# Music Download bootlegs on ABC



## AnimEdge (Sep 24, 2004)

Im watching on ABC their talking about how mp3 downloading and 'bootlegging' really effected the music ind. and i have ta say its the smartest representation of the truth, its about time someone in the news didnt go with RIAA and there internet is killing the music ind. ads. even if they use there "dumb" report tatics, ya know, reporter:"What people are downloading gazillion mp3s over the last someodd years and its not effecting anything?!?!?!?111", "yes tom, bla blah blah"

Anyhow its the best representation of the real truth i have seen yet


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 24, 2004)

I missed that.  What's the summary?


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 25, 2004)

......................?


----------



## bignick (Sep 25, 2004)

napster unleashed pandora's box on this matter...at times, kazaa alone accounts for up to half of all internet traffic...

i don't see anything the record company will be able to do about the problem, the file sharing programs themselves are legal

Napster was ruled illegal because of central servers that kept track of which users had which files...a user had to connect to those servers to do a search, when the user requested a certain song from another user, thats when it became a peer-to-peer connection between those two users

file sharing applications today, like kazaa and gnutella, use a completely peer to peer architecture...that is, everything is done independently of central servers...therefore the companies have no control over what's traded...

even if the companies get shut down, which is very unlikely, the applications themselves don't need the companies so they'll continue on...

as for the RIAA's lawsuits against end users...kazaa, on average has around 3 million people logged in and sharing, worldwide...i believe that the RIAA has filed around a thousand lawsuits...

about .00033% of users...file sharing is here to stay...


----------



## Silat Student (Sep 26, 2004)

Yeah, the anti-sharing advertising campaign is really starting to get funny. I was in the mall today (my annual mall trip, I usually get irked by the people and leave rather quickly but this was a family outing) and I saw a little billboard expounding on the evils of file sharing and the punishment of what happens when you get caught.... According to Brother Nick up there a _friend_ of mine has less than a .00033% chance of getting served (less because I.....*ahem*....this _friend_ is on a less well known program). Even if they do decide to go after the program that the _friend_ is on there's still probably a less than 1% chance of any legal procceedings actually happening, sounds like decent odds to me.


----------



## TonyM. (Sep 26, 2004)

"File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

I used to use Napster heavily.  Musta downloaded a few terabytes back then.
Funny thing.
I spent more on cds too as I was able to check out new bands, preview old bands, and find stuff I'd never even thought of.
(My gods, the Star Wars parodies alone numbered in the thousands, most not available any where else.)

The music and movie industry fail to mention that their profits have been going up, despite their skewed claims.

Same as the software industrys piracy claims.

Oh, I don't doubt it does cut into their sales a bit.  I just think being able to check something out for a while to be certain it's 'you' leads to more sales.  After all, they refuse to acknowledge the idea that what they were putting out was crap that people didn't want which effected sales.

Case in point.  I like a band called Running Wild. Well, some former members formed X-Wild.  I snagged some MP3s to check them out.  They weren't bad, but not anything I wanted to listen to regularly.  That saved me $45 (import cd), which I then used to order the full Running Wild CD library (after discovering through Napster that the band was still around and hadn't disbanded in the 80's like I had been TOLD! by the music stores (who couldn't get the CDs for me).

So, thank you Napster, Amazon and CDNow, and FU RIAA. 
I probably spent $5,000+ on new cds that I would never have even knew existed without the P2Ps.

Now of course, it's different.  Not worth the risk especially considering my ISP is one that did roll over and say "yes massa" to the RIAA and MPAA.

So, I put my money into other things now. 

BTW: If ya like Metal - check out Iced Earth's latest. It's excellent! Discovered them thanks to MP3's as well...just bought the $25 extended CD as a result.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 26, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> "File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.



LOL...  

 :bs: 

obviously, Tony, you are little mis-lead.  stop listening to everything you read, see, & hear.  there's more to the truth than what the RIAA would have you to believe.

btw, there are still musicians out there that will tell you file-sharing has helped their overall sales of albums & concert tickets.  take the dave matthews band for example.  they encourage it and allow their fans to tape live shows for distribution on the net, etc.  DMB will pack any stadium out there for as many shows they are willing to play.  and as Kaith pointed out, file-sharing can actually help a potential consumer make a decision as to whether or not they purchase cds or tickets.  try before you buy.  we may download to our heart's content, but true fans will always still buy the record.


