• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sopa | pipa

monkeybarry said:
whilst i agree with point 1., society opperates by dealing with the issues society dictates.
the issue exists - and there is a logical way of dealing with it that can serve well the purpose of company, artist and consumer.

the argument actually slightly differs to your point above IMHO in that it is "why should i pay a price i consider not to represent value for money when i can get it for free?"

as i said, most art consumers are also art lovers (granted there are exceptions, and they should be stopped) and dont want to see the industry disappear

there are some good models out there, such as spotify, that give you limited ammount of comsumption before you have to buy - this kind of model seems the way forward.
Click to expand...

So, complicated arguement, because

- You can get it for free by doing something illegal
- It's not only about music/movies, and people argue one point while stealing other stuff, e.g. software.

Re the entertainment industry, consumers need to drive it by the choices they make

- buying a CD is a stupid investment, as is the iTunes music model
- Subscription based services, ala Rapsody, Zune, etc are much better deals, but people don't make informed decisions. Don't ask Hollywood to make more original/interesting movies when a part 7 part 2 movie makes hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
the Radiohead example is a good one - and certainly a model that establsihed bands could try (and even some start up bands)

personally id be in favour of a system whereby a logical price is agreed ( a price that benefits all parties) and then you can listen to the song once (maybe even with some kind of intermitant speach over the top to stop people using software to record it), and if you like it - buy it. then you at least know what you are paying for.

i like Radiohead, but not a huge fan - so I would maybe have paid 0.01 (and then more if I liked it). but without having some idea of the quality of what i was buying i wouldnt have paid more......it could be have been lazy brick or the band may have just lost it.

art of one of those things that you cant return if you dont like the quality

re your point about indepent labels - i wonder if we'll actually move towards a more capitalist - socialist music production industry whereby recording studios (set up by musicians?) hire out facillites for a small cost in return for a cut of bands profits and the bands do their own promotion and distribution (which is where the internet comes into its own)
 
Raziel said:
So, complicated arguement, because

- You can get it for free by doing something illegal
- It's not only about music/movies, and people argue one point while stealing other stuff, e.g. software.

Re the entertainment industry, consumers need to drive it by the choices they make

- buying a CD is a stupid investment, as is the iTunes music model
- Subscription based services, ala Rapsody, Zune, etc are much better deals, but people don't make informed decisions. Don't ask Hollywood to make more original/interesting movies when a part 7 part 2 movie makes hundreds of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

but people have made choices and deciding to obtain for free rather than pay over the odds is a choice they have made - IMHO when a society makes such a large scale choice, business has to move with it rather than try and legislate against it

re Hollywod making crap - totally agree, people do need to drive it, and they are by not paying for something they beleive to overpriced.

the industry can, and does, shape what format people consume in - push subscription and/or limited usage services, make "ownership" realistic and move towards solving the issue IMO

it is a very complicated argument which i think needs movement from both sides and the industry to think in more than profit margins - if they dont, they just damage themselves
 
Raziel said:
There are two sides to the story Monkeybarry

1. Quite honestly, the I wouldn't steal your brick if it was cheap enough view = total flimflam, if my product is priced too high in your mind, don't fudging use it. I don't drive a Aston because I can't afford one, and I can't walk in the showroom and say "I think this car is overpriced, so instead of buying something else, I'll just steal it". The fact that people don't make the mental connection between stealing a physical object and intellectual property, doesn't make any less wrong/illegal.
Click to expand...

It's not quite the same in many cases though.

Take many of the US tv shows I watch. If I can't download them when I want, watch/pause them when I want or get them in HD then I won't be watching them. Either way, the company that produced the show isn't getting any money out of me so what more do they lose from me downloading them?

Same with films. I won't go to the cinema or buy a film on blu ray unless it's likely to be a good one. The people making brick films-by-numbers won't ever get any money from me, so if I in a fit of boredom decide to watch one of those films and kill some brain cells rather than reading, what have they really lost?

There surely has to be a victim for there to be a crime.
 
Raziel said:
So, complicated arguement, because

- You can get it for free by doing something illegal
- It's not only about music/movies, and people argue one point while stealing other stuff, e.g. software.

