# Pirate Party Elected to EU Parliament



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

The Pirate Party silenced skeptics, gathering enough votes in the European Union elections this year, to make it to the Parliament from Sweden. This serves as a huge victory to the party whose ideology revolves around fighting harsh and archaic copyright laws and enforcement agencies, that it finds incompatible with the digital age we live in. The party secured 7.1 percent of the 99.9 percent districts' votes counted, which guarantees at least one of the 18 or 20 seats Sweden contributes to the EU Parliament. Sweden has 20 seats, but until the Lisbon treaty passes only 18 with voting rights. In this case, the party might secure 2 seats. 

Rick Falkvinge, leader of the party, in a statement to TorrentFreak said "Together, we have today changed the landscape of European politics. No matter how this night ends, we have changed it." National and International press gathered in Stockholm, where the party celebrates its landmark victory. "This feels wonderful. The citizens have understood it's time to make a difference. The older politicians have taken apart young peoples' lifestyle, bit by bit. We do not accept that the authorities' mass-surveillance," Falkvinge added.



 




The voter turnout for the elections was 43 percent. Nearly 200,000 people voted for The Pirate Party, way up from its performance in the 2006 Swedish national elections, where it secured 34,918 votes. With their presence in the EU Parliament, the party wants to fight the abuses of power and copyright laws at the hands of the entertainment industries, and make those activities illegal instead. On the other hand they hope to legalize file-sharing for personal (non-commercial) use.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 8, 2009)

Unfortunatley,it may be a case of a small voice,drowned out in a sea of millions of loud voices.Well done to them,but i wonder if they will be able to change anything.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.


----------



## Weer (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.



Arrrr!


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jun 8, 2009)

Thats all I'm gonna say...
People these days:shadedshu


----------



## Triprift (Jun 8, 2009)

Arrr we be in eu Parliament me hardys.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Why create?? Everything I do will be taken from me and given away. Good bye to the professional artist.


----------



## MRCL (Jun 8, 2009)

European Union is fucked anyway, Pirates or not. Lets see how this turns out.

I rather would have seen a party for not banning and censoring games for adults to save the youth.


----------



## jamesrt2004 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why create?? Everything I do will be taken from me and given away. Good bye to the professional artist.



its not just about pirating its about getting rid of shitty things like RIIA...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

MRCL said:


> European Union is fucked anyway, Pirates or not. Lets see how this turns out.
> 
> I rather would have seen a party for not banning and censoring games for adults to save the youth.



You guys have no idea how much this pisses me off as an artist. There is no argument for this.


----------



## Odin Eidolon (Jun 8, 2009)

this scares me quite a bit


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why create?? Everything I do will be taken from me and given away. Good bye to the professional artist.



If you're only creating for monetary compensation, then I would argue you aren't really making any art. And if you're paid for advertising or something, than suck it up and stop complaining. 

Anyway I hope this will actually do some good, perhaps pressure some positive changes to the digital world.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 8, 2009)

Say, mailman, is any of your work on TPB? Or any torrent site for that matter?


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.



Erm the EU allowed it because its democratic. The people elected them so they can't say no because others don't agree with them, although I'm glad they don't have much of a say it would only be negative to companies.


----------



## Paintface (Jun 8, 2009)

good job! democracy that actually works for the people


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

I think you guys are assuming things based on their name the "pirate" party. If you actually look what they are doing, they seem to be the first honest politicians in some time. You guys think this is a battle of artists vs pirates, its not. The publishing companies ever since they havent adapted to the move to digital distribution been simply stalking and suing normal people for all their money. They do it effectively and quietly without letting them get good representation. Artists themselves arent actually making this money, the publishing industry keeps its all for itself.

I for one dont recognize them anymore. They are no longer a business, they instead make a living now solely on suing. The pirate part is for net neutrality and strong privacy. Not letting these companies gang up on you and steal all your money under the guise of artists losing money. 

Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys have no idea how much this pisses me off as an artist. There is no argument for this.



and if you ever got shafted by a record company, or a big corporation you'd be thinking other thoughts.

This is part of a big shakeup - yes, some people will lose out in the meantime. but in the long term, things will get re-organised and sorted out the way the majority wants - and not the way the rich people want.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 8, 2009)

wow. EU politics finally dont seem so boring.
We have a nazi, and we have a pirate LOL.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Jun 8, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> wow. EU politics finally dont seem so boring.
> We have a nazi, and we have a pirate LOL.



What? does the Nazi party still exsist?


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 8, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> What? does the Nazi party still exsist?



Indeed. Just a new name the BNP (British National Party) I believe.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 8, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> What? does the Nazi party still exsist?



Neo nazi. That racist anti-immigration bastard, and National parties in general. 

anyway * To those artists who are only too concerned over their profits. You only get so much of the royalties. And music, and your image and your influence should be your concern, and not your wallet.*

I've seen too many artists turn into crap when they go major. If you make music for the sake of money then forget about it. Its not music.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jun 8, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> What? does the Nazi party still exsist?



Does here in the states. However they are silent the majority of the time.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out...


----------



## Error (Jun 8, 2009)

Hello everybody 
This is one great step towards a more democratic Europe. The idea is great and the only ones who probably won't benefit from the Pirate Party's ideas are the big companies (who already made tons of money, even with the piracy at hand).