----------



## bignick (Sep 26, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> "File sharing" really means stealing plain and simple. It's not much different than shoplifting. Thanks for killing the new music folks. Really appreciate it.


that's not BS at all..he's absolutely right...you're stealing copyrighted material...and not just music anymore...movies...video games...

but like kaith said..if i like the artist i'll buy the cd...point in case...the beastie boys came out with a new cd a few months ago...i like the beastie boys but i was doubtful that they still had "it" in them...so i downloaded 5-6 songs of the new album...liked what i heard...and went out and bought it...

not saying everybody does this...but i know quite a few do...


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 26, 2004)

Im still trying to dicern the subtle differences in the copyright laws and piracy...

Maybe someone can explain...

If I use my DVD recorder to record a Movie I rent off of Digital Cable Pay-per-view, and save it in my home library thats 100% legal.

If I rent the same movie from Blockbuster, and burn them, It is ILLEGAL.

If I go to a site offering a free sample MP3s of say... "Rush's Greatest Hits" and download some of the full length songs they offer there for free as MP3s, Its legal.

but I download the same exact songs from Kaaza, its illegal... 

Uh... 

er... 

um...

 :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

I have a huge collection of MP3s, a great majority of which are archives of old vinyl lps I no longer can listen to due to not having a turntable.  I didn't burn them from the vinyl, but downloaded them.

Did I break the law?  I own copies of some albums in vinyl, tape, cd AND DVD format, as well as MP3.  The mp3's are illegal though. ????

It's all nuts.


----------



## bignick (Sep 26, 2004)

that's one of the problem's the RIAA and the movie industry have gotten themselves into...you are allowed to make copies for your own personal purposes if you already own the material..

but these companies are trying to stop all copying...which is illegal...you have the right to back up your own property...but the industries are adding security that tries to make it impossible for you to do so...

which is very ineffective by the way...as soon as they come out with a new security feature it's broken within weeks, if not days or hours...so they have to spend all this money on R & D to develop the "security" when it has done absolutely no good...anyone with an ounce of determination can copy any DVD, software, CD...anything


----------



## AnimEdge (Sep 26, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> (Part 1)that's one of the problem's the RIAA and the movie industry have gotten themselves into...you are allowed to make copies for your own personal purposes if you already own the material..
> 
> (Part 2)but these companies are trying to stop all copying...which is illegal...you have the right to back up your own property...but the industries are adding security that tries to make it impossible for you to do so...
> 
> which is very ineffective by the way...as soon as they come out with a new security feature it's broken within weeks, if not days or hours...so they have to spend all this money on R & D to develop the "security" when it has done absolutely no good...anyone with an ounce of determination can copy any DVD, software, CD...anything


(Part 1)
Are you allowed to is the question, it depends who you ask, if you ask the majority of the bands them selfs, the probly dont care if you make a copy of there music as a back up, chances are they do it themselfs as well, if you ask the compainy that sells the cds, they will say no, why? becouse if you damange your cd, your have to buy a new one, thus they make 20 bucks.

Now movies, are generally the same thing, the people who made the movies, the directors and so on, chances are made there money before it got made, unlesst hey do a liecenceing deal, so they probly dont care what you do, there allready paid, but the releasing compiany do care becouse they make the money off the home release and so on.

(part 2)
The movie and music compainys(the people that sell the cds, and the dvds not the people who make them(artist,directors,ect)) create these 'Copy Proof' cds, weather or not you have the right to back it up is said in part 1 
Now you are correct, if there is a will theres a way, some people love these to come out just for the chalaanges of breaking the algarithim used to encrypt the code, the might not even care about the music or distrubutiing the mp3s, they just like the challange, now there are some that crack it to "keep the music free" or whatever

A Great story about the copyright cds comes from the creaters of cds: Sony and Phillips, in short they those compainys created cds, the OWN the copyright to the actuall CD and how the data is stored on the cd. So when universal and so on started to release Copyright cds, Sony sued them,
Sony sued them saying that there copyright cds, are vialating there copyrights on the cd itself. Sony said they created a cd to freely transfer data and so on and by making it so this data is 'copyrighting' vialates the copyright, and so they said that the only was Sony will not sue them, is by 1) Never calling them a CD or Compact Disk, by having to redesign the transfering of data and how it holds data, these CopyrightCDs have to be in a totally diffrent area in any cd selling area, they cant not be mixed into the same group, they have to be on a totally diffrent shelf and so on, they cant be played on nomal cd players(they cant be anyways), and so on, or 2) they can stop making copyright cds, and thus, you dont see copyright cds anymore.

