for it, but just because they are providing a gateway... I dunno. If Google stops doing it one will pop up that does. It's an endless cycle really. I really hope there never comes a day when they allow Google to censor search results beyond the control of the end user (which they do with Safesearch) because that is borderline fascist type stuff right there...

really arv? try replacing word "music" with "kiddie porn" and see if your idea holds up.

 

[NNotN-ENN]

Filtering google is like blocking off a street where drug deals are known to take place.

More on topic: Piracy is illegal, simple as that.

 

[egan.]

My "hippy ideals" like you said, is what makes me do music for what I firmly believe is the right reasons.
No historical basis? Just let me laugh, I bet you've never paid a single penny for the Joconde, neither to Leonardo Da Vinci, still you've seen this painting, and I'm not calling you a pirate. You've seen/heard art for free a million times.

Right but while you think that's magic, the reality is that this is because
1) They are out of copyright and in the public domain or
2) Because someone who did pay is providing me free access or
3) Becuase my viewer or listenership is ad supported or
4) Because I did pay to get into the museum, or movie or 4 the CD.

You are crafting a definition that ignores the law and also ignores the functional reality that in order for some one to get paid the money has to actually come from somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I know that making music, CDs, movies, paintings, producing concerts, buying gear, travelling [and so on] cost money, and that it's not up to the artist to pay, but you seem to have a misconception of what the work is, and what the art is.

There is no misconception on my part. The misconception is on your part b/c you have simply made up a distinction without any consideration for it's functional reality. By your model you should be paid to ply your craft but not for the result of that application. The problem is this only works if all art is supported by people who pay for the process. So, it only works if everyone's a college professor.

Well, I don't get paid for my "un-commisionned" music (you're a lucky bastard if you do), so I don't see why un-commissioned paintings or books should be paid for, unless a publisher wants to publish it

Simon

You just undermined your whole argument.
Why should a publisher pay for something that "belongs to the universe"?

 

[SimonTaddio_Qc]

1) Laws are bound to change to reflect the realities of the society it rules.
2) Yeah, like you said, I roughly think music should be like communism, tho I'd say that just more solidarity would be just fine, and if we were to express solidarity between the musicians and the music industry, we wouldn't even be here talking shit about that and about me (thanks a lot for that, that is soooo not puerile to call me a noob because I haven't spend 500 hours of my life on this board, thanks). And I'm not the one who has historical flaws when you say that it's because of the workers that communism has historically failed.

what is the artist/s motivation in your scheme? to receive the exact same payment for a masterwork that a hack receives for a mediocre offering? how inspiring!! if not, do we not already have a system that pays on the value returned from the work, by and large??

Put that the other way around Murphy, and you'll see that a lot of people get paid A LOT (too much, in fact) for a crap product [read: some pop artist, for example].
I don't think that the money one makes reflect whatsoever the quality of the product he/she delivers.
What is the artist's motivation? Well, it shouldn't even be a question, in my opinion. And if the answer is money, then I just find it sad and that's all, your motivations are none of by buisness.


You're all thinking I'm a pro-CD-rip-heartless-pirate, but honestly, I'm not, and I don't watch movies. The thing is that if we want money as an industry, we got to get live music more, and less iPods, MP3s, MySpace, Fakebook. It's hard to make damn money on an oversaturated market, where every kid on the block can do his own "album" in his mom's basement without paying real professionals like back in the golden age, where only the big cities had recording studios.
Venues and the young bands are the one that agree to play for only a case of beer, making it real difficult for the "real" bands to get a liveable wage out of it.
I simply think that the laws that rules our artistic industry just have not kept up with the evolution of new technologies/society, and now it's getting out of hand and has taken huge proportions. We should have tried to prevent and forsee it instead of trying to fix it. And calling me a noob or flaming me neither prevent me from sleeping nor do you any good, so I'd be grateful if you'd just respect my opinion, and I'll do the same.

 

[Notuern]

Im not even going to get in to the piracy argument, but im against censorship on the internet.
As a part of the Internet generation i am mad as hell over these things.. i dont like piracy, but i dislike the government censoring content even more.

Internet is a free world, we share information.. whether its advice about mixing or pirating music.
It is a revolution just as big as the printing press, but sadly, most people haven't realized it yet.

 

[arv_foh]

really arv? try replacing word "music" with "kiddie porn" and see if your idea holds up.

I think you missed my point with that James.. if they start censoring the results of Google, what else will end up getting censored? If a company decides they want another company removed from their competition maybe they will be able to pay off Google and have their results removed from the search.

They need to go after the actual sites, not the site that indexes them.

 

[egan.]

