Maybe they want to sell it at a later date in that region?
You're trying to minimalize the morality of what you're doing. It's okay to pirate it, since they're not losing potential money. WTF is that? If they don't want to distribute it to America, that's their right. You'll have to find a legal way to import it.
You're stupid. Sorry, but there isn't another way around it.
How do you suppose TV would work without copyright? So NBC broadcasts an episode that cost them $150K to make [say lots of actors, music, special effects]. Then some local station copies it and re-airs it without paying for it? Paying for it would be a royalty. Airing it more than once because it's popular seems just.
Books are already usually in PDF format at the same time as paper. Without copyright or royalties we would just copy the PDF. Hell, I could get a PDF of a text book printed at lulu.com for cheaper than what it would cost retail. Does that make it right?
And about NDAs, those are government enforced ultimately. You break your NDA, I sue, if I win, the government can enforce the decision.
Point is we have, as a society, come up with a set of rules to follow in order to make certain ventures profitable. In the case of books, movies, and music a royalty model is chosen so that the upfront costs to sign a band aren't excessive but they are rewarded if they appeal to the public. If you can think of a better way I'd love to hear it.
I should point out that many people who earn royalties don't get paid upfront for their work. Sure some get million dollar ADVANCES but they have to pay them off [and usually do]. In my case, I was granted a small $2000 advance for my two books and my royalties are really small [my fault I suppose but I don't care since I don't rely on them for a living].
By your logic though, if I commission a house to be built, on land I bought from the government, I shouldn't be able to charge rent since the house has already been made right?
We'd adjust? WTF does that mean? This would mean we couldn't have TV, movies, books or software. We couldn't distribute function blocks of IP (e.g. hardware designs) either. There would be absolutely no patents either, etc.
The truth is not all business models are the same. Heck, where I work we only license IP to people for a given product line, usually they can't just re-use the IP for all future products. Mostly because upfront we can't charge them enough to make that worthwhile. For example, if we sell a piece of IP tomorrow it may still be valuable 5 years from now (e.g. in demand). So why shouldn't we be able to charge for it again for new licenses?
If you don't think they're worth it, don't buy it. They won't get your money. But if you pirate it, you're saying "I want this, I just don't want to pay the owners for it."
Even with the net the way it is there is still a need for press whores to promote things. There are just too many bands on myspace for me to find any semi-talented ones in a reasonable amount of time.
That said, who says you're the RIAA's bitch forever? Usually the contracts are for $X albums [or a given time period]. After which, when you're good and famous you can go out on your own and forgo the "build a star" machine the RIAA offers.
If you get a 1000x advantage by using your botnet as compared to last year, but I force you to use a 1000x slowdown hashcash, let me check... 1000/1000 = 1, yup, right where you started. w00h00.
Well I don't want to take the studios side, but I question who pays for the studio time, engineers, CD presses/packaging, trucking, press releases, flights to TV appearances, etc, before the artists make their first buck.
Hmm. I wonder.
Fortunately, nowadays the need for such a mill is less prevalent. You can get your own studio time for relatively cheap [provided you're efficient]. Do a run of several 1000 CDs and mail them off to radio stations, etc. If you're any good people will want to play it [usually] since it draws listeners which draws advertising revenue.
It's your responsibility to pay for the art you acquire [that isn't free], and it's the artists responsibility to secure a distribution contract they can live with. Pirating tracks doesn't automatically mean all the middle men get out of the picture and only the artists get paid.
So far the 20 or so replies to my posts in this thread seem to fly all over the place. First, the artists aren't paid enough, then the execs are too greedy, then the business model is too old, then the regions of distribution are too exclusive, then blah blah blah. All excuses.
If you really like the track, movie, book, software, whatever, you'd make sure the owners get paid. Otherwise, you're ensuring they won't be in business for long. And if you don't like the people because of their business policies why are you getting involved by pirating their products?
Problem that is, not mine, nor the creator of the art. Your excuse could be re-worded as "I don't have money, so what am I suppose to do?"
You should also consider that the owner HAS THE RIGHT to restrict sale. For example, I could make a painting, then choose not to sell it anyone with an e in their name. That's my right. Of course they can resell it, but that's not the point.
If they don't want to sell it in other markets [and therefor limit income potentials], that's THEIR RIGHT.
Which has nothing to do with pirating on P2P. It's not up to you to redistribute material against the owners wish. The studios didn't hold a gun to the artists head. If they're getting a bum deal it's because they chose it.
Hint: Look at the artic monkeys for an example of not being a studio pawn.
I love how you people justify it. It's okay to pirate, thereby paying EVEN LESS royalty to the artist since they're already getting a "objectively decided" small slice of the pie. So in short, you're trying to make sure they earn EVEN LESS money for their efforts.