*Now about what they said on ABC*
They went to people who checked and compaire the cd to downloading, to see if they can have proofthat mp3 downloading is killing the music indestry, long story short, it takes about 5,000 downloads to stop the sell of 1 cd that is when you get down to spacifics, but on the grande scall that they showed that over all they diffrence from before and after mp3s downloading came out they diffrence in sales are so small that it is almost not noticable

But though the cd people show that people are buying 1/3 less cds in 2000s then they did in the 1990s, and they just proved that mp3s are NOT the cause of this, they said that everyone is mixxed up, that in the 2000s they yes they lost 1/3 but technicly this should be the normal level, and that infact they gained 1/3 in the 1990s and what is now is the normal level, but how can they gain 1/3 in the 1990s and lost it?

Well first off Rap became increadbly popular along with the whole boy bands, this greatly boosted sales becouse no one has ever heard od rap or nsync, but now in 2000 people have heard it befroe and no longer care, it is no longer new

People and kids had more money in the 1990s then before, thus more money to spend on cds, and now that they dont have as much money, they dont buy cds

Also everyone was jumping on the cd bandwagon, all babyboombers was buying cds of bands they had on vinal and so on, well now they all own all the cds of there past that they want.

*That is what they said about the music selling and mp3*
*heres about the mp3s downloading*

There used to be a thing called a 'Single', where you can buy just a few songs from a band you like for like 3 dollars.
The cd selling people (sece it costs as much to make a cd with 1 song as it does a cd with 12 songs(printing and distributing wise)) they fadded out singles, when they did this a thing that abc called "The Chubthumpa Theiory " came into place (Chubthumpa is the name of the band that did the song
"When i get knocked down, i get up again, your never gonna keep me down" song) This one song became a phenomanaon and everyone went out and bought there cd for that song, this cd cost 15-20 bucks, everyone that ABC asked about this band said that the other 12 songs on that cd was the WORST songs they have ever heard and everyone refused to by there next cd. Now im sure there are a lot of you that have bout a cd for 1 or 2 songs, and hated the rest of the music on that cd and was pissed that you just spend 20 bucks on 2 songs, then napster came out, and everyone loved listing to JUST the music they liked, but not only can they losten to the music they like, but they can freely listen to music of people and styles they never heard of. Music perfessors are saying that during this "era" that more music was going to more people then any other time ever in history.

Now the RIAA started saying we where killing the music indistry(just liek they said when radios came out), actually people might be buying less 'popular' music and buying more of the bands that they never hear on the radio(AE: I persanlay dont listen to the radio, 90% of my 3k songs are japanese and Rock/Metal bands you will never or very rarly hear on the radio, also i own the high majority of the american or bands that are avalable in the US that i have the mp3s for) So ABC stats that people are making up for the lack of 'singles' and are tired of buying a 20 dollar cd for 1 song they like, so that they started using to napster, they can now get the songs they want to have(and free helped),now the RIAA are stating taht this transfer of music on line, is causing cd sells to drop, there not, ABC proved that mp3s are not effectig overall sales, but now people instead of buying the cd for 1 song,(would you spend 20 bucks on a cd that you know you only like 2 songs, or a cd you downloaded and like 10 ot of the 12 songs?)

I was glad that a news group stated the known truth and challanged the RIAA statements


----------



## bignick (Sep 26, 2004)

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> (Part 1)
> Are you allowed to is the question, it depends who you ask, if you ask the majority of the bands them selfs, the probly dont care if you make a copy of there music as a back up, chances are they do it themselfs as well, if you ask the compainy that sells the cds, they will say no, why? becouse if you damange your cd, your have to buy a new one, thus they make 20 bucks.
> 
> Now movies, are generally the same thing, the people who made the movies, the directors and so on, chances are made there money before it got made, unlesst hey do a liecenceing deal, so they probly dont care what you do, there allready paid, but the releasing compiany do care becouse they make the money off the home release and so on.


you are legally allowed to make backup copies of material that you have purchased for your own purposes...you are not allowed to distribute or sell them in any manner...you are allowed...no if's, and's, or but's about it...which is why there's such an uproar about the actions of the RIAA and the movie industry in trying to block ALL copies of material...not just illegal copies...