Re the entertainment industry, consumers need to drive it by the choices they make

- buying a CD is a stupid investment, as is the iTunes music model
- Subscription based services, ala Rapsody, Zune, etc are much better deals, but people don't make informed decisions. Don't ask Hollywood to make more original/interesting movies when a part 7 part 2 movie makes hundreds of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

It's definitely complicated.
To stick with the hollywood example, I'm sure we all have harry potter and twilight on our minds. My friends decided to watch twilight (the first one) on DVD, and I was dragged along. After a few glasses of Jameson, we had to stop the movie because I incessantly destroyed it. There was nothing good about the movie. The acting was terrible, the characters were cliched, and the storyline was as one-dimensional as the tween fantasies that it caters to. twilight was a mockery of what movies should be and the vampire guy should've just let the van crush that stupid bitch.

I also mentioned the new Modern Warfare 3 that came out a few months ago and how it beat Avatar to $1 Billion, in just over two weeks time. The CEO of Activision (the publisher of the game) knows nothing about video games. He only knows about $ $ $, so you could argue that he's a great CEO. Is he (and other large publishers) out for the greater good of gaming? In the end, large publishers/record companies/Hollywood stifle creative development for the safe, well-trodden path.

I used to use Zune almost 5 years ago. It was great to download unlimited songs for a flat, monthly fee. This is a great model for 99% of consumers. It grants the same free listening as radio, but with choice and less flimflam.
Unfortunately, I was maybe one of Zune's 10 customers so that business model ultimately failed. The key here is that many people make the argument that they won't pay for anything if they can get it for free, and that mentality does need to change.
 
ive been thinking about the term "stealing" in relation to this issue and how it ties in with corporations

the issue of stealing immediately becomes a debate of "moraility vs money"
we all know morally its wrong to download stuff for free. but it is a lot cheaper that paying for it.

as ive said, i think most people would have no issue paying a lower price, so the morality moves away from "something for nothing"

the question is, are the corporations prepared to see the errors in their morality (high prices, not passed on to artists) and move away from total money, seeing the long game
 
monkeybarry said:
personally id be in favour of a system whereby a logical price is agreed ( a price that benefits all parties) and then you can listen to the song once (maybe even with some kind of intermitant speach over the top to stop people using software to record it), and if you like it - buy it. then you at least know what you are paying for.
Click to expand...

I pretty much do just that with Youtube though. If I hear of a decent band, I youtube some songs. If I like it, in theory I should purchase it. But I don't.

I like getting free stuff.
 
Superted said:
I pretty much do just that with Youtube though. If I hear of a decent band, I youtube some songs. If I like it, in theory I should purchase it. But I don't.

I like getting free stuff.
Click to expand...

free stuff is what makes IT great
 
My first VCR also had a wired remote (early 90s) and was the size of a small bar fridge

Had a Roxette concert on a tape and used to sing along.
 
Charliedup said:
I remember many an hour as an adolecent with the wired remote forwarding and pausing... ah those were the days...
Click to expand...

those tapes got buggered after many viewings..so frustrating...some scenes got me so hot and bothered i would hold the half eaten tape up against the light to see them one last time...unfortunately they weren't negatives so couldn't see brick...can't blame a horny nut for trying
 
in response to Megaupload's closure :

CNNMoney reports that following today's shut down Megaupload by federal prosecutors, "hacktivist" collective Anonymous has apparently attacked the websites for the Department of Justice, Universal Music Group, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Motion Picture Association of America. A Department of Justice representative commented to CNN, "We are having website problems, but we're not sure what it's from".

The Twitter account AnonOps seems to have confirmed that Anonymous is behind the website takedowns.
 
Superted said:
I pretty much do just that with Youtube though. If I hear of a decent band, I youtube some songs. If I like it, in theory I should purchase it. But I don't.

I like getting free stuff.
Click to expand...

then if someone walks by your house, looks in your window, likes what you see then steals it, you can have no complaint

as i said before, there needs to be a shift in morality from all parties - and that cant be legislated for, its a human disease not a political one
(note - im not trying to take some sort of moral highground here, simply saying what i feel needs to happen for a mutually acceptable outcome.)
 
monkeybarry said:
then if someone walks by your house, looks in your window, likes what you see then steals it, you can have no complaint
Click to expand...
While I completely get where you're coming from and think you have a point, it's not really comparable. Illegally downloading music does not cost a company anything except the chance of that downloader purchasing the record. When stealing a physical thing the owner no longer can use or sell the asset lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back