Yeah, like you said, I roughly think music should be like communism, tho I'd say that just more solidarity would be just fine, and if we were to express solidarity between the musicians and the music industry, we wouldn't even be here talking shit about that and about me
Put that the other way around Murphy, and you'll see that a lot of people get paid A LOT (too much, in fact) for a crap product [read: some pop artist, for example].
I don't think that the money one makes reflect whatsoever the quality of the product he/she delivers.
What is the artist's motivation? Well, it shouldn't even be a question, in my opinion. And if the answer is money, then I just find it sad and that's all, your motivations are none of by buisness.

You're all thinking I'm a pro-CD-rip-heartless-pirate, but honestly, I'm not, and I don't watch movies. The thing is that if we want money as an industry, we got to get live music more, and less iPods, MP3s, MySpace, Fakebook. It's hard to make damn money on an oversaturated market, where every kid on the block can do his own "album" in his mom's basement without paying real professionals like back in the golden age, where only the big cities had recording studios.
Venues and the young bands are the one that agree to play for only a case of beer, making it real difficult for the "real" bands to get a liveable wage out of it.
I simply think that the laws that rules our artistic industry just have not kept up with the evolution of new technologies/society, and now it's getting out of hand and has taken huge proportions. We should have tried to prevent and forsee it instead of trying to fix it. And calling me a noob or flaming me neither prevent me from sleeping nor do you any good, so I'd be grateful if you'd just respect my opinion, and I'll do the same.

The problem is that even in the communist model someone has to decide who is worthy of making a living making music. Regardless of the lowest common denominator stuff that makes a lot of money I'll take a popularity based model over a government art panel any day. (I promise that no death metal records will get made that way but we would get plenty of experimental noise, free jazz and backpack rap.)

Honestly, your post sounds alot more like a frustrated artist who wants to make a living w/o having to worry about selling records than it does someone with a revolutionary idea. Well, yeah. We would all like that too. However, those of us who have worked our way up within the system-- gotten record deals, made records and gone on tours-- maintain that we have a right both legal and ethical to be compensated for that work at least proportionate to consumption.

I guess if you want to charge a flat fee to everyone world wide and then distribute the money according to said consumption I'm ok with that as a concept. But at least part of the difficulty in this conversation is that half of us are discussing things that exist and the other half rebutting that discussion with things that don't.

 

[James Murphy]

Simon... you are not living in any recognizable reality here. you think you have some deeper insight, but the more you type the more it's clear you actually don't have anything of the sort... and that makes me all the more disinclined to bother with debating you. you are wrong, on so many levels it's startling. re-read mine and Egan's posts, ad infinitum, until it sinks in, or go play with your imaginary friends. you know... the ones that are going pay you for the "service" you provide with your music.

Notuern.. the internet is not like the printing press... there are clear restrictions on printing presses, and nobody debates this. you cannot reprint copyrighted materials on them if you do not own the copyright, you cannot print counterfeit money on them, you cannot print kiddie-porn on them... there are sooo many ways in which printing presses are regulated that i couldn't begin to list them all.

now "the internet" is somehow seen as transcending those types of laws... but no, it doesn't, and as per the link from the original post in this thread, i think it's getting to sooner, rather than later, that we'll start to see that this will not stand. and indeed, it cannot stand, for revenues from the ent. and pub. industries are FAR too important to governments to let go of so easily. you've all been spoiled by lax enforcement, that is all... not some "transcendent" shift in the realities of art as it is related to commerce.

trying to make people feel like they're stupid by talking like you know 50% of the dictionnary is just, in my opinion, pretty arrogant and useless.

so then what do you call it when someone tries to "call out" someone for typing in the way they actually, naturally talk??

Simon... good luck with that music career.

 

[DanLights]

Why do these threads keep existing? Lasse should delete any more threads that contain anything RELATED to piracy, and ban the OP.

Simon, what a lousy argument. Egan and James (and Jeff), you win.

 

[Notuern]

I did not compare the printing press to the internet in its functionality, but its impact on society.
My personal opinion is that you should target the people that is behind the actual piracy part.

I dont think its right to target the owners of Pirate Bay for instance, but i do think its alright to target the people uploading and downloading the illegal copies.
As i said, i am by no means justifying piracy, quite the opposite.. but for my entire generation internet has been a place where you can vent literally any opinion you want, and we grew up with it as a right, and we are not happy to see it getting censored.

 

[El_Gato]

Why do these threads keep existing?

For kids to learn through discussion comparing different points of view.

I think they shouldn't be deleted, they're in fact quite useful for educational purposes.

A shame it's in English, I'd like to write more in this kind of threads but my English is still limited.

 

[SimonTaddio_Qc]

Simon... you are not living in any recognizable reality here. you think you have some deeper insight, but the more you type the more it's clear you actually don't have anything of the sort... and that makes me all the more disinclined to bother with debating you. you are wrong, on so many levels it's startling. re-read mine and Egan's posts, ad infinitum, until it sinks in, or go play with your imaginary friends. you know... the ones that are going pay you for the "service" you provide with your music.