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2004)

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> they fadded out singles, when they did this a thing that abc called "The Chubthumpa Theiory " came into place (Chubthumpa is the name of the band that did the song
> "When i get knocked down, i get up again, your never gonna keep me down" song) This one song became a phenomanaon and everyone went out and bought there cd for that song, this cd cost 15-20 bucks, everyone that ABC asked about this band said that the other 12 songs on that cd was the WORST songs they have ever heard and everyone refused to by there next cd.




Chumbawumba.

That CD really really did suck. Im glad i never bought it... but I have purchased a few that I looked at later and went "What the F was i thinking, the only good song was the single..."


----------



## Xequat (Sep 27, 2004)

"Also everyone was jumping on the cd bandwagon, all babyboombers was buying cds of bands they had on vinal and so on, well now they all own all the cds of there past that they want."



Good job, AnimEdge.  You summed up what most people are not saying.  When CD's first came out, they were new and exciting, so everything was recorded onto CD and cassette tape.  Over time, people stopped buying new releases on cassette and only bought them on CD.  At the same time, they were converting their old favorites that they had on tape to CD by buying old releases as well.  It just so happens that Napster came out around the time that Best Buy actually stopped selling cassettes, so rather than blame their loss on new technology not being so new any more, they shifted clame to Napster.  Sure, it's stealing, but as Kaith has said, it also could increase sales by exposing people to singles that they otherwise couldn't get without buying an album for 15 bucks only to find out that the only good song on it is the one you hear on the radio.  I have downloaded stuff to try it out and then I go buy the CD if I like it.  But the record sales have dropped because they increased so much after the CD invention and couldn't hold.  

Check the sales of movies.  When DVD's came out, overall movie sales went up.  Now that everyone has their VHS converted to DVD, the movie sales have levelled off again.  New technology brings in a new market; but when it's not new anymore, it returns to where it was.


----------



## Master of Blades (Sep 27, 2004)

Its kind of interesting listening to adults speak about this. I was sitting with my mates the other day having this exact same discussion.

Im not gonna repeat whats been said and done, but in my opinion its got less to do with us and more with the artist. They have to realise that downloading music isnt going away anytime soon and your marketing and stuff needs to be based around that fact. Quite a few of my favourite rappers (Yes I like rap music, shoot me) became famous using the internet. Take a guy called Aesop Rock for example, he started by putting his tunes on the net and getting them famous like that. His last album was voted in the top 100 albums of the year (ALTHOUGH it was number 98). Downloading Music could really make the music industry that much better, or it could destroy. In my opinion, its more up to them. 

But what I dont understand is isnt the same thing happening in the gaming industry. And thats one of the fastest growing industrys around?

If Im wrong leave me be, Im just an uneducated youth trying to be intelligent


----------



## someguy (Sep 28, 2004)

There are plenty of games out there.
Mostly there are he really old games.  Some how I doubt the company Hot-B USA gives a ____ if you go download shingen the ruler and play it.  Most of you probably don't know who they are or what shingen the ruler is but some how I don't think that they would care if you got an rom  of it.  Heck it would be pretty hard to find it now days.  Although I have it and for some reason am playing it now.  On the cartridge that is.
Now Square might get annoyed if you start putting out one of there latest games but then again how big was say FFX.  So how many people would steal it.
So does any one here know exactly what the laws on downlaoding old games is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

Do a Google search on "Abandonware".
Some companies don't mind, others are nuts over it.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

Two things.

If I own something, I am free to share with anyone I choose.  I just cannot profit off of copyright material.  I'd like for someone to just try and tell me I can't share what I choose.

Second, Chumbawaumba sucked, Technopunk.  Even the single.  All of it.  Sick, sick trash.

The third of the two is - irrespective of how anyone tries to prohibit anything on the internet, resistance is futile.  Too many borders, too many jurisdictions, too much initiative and creativity on the part of users, and NEVER enough funding to put towards policing.  Quite simply, it is unpossible.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

Some stuff I wrote 10 years or so ago on Software Piracy.