That'd be like robbing a homeless dude because he doesn't have enough material wealth. Just doesn't add up.
I fully support your right to CHOOSE to distribute stuff however you want. The RIAA protected artists have chosen a different release model. That's THEIR RIGHT.
I'm not against people sharing on P2P. I'm against people sharing media against the creators [or owners] will out of some misguided form of spite.
Your points are moot since there are many perform once, reproduce many businesses. Books, art reprints, hell, do you think Intel handcrafts every single processor? They already made one, why should we pay more than material costs for the others?
Point is, a good album takes time to make. Sometimes a year or more. Why shouldn't they be able to sell it in WHATEVER FORM will sell and be entitled to a slice of the profit?
I don't get your points, but I think it's mostly because you've not created a personal public project. I'm the author of two books. I would like to see people either buy my books or ignore them. Not torrent them and not give me any compensation for the time I sacrificed to make the books.
Wait till you don't get paid for your hardwork to come back and talk about compensation models.
A penny per email isn't economical. And I already pay to send emails. It's called my ISP fees. The ISP provides IP [including TCP and UDP] service which means they have to deliver my packets to the best of their ability.
Some sort of "pay us [more] or we may drop your packets" is a protection racket of sorts. Remember that an email is no more than a TCP stream of SMTP commands.
Um royalties are a way to not pay a shit load for things that may not be popular. As an electrician your work is either done properly or not. There is no "is it popular" question. Consider it another way. We either pay every single artist a million bucks per album [or more], or we pay them a smaller amount [say $10K] and then issue royalties.
If people like the music they're rewarded with more royalties. Why is that bad? If you don't want to pay the artist then the music isn't worth it to you. Why are you pirating it then?
Royalties promote diversity.
I don't disagree that most labels abuse it. But frankly, it's up to the artist to sign on terms they can live with. If you give a homeless dude all your money, don't feel bad if they do what THEY want with it. Similarly, if a good artist signs a stupid contract, it's their own damn fault. The media execs only get away with what people let them.
If you read the article... they were importing cheaper copies of records that were sold domestically. E.g. they were region shopping. I won't comment on the legality of that [hint: I'm against the ruling], but it's not the same thing.
You signed a contract dumb dumb. You could have signed for royalties. Similarly, artists could [and do] sign flat rates for albums. But it's THEIR RIGHT to choose the type of contract they want to sign.
I agree that they should change their models, artists don't need labels as much [as they need music lessons that is]. But it's their right to choose whatever model they want.
You have a right not to buy media from companies that are not run the way you want.
Sure you can justify pirating really old obscure media that is hard to find, but just because something went out of print last year doesn't entitle you to pirate it. You don't suppose if demand went up they wouldn't reprint it?
OMG those are like totally two different issues. I'm against the DMCA. I'm also pirating things just because you feel you're entitled.
I'd rather see stories about people being unjustly prosecuted with the DMCA [and more so, what we're doing to fix that], than where you can best pirate those anime episodes you love so much.
Throwing your own music on P2P is your right. I'm not against P2P. I'm against people violating copyright laws because they don't want to pay for the media.
Um. Ok here's what I suggest. Go through the effort to learn an instrument. Then, hang your livelyhood on the stake of selling an album. Then, watch with glee as it becomes popular. Then watch with horror as nobody pays for it. Paying for things is "outdated" you see, and not paying artist is the only way to "right" a wrong.
It basically boils down to, if you want the damn product pay for it. If your favourite artist signs with a label, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. Who are you to say "because you signed with, say, EMI, I won't pay for your music?" You can vote with your dollars. If labels piss you off so much, don't buy [or pirate] label owned music. Only buy truly indy music.
People who pirate label music "to stick it to the man" are just hypocrites.
I wouldn't have posted it if someone didn't say it.
And frankly I think it's worth saying. Otherwise, we'll have an entire generation growing up thinking that the internet is magical and everything is suppose to be free. Then when they GROW THE FUCK UP and try to get a job they'll learn that people pirating their works isn't so much fun.
Who cares? They have a right to sign up for labels [even if the terms are stupid]. You don't have a right to violate their copyright protections [I'm not talking DMCA here].
If you don't like the media, don't buy it. But don't pirate it either.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they want to sell it at a later date in that region?
You're trying to minimalize the morality of what you're doing. It's okay to pirate it, since they're not losing potential money. WTF is that? If they don't want to distribute it to America, that's their right. You'll have to find a legal way to import it.
Tom
You're stupid. Sorry, but there isn't another way around it.