Notuern.. the internet is not like the printing press... there are clear restrictions on printing presses, and nobody debates this. you cannot reprint copyrighted materials on them if you do not own the copyright, you cannot print counterfeit money on them, you can print kiddie-porn on them... there are sooo many ways in which printing presses are regulated that i couldn't begin to list them all.

now "the internet" is somehow seen as transcending those types of laws... but no, it doesn't, and as per the link from the original post in this thread, i think it's getting to sooner, rather than later, that we'll start to see that this will not stand. and indeed, it cannot stand, for revenues from the ent. and pub. industries are FAR too important to governments to let go of so easily. you've all been spoiled by lax enforcement, that is all... not some "transcendent" shift in the realities of art as it is related to commerce.

so then what do you call it when someone tries to "call out" someone for typing in the way they actually, naturally talk??

Simon... good luck with that music career.

Piracy or not, my career is going fine, thank you, people I work with appreciate me and what I do and what I think, otherwise they won't be calling me back. Too bad for you you just can't stand another's opinion on the subject.
Personally, I don't even know why I'm still trying to argue here, your mind is definately already made-up, so anyway.
Maybe I'll hurt your feeling of nostalgia, but the time of the good 'ol records is definately behind us, and we'll have to find new ways to get through this, but I don't believe that you hold the key to this, and me neither. Just admit that reality changes and the way we got to distribute music and pay the artist and the industry should change accordingly.

 

[James Murphy]

Piracy or not, my career is going fine, thank you, people I work with appreciate me and what I do and what I think, otherwise they won't be calling me back. Too bad for you you just can't stand another's opinion on the subject.
Personally, I don't even know why I'm still trying to argue here, your mind is definately already made-up, so anyway.
Maybe I'll hurt your feeling of nostalgia, but the time of the good 'ol records is definately behind us, and we'll have to find new ways to get through this, but I don't believe that you hold the key to this, and me neither. Just admit that reality changes and the way we got to distribute music and pay the artist and the industry should change accordingly.

if by "the good 'ol records" you mean records like Dark Side Of The Moon, and Night At The Opera and the like... then yes, they are indeed behind us... and will stay that way with current attitudes. and we are all the poorer for it.

anyway, now in this last post you are changing your rhetoric a bit, and i find i'm not disagreeing with you as much.... is this because i'm understanding you better?? or because you've toned it down a bit?

i think the latter. i'm sure you'll disagree though. it seems to be a project for you.

for the record i've maintained a position for the last few years, that the industry DOES need to change in some way, but that this change will NOT include free music for everyone, and if you had any history here, rather than popping in and making assumptions, you'd have known that already. stick around a while.

 

[GarethSE]

You're not getting paid for your song, but for the work you've put into it, but the song itself, man that's just air vibrating in your ear drums. Same thing for movies and whatever applies (not that movies are made of air, but you get the point).

This sums up my opinion perfectly, but there's no point promoting that viewpoint here because it just doesnt go down well with people.



Personally, I try to go with a treat others as I'd like to be treated method nowadays when it comes to buying and downloading. I download a lot of stuff, then I buy the vinyl, and sometimes multiple copies of said vinyl, and occaisionally the CD if the packagings nice. I try to give back as much as I possibly can and then download utterly guilt free the rest of the time.
The amount of music that I listen to that brings me untold amounts of joy that I never would have heard if I didn't illegally download it would be nothing compared to what it is now. Sure, it may be illegal, but I fail to give a shit. Some guy somewhere may not be getting paid, and I am truly sorry for that, but it's not gonna stop me downloading it and listening to it and enjoying it anyway.
I try and make up for it by putting anything I do out there, easily available to download freely, legally or otherwise, and then giving the option for people to pay. People will either pay or they won't. Those that do have my gratitude, those that don't? Fuck it, if they enjoy something I've helped create then I am glad.

These views may be idealistic and "hippy" but they're not about to change, and these views aren't about to change the minds of people such as James or Egan or Jeff. These discussions, like the Apple Vs Windows and iPhone vs Android and N64 vs PS1 and Vinyl vs CD or any topic of this type, always end with a massive, ongoing stalemate where either side is making headway, so how about we all stop beating each other over the heads with our massive moral hammers (implied phallic imagery hurble burble) and get on with it?

Maybe someday certain members of certain sides will change their views and thus change their ways and begin to either pirate more or pay for more stuff, but it never happens because a guy on a forum told you to.

And with that I back out of said discussion. \o,

 

[James Murphy]

never mind all the jibbah jabbah that is the rest of your post... but being paid for the work, and not the result of it, makes one a craftsman.. not an artist.

not saying there's anything wrong with being a craftsman as opposed to an artist.... but it's not your decision to tell anyone else they should have to be one or the other. and fortunately, you are not the authority on the matter.

so, yay!