My views haven't really changed much, but are extended to music and videos.
(Videos you can 'preview' at the theaters first.  Software/CDs you usually can't try first though)

Software Pirates are cool 1995
Re: Software Etc. inflates game prices (i.e. MW2)? 1995
More comments on the piracy topic 1995
Another Piracy Opinion 1995
Re: holier-than-thou-I'd-never-pirate tight-wads 1996


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 28, 2004)

Chuck D predicted all this on Fear of a Black Planet, back in the early 80s.  they didn't anticiapte the internet/P2P exactly, but the total breakdown of distribution control...David Bowie is still a visionary.  This is what he realized many years ago - Why buy a CD when you can download all the songs for free?  Because of all the extras - interesting packaging, lyric sheets, photos etc.

Do any of us really care if some millinaire pop start or millionaire record exec gets more money?

Last but not least - if the record industry produced better product they wouldn't be in such a jam.  Sales are off because nobody wants your product.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 28, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Second, Chumbawaumba sucked, Technopunk.  Even the single.  All of it.  Sick, sick trash..



Hey man... I was just correcting Animedge who said their name was "Chubthumpa"


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 28, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Hey man... I was just correcting Animedge who said their name was "Chubthumpa"


I am sure you were, but I never pass up an opportunity to bash Chumbawumba who, in my expert opinion, suck eggs.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Some stuff I wrote 10 years or so ago on Software Piracy.



I think I disagree.

 :idunno: 

You cannot "Steal" somthing that does not exist.  

Lets change the example...  Suppose you, Kaith Rustaz baked a loaf of bread.

I take your bread.  Ive stolen your bread.  

But... lets say I scan your loaf of bread, and using "replicator" technology stolen from the Starship Interprize, I duplicate your bread and eat it. Did I steal your bread?

No clearly not.

Now, I understand the argument that "The Artist/coder/actors/ blahablah" have to get paid, or they wont do the work... but somewhere the logic fails...

If the law says i can legaly tape a movie off of "Pay Per View" then I'll be damned if I would condiser making the same copy off of a DVD I rented from Blockbuster "Theft"... The "artist" got the same money either way... From the PPV company who paid for the rights to show the movie... or the Disk that was Sold to Blockbuster.

The same applies to Music.

Software?  Well... again, the artists get paid by the retail stores who purchase the copies for sale... 

As long as no one is stealing the "PHYSICAL COPY" of the product they paid to make, the only loss might be if they overproduce those physical copies.  There are plenty of people who want the extras... Maps, Liner notes, etc... that come with the actuall product that they can still profit by selling the physical pressings... and as inexpensive as those extras are they can make it worthwhile to actually PURCHASE the copies...

Case in point: "Star Wars Battelfront" was giving away a Promotional Star Wars action Figure... made it worthwhile for me to purchase the game.  Same with the new DOA game for Xbox... Promo figure.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 28, 2004)

it's not stealiong as much as it is an infringement of intelectual property rights...  so the bread analogy is not appropriate.

this might be a better one:
What if you drew a picture, then I copied it, and I sold a million copies and got rich, and you were starving to death.  You still have your picture, did I "steal" it?  No, but I certaily did some kind of injustice to you...

not that Metallica is in danger of going broke...

but I am arguing against my own point


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

My basic arguement is that if you don't have the right to it, it's stealing.  A little simplistic I know, but I'm being a bit 'generic' here.

The argument P2P = Theft is false as many artists use those networks to become known. A great deal of information is legally exchanged that way as well.

And, bootlegs are also.  I've downloaded everything.  In most cases, I've checked it out and promptly deleted it. It didn't fit my needs, sucked, whatever.
Some stuff I kept, evaluated it longer then either registered/purchased or removed.

There is "Fair Use", and there is theft.  I can tape the PPV.  I can't sell or otherwise distribute it however.  You can tape the SUperBowl, but you can't sell the tape legally.

What pisses me off is when the RIAA lies, says they are losing money, when in fact they are making it, that the artists are suffering, when in fact they get almost diddly anyway, that its theft that is killing sales, when it's the fact theyve put out sound-alike crap, etc.

I have a legal right to make 1 archival backup of my cd/lp/dvd/etc, but the RIAA and MPAA say that right doesn't extend to DVDs, and impliment 'protection' on the cds (making them not really cds since they no longer conform to the cd standard) that prevents me from making the backup, or playing it on my PC (which is my main sound system).

Personally, my opinion is, download it, borrow it, whatever.
But if you like it, use it, etc, buy it and support the guys who made it possible.

I'll support independents, shareware, and other forward thinking folks, but will be spending minimally on those that insist on living in the past.