How do you suppose TV would work without copyright? So NBC broadcasts an episode that cost them $150K to make [say lots of actors, music, special effects]. Then some local station copies it and re-airs it without paying for it? Paying for it would be a royalty. Airing it more than once because it's popular seems just.
Books are already usually in PDF format at the same time as paper. Without copyright or royalties we would just copy the PDF. Hell, I could get a PDF of a text book printed at lulu.com for cheaper than what it would cost retail. Does that make it right?
And about NDAs, those are government enforced ultimately. You break your NDA, I sue, if I win, the government can enforce the decision.
Point is we have, as a society, come up with a set of rules to follow in order to make certain ventures profitable. In the case of books, movies, and music a royalty model is chosen so that the upfront costs to sign a band aren't excessive but they are rewarded if they appeal to the public. If you can think of a better way I'd love to hear it.
Tom
I should point out that many people who earn royalties don't get paid upfront for their work. Sure some get million dollar ADVANCES but they have to pay them off [and usually do]. In my case, I was granted a small $2000 advance for my two books and my royalties are really small [my fault I suppose but I don't care since I don't rely on them for a living].
By your logic though, if I commission a house to be built, on land I bought from the government, I shouldn't be able to charge rent since the house has already been made right?
We'd adjust? WTF does that mean? This would mean we couldn't have TV, movies, books or software. We couldn't distribute function blocks of IP (e.g. hardware designs) either. There would be absolutely no patents either, etc.
The truth is not all business models are the same. Heck, where I work we only license IP to people for a given product line, usually they can't just re-use the IP for all future products. Mostly because upfront we can't charge them enough to make that worthwhile. For example, if we sell a piece of IP tomorrow it may still be valuable 5 years from now (e.g. in demand). So why shouldn't we be able to charge for it again for new licenses?
If you don't think they're worth it, don't buy it. They won't get your money. But if you pirate it, you're saying "I want this, I just don't want to pay the owners for it."
Tom
Even with the net the way it is there is still a need for press whores to promote things. There are just too many bands on myspace for me to find any semi-talented ones in a reasonable amount of time.
That said, who says you're the RIAA's bitch forever? Usually the contracts are for $X albums [or a given time period]. After which, when you're good and famous you can go out on your own and forgo the "build a star" machine the RIAA offers.
Tom
It slows them down too. Hehehe, that was easy.
... 1000/1000 = 1, yup, right where you started. w00h00.
If you get a 1000x advantage by using your botnet as compared to last year, but I force you to use a 1000x slowdown hashcash, let me check
Tom
Well I don't want to take the studios side, but I question who pays for the studio time, engineers, CD presses/packaging, trucking, press releases, flights to TV appearances, etc, before the artists make their first buck.
Hmm. I wonder.
Fortunately, nowadays the need for such a mill is less prevalent. You can get your own studio time for relatively cheap [provided you're efficient]. Do a run of several 1000 CDs and mail them off to radio stations, etc. If you're any good people will want to play it [usually] since it draws listeners which draws advertising revenue.
Tom
It's your responsibility to pay for the art you acquire [that isn't free], and it's the artists responsibility to secure a distribution contract they can live with. Pirating tracks doesn't automatically mean all the middle men get out of the picture and only the artists get paid.
So far the 20 or so replies to my posts in this thread seem to fly all over the place. First, the artists aren't paid enough, then the execs are too greedy, then the business model is too old, then the regions of distribution are too exclusive, then blah blah blah. All excuses.
If you really like the track, movie, book, software, whatever, you'd make sure the owners get paid. Otherwise, you're ensuring they won't be in business for long. And if you don't like the people because of their business policies why are you getting involved by pirating their products?
Tom
Problem that is, not mine, nor the creator of the art. Your excuse could be re-worded as "I don't have money, so what am I suppose to do?"
You should also consider that the owner HAS THE RIGHT to restrict sale. For example, I could make a painting, then choose not to sell it anyone with an e in their name. That's my right. Of course they can resell it, but that's not the point.
If they don't want to sell it in other markets [and therefor limit income potentials], that's THEIR RIGHT.
Tom
Which has nothing to do with pirating on P2P. It's not up to you to redistribute material against the owners wish. The studios didn't hold a gun to the artists head. If they're getting a bum deal it's because they chose it.
Hint: Look at the artic monkeys for an example of not being a studio pawn.
I love how you people justify it. It's okay to pirate, thereby paying EVEN LESS royalty to the artist since they're already getting a "objectively decided" small slice of the pie. So in short, you're trying to make sure they earn EVEN LESS money for their efforts.
That'd be like robbing a homeless dude because he doesn't have enough material wealth. Just doesn't add up.