----------



## bignick (Sep 28, 2004)

there was just a court ruling about bootleg recordings of concert...the court struck down a ban of selling bootleg copies of concerts


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 28, 2004)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> this might be a better one:
> What if you drew a picture, then I copied it, and I sold a million copies and got rich, and you were starving to death.  You still have your picture, did I "steal" it?  No, but I certaily did some kind of injustice to you...



What, like say the prints of any Monet painting you can buy in most malls?

If my Picture was so good that your copies sold like hotcakes, my Original should feed me for life.  Goes back to my analagy of making an original more "vaulable" than a bootleg by making it worth spending the money on.  

Maybe I am a bit "cyberpunk" in my way of thinking (heh, no, not me) but you cannot OWN intelectual property... you cannot OWN somthing intangible... if you wanna argue that, I'm gonna claim the AIR as mine... and everyone who uses it must pay me $100.00/day rent on the air if they choose to breathe.


----------



## Silat Student (Sep 29, 2004)

Dangit I wuz gonna claim that.


----------



## Galvatron (Sep 29, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The music and movie industry fail to mention that their profits have been going up, despite their skewed claims.



I personally know quite a few musicians who were/are in underground and non-mainstream bands that have had their careers ruined by file sharing. Bands that managed to sell 15,000-25,000 copies per album prior to the napster/kazaa era, and now (the ones that even bother to make new albums anymore) move 800-2,000 copies. Try paying your rent off of that.
People tend to forget, not everyone who makes music their life is a mega uber rich multimillionaire. There are more artists out there who rely on those royalty checks to pay their rent, car insurance, and put food on the table than there are big time rock stars.


----------



## DavidCC (Sep 29, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> What, like say the prints of any Monet painting you can buy in most malls?
> 
> If my Picture was so good that your copies sold like hotcakes, my Original should feed me for life. Goes back to my analagy of making an original more "vaulable" than a bootleg by making it worth spending the money on.
> 
> Maybe I am a bit "cyberpunk" in my way of thinking (heh, no, not me) but you cannot OWN intelectual property... you cannot OWN somthing intangible... if you wanna argue that, I'm gonna claim the AIR as mine... and everyone who uses it must pay me $100.00/day rent on the air if they choose to breathe.


Well, some old paintings are public domain now they are so old.  So taht might explain thsoe Monets; or, the publisher of thsoe prints ahs paid a license to the owner of the painting.

Your original might feed you for life, this is where the analogy breaks down  But I'm sure Metallica could sell their original studio tapes for a lot more than they can sell a single CD, yet it is the same content.  if you were trying to sell prints of your picture, I am taking money out of your mouth by doing so.

air is not intangible.  it physically exists.  I can feel it brushing agaisnt my skin even now.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 29, 2004)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Your original might feed you for life, this is where the analogy breaks down  But I'm sure Metallica could sell their original studio tapes for a lot more than they can sell a single CD, yet it is the same content.  if you were trying to sell prints of your picture, I am taking money out of your mouth by doing so..



 :idunno: 

I dont see it that way.  If I were a band, for example... I wouldnt care if people were bootleging my music, if it sold more t-shirts at my concert by  upping attendance.  If your prints created more demand for my Picture, I could then make and sell a new one... you are in fact making me more popular... 

But, then again thats just my take on life... I dont believe in all for me and none for you.   :asian:


----------



## bignick (Sep 29, 2004)

what do you feel is the difference between inventing something concrete, like the light bulb...and inventing a new way to arrange musical notes...certainly music is an esoteric idea and is subjective to whether or not it's any good...but someone created it...i'm not saying i don't download mp3's....but it's illegal and i don't see how you can say that creating a painting or music or software is not as tangible than discovering a new way to power automobiles or something....the process is the same, the medium is just different...digital doesn't mean intangible...it just means it stored in a different manner...


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 29, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> ...certainly music is an esoteric idea and is subjective to whether or not it's any good.....


Usually, except in the case of Chumbawumba.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 29, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> digital doesn't mean intangible...it just means it stored in a different manner...


I disagree... when you make a lightbulb, for instance... you need materials.  No matter what, you can only have a finite amount of lightbulbs with say 200lbs of glass... 

When you dupe code, you can make infinate numbers of copies... you are not limited by how much "tangible" material components you have... 1 copy of the code on a server can provide as much of itself as needed to fulfil the requirements of the masses.  Besides... I have a hard time justifying most of it as "illegal piracy"... as per my original posts...

You CANNOT convince me that if I make a DVD legaly off of pay-per-veiw the "Aritsts" dont lose money, but they do if I make a DVD illegaly off a rental from Blockbuster... Bullspit.


----------



## bignick (Sep 29, 2004)

true...and i think we can all agree chumbawumba is bad...

but digital copies still take up "space"...there's only a finite space that you can fit those copies into...each copy takes up bits...and sure...we've got a lot of 'em...but there is only so much memory...


----------



## AnimEdge (Sep 29, 2004)

Sorry for the misspelling of that uh band
Its a good example of people realising there where clearly a one hit wonder and when(if) there next cd came out it bombed horrably

The whole copyright thing if you havnt noticed is generaly a grey area, technicly Micky Mouse is now Public Domain, but sence Disney is so buddy buddy with the Gov.(or whatever they did to pull it off) the stuff to make it public domain keeps getting postponed, so you can still get sued for using him without Disneys permission.

Like the saying Goes: "Without Chaos there is no Order"
and also "History repeats itself"

Everything we are saying now, doing now, has be done allready at some form inthe past

When Radio came out, Oh my god they just killed the (early)record industry and there killing the music industry with this "Free" Music, after the fought it brought it to court so on so on life went on and so did music, they then started to charge the radio compainys and so on for playing this music and then everyone was happy

Tapes or whatever the first home music recordable device was, Oh my God they just killed the radio industry and muisc, they can now listin to "Free" Music whenever how ever they want, It was shown that people perfer to buy there music manly cuz not al songs of a band was release and radio to tape audio quiality sucks, The came out with cds withb etter qualitty and so on and music lived

and now: Burnable Cds and p2p, Oh My God they just killed the cd industry and the music industry as well the sky is falling becouse now people can download "Free" Music and play it whenever they want. and it is being shown that this, just like all the times before it, just like it happened all before that it isnt effecting much of anything(im not saying its not effecting anything) and it will end the same way, currently Mp3s players are to expensive and stupied(40gig ipod for 300? psssh my *** ill spend 70 on a cd/mp3 player 10 bucks on 40gigs worth of blank cds and spend the other 220 on dollar bills to rap them up in to make them shockproof(a ref. to a Penny Arcade joke))

This has happened before and life and music will go on just like allways

Movie ind. too

and gaming


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> true...and i think we can all agree chumbawumba is bad...
> 
> but digital copies still take up "space"...there's only a finite space that you can fit those copies into...each copy takes up bits...and sure...we've got a lot of 'em...but there is only so much memory...


You miss the point...

1 loaf of bread can feed x number of people...

1 Copy of "Chumbawumba" can feed the worlds population...


----------



## bignick (Sep 30, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You miss the point...
> 
> 1 loaf of bread can feed x number of people...
> 
> 1 Copy of "Chumbawumba" can feed the worlds population...


yeah...if you want to give them food poisoning...

the thing is...to make bread you need to have the wheat, yeast, oven all that...those are the ingredients...

to make a digital copy...you need some form of storage and the original...just because it is exceptionally easy doesn't mean it's right...

like i said...i'm not against downloading per se...i just don't understand your justification...maybe there's something i missed...you seem very set against intellectual property rights..it seems your stance is basically.."i can...so there's nothing wront with it..."

if i'm a baker and you're starving and steal my loaf of bread...i can certainly make another one...but i lost some of the profit that i needed to buy myself food...i make another loaf of bread someone else stole it...because i'm a "rich baker...i can make all the bread i want"....well eventually i'm gonna stop making money off my creation because no one's paid for it...so i either stop making it or find some way to guard it so you can't steal it...


----------



## DavidCC (Oct 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> :idunno:
> 
> I dont see it that way. If I were a band, for example... I wouldnt care if people were bootleging my music, if it sold more t-shirts at my concert by upping attendance. If your prints created more demand for my Picture, I could then make and sell a new one... you are in fact making me more popular...


I don't know how I ended up on thsi side of this debate, because I actually believe what you just wrote :idunno:


----------



## AnimEdge (Oct 1, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You miss the point...
> 
> 1 loaf of bread can feed x number of people...
> 
> 1 Copy of "Chumbawumba" can feed the worlds population...


how true


----------