Tom
I fully support your right to CHOOSE to distribute stuff however you want. The RIAA protected artists have chosen a different release model. That's THEIR RIGHT.
I'm not against people sharing on P2P. I'm against people sharing media against the creators [or owners] will out of some misguided form of spite.
Tom
Your points are moot since there are many perform once, reproduce many businesses. Books, art reprints, hell, do you think Intel handcrafts every single processor? They already made one, why should we pay more than material costs for the others?
Point is, a good album takes time to make. Sometimes a year or more. Why shouldn't they be able to sell it in WHATEVER FORM will sell and be entitled to a slice of the profit?
I don't get your points, but I think it's mostly because you've not created a personal public project. I'm the author of two books. I would like to see people either buy my books or ignore them. Not torrent them and not give me any compensation for the time I sacrificed to make the books.
Wait till you don't get paid for your hardwork to come back and talk about compensation models.
Tom
A penny per email isn't economical. And I already pay to send emails. It's called my ISP fees. The ISP provides IP [including TCP and UDP] service which means they have to deliver my packets to the best of their ability.
Some sort of "pay us [more] or we may drop your packets" is a protection racket of sorts. Remember that an email is no more than a TCP stream of SMTP commands.
Tom
Back "in the day" art was commissioned by the royal family [or the like]. You didn't need copyright because your livelyhood was secured.
Tom
Those are separate issues.
That is all.
Tom
Because that's asinine. That means we can't have radio, TV, tapes, CDs or DVDs. Hell, we can't have books either, or paintings, ...
You're stupid. There isn't another way around it.
Tom
Um royalties are a way to not pay a shit load for things that may not be popular. As an electrician your work is either done properly or not. There is no "is it popular" question. Consider it another way. We either pay every single artist a million bucks per album [or more], or we pay them a smaller amount [say $10K] and then issue royalties.
If people like the music they're rewarded with more royalties. Why is that bad? If you don't want to pay the artist then the music isn't worth it to you. Why are you pirating it then?
Royalties promote diversity.
I don't disagree that most labels abuse it. But frankly, it's up to the artist to sign on terms they can live with. If you give a homeless dude all your money, don't feel bad if they do what THEY want with it. Similarly, if a good artist signs a stupid contract, it's their own damn fault. The media execs only get away with what people let them.
Tom
You either want the product or you don't. If you don't want the product, why are you pirating it?
Tom
If you read the article ... they were importing cheaper copies of records that were sold domestically. E.g. they were region shopping. I won't comment on the legality of that [hint: I'm against the ruling], but it's not the same thing.
Tom
You signed a contract dumb dumb. You could have signed for royalties. Similarly, artists could [and do] sign flat rates for albums. But it's THEIR RIGHT to choose the type of contract they want to sign.
I agree that they should change their models, artists don't need labels as much [as they need music lessons that is]. But it's their right to choose whatever model they want.
You have a right not to buy media from companies that are not run the way you want.
Tom
Find it used, find it in another market, etc.
Sure you can justify pirating really old obscure media that is hard to find, but just because something went out of print last year doesn't entitle you to pirate it. You don't suppose if demand went up they wouldn't reprint it?
Tom
OMG those are like totally two different issues. I'm against the DMCA. I'm also pirating things just because you feel you're entitled.
I'd rather see stories about people being unjustly prosecuted with the DMCA [and more so, what we're doing to fix that], than where you can best pirate those anime episodes you love so much.
Tom
Throwing your own music on P2P is your right. I'm not against P2P. I'm against people violating copyright laws because they don't want to pay for the media.
Um. Ok here's what I suggest. Go through the effort to learn an instrument. Then, hang your livelyhood on the stake of selling an album. Then, watch with glee as it becomes popular. Then watch with horror as nobody pays for it. Paying for things is "outdated" you see, and not paying artist is the only way to "right" a wrong.
It basically boils down to, if you want the damn product pay for it. If your favourite artist signs with a label, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. Who are you to say "because you signed with, say, EMI, I won't pay for your music?" You can vote with your dollars. If labels piss you off so much, don't buy [or pirate] label owned music. Only buy truly indy music.
People who pirate label music "to stick it to the man" are just hypocrites.
I wouldn't have posted it if someone didn't say it.
And frankly I think it's worth saying. Otherwise, we'll have an entire generation growing up thinking that the internet is magical and everything is suppose to be free. Then when they GROW THE FUCK UP and try to get a job they'll learn that people pirating their works isn't so much fun.
Tom
Who cares? They have a right to sign up for labels [even if the terms are stupid]. You don't have a right to violate their copyright protections [I'm not talking DMCA here].
If you don't like the media, don't buy it. But don't pirate it either.