For instance: if you're a musician that makes quality music and have ideas about making money from it ... you always can do some concerts/parties, sell vinyls/cds, promoting your work via sharing it freely on the web - i can bet you won't be having any problems 

Let the creativity be the deciding factor ... not money.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2009)

Error said:


> For instance: if you're a musician that makes quality music and have ideas about making money from it ... you always can do some concerts/parties, sell vinyls/cds, promoting your work via sharing it freely on the web - i can bet you won't be having any problems
> 
> Let the creativity be the deciding factor ... not money.



thats my way of seeing things. Sure, SOME ways of life wont work. Sitting on your ass letting your last good song pour in the millions, for example. But you can still make a lot of money even if no one buys the album - radio stations will pay to play it, TV music channels will pay for the video clips. And then theres all the live performances - people can pirate your songs, but they cant copy you so do things that focus on you, not the music.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.



Democracy works or fails... whichever. They were voted by the people not the EU.



DrPepper said:


> Indeed. Just a new name the BNP (British National Party) I believe.



and UKIP - same party different colours.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys have no idea how much this pisses me off as an artist. There is no argument for this.



Agreed, every MP3 downloaded damages the artist for at least $100K. At least we have politicians with half a brain who want to prevent these retarded American lawsuits to exist in the EU. Of course making everything legal is a bit too much. 
Their other (2) ideas are a lot more serious/realistic though. Namely altering the (pharmaceutical) patenting system and protecting our privacy instead giving it up to America's fear of terrorists and whatnot. Considering plenty of politicians believe in fairy tales anyway and base their view of the world on that I don't see the Pirate Party as something bad.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

Error said:


> Hello everybody
> This is one great step towards a more democratic Europe. The idea is great and the only ones who probably won't benefit from the Pirate Party's ideas are the big companies (who already made tons of money, even with the piracy at hand).
> 
> For instance: if you're a musician that makes quality music and have ideas about making money from it ... you always can do some concerts/parties, sell vinyls/cds, promoting your work via sharing it freely on the web - i can bet you won't be having any problems
> ...



I think most have adjusted to this way of doing things in the music world, there as always are some still straggling, and of course they are the ones w/ the most to lose (record companies). Some artists now release albums free of their own volition. Most money is made through touring or commercial licensing. Like I said before, I think this is fantastic for the music industry, much more freedom for the artists and far more diversity for the listening masses. It's spectacular.

The other industries are a bit more difficult. The movie industry needs to lower their prices I think, they are attempting to jack things up too high. They are adjusting though w/ netflix and such streaming, and the new $1 movieboxes here in the US, but they still need a bit better overall prices to avoid piracy. Gaming is tougher, again lower prices will help, but they need more adjustment than any of the the other industries IMO. Almost ironic considering they are the most tech of the bunch.....


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 8, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Agreed, every MP3 downloaded damages the artist for at least $100K.



I'd love to see any proof for anything remotely like this claim.

Assuming one downloaded MP3 means one less album sold (And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there) - Even then we're talking about pennies for the artist himself.

Piracy is wrong, no doubt there, but this claim of yours is completely baseless.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> I'd love to see any proof for anything remotely like this claim.
> 
> Assuming one downloaded MP3 means one less album sold (And I am giving you the benefit of the doubt there) - Even then we're talking about pennies for the artist himself.
> 
> Piracy is wrong, no doubt there, but this claim of yours is completely baseless.



I think he was being sarcastic.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

Referring to illegally downloading a .mp3 file, which could be legally done for ~$5 on gayTunes, and then being sued for thousands of dollars for doing so.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 8, 2009)

ShogoXT said:


> I think he was being sarcastic.



On second reading, I think you're right. 

I should stop reading forums while I code. Never leads to the right conclusions.

Sorry everyone...


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

Same here. Morning at work doesnt help my convey my opinion well.


----------



## mtosev (Jun 8, 2009)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Agreed, every MP3 downloaded damages the artist for at least $100K. At least we have politicians with half a brain who want to prevent these retarded American lawsuits to exist in the EU. Of course making everything legal is a bit too much.
> Their other (2) ideas are a lot more serious/realistic though. Namely altering the (pharmaceutical) patenting system and protecting our privacy instead giving it up to America's fear of terrorists and whatnot. Considering plenty of politicians believe in fairy tales anyway and base their view of the world on that I don't see the Pirate Party as something bad.



thx DAN you made me laguht again.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 8, 2009)

Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.



Right and wrong aside (really personal morality on theft doesn't need to play a part here), there still needs to be workable solutions for companies to receive compensation for works without invading the privacy of the consumers. Much work needs to be done in this, and simply suing isn't going to help things. Like it or not the technology has required adjustment, and adjustments need to be made. Hopefully this party will be able to work towards that goal.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with these people.



Come on, be honest.  Stealing is bad, but it's not like record companies (one example) are "looking out" for artists -- they're looking out for profits.  

How much was it out of the sale of every $20 CD that an artist got in the end?  $1?  $2?


----------



## Breathless (Jun 8, 2009)

Hey Guys, 

I am an artist as well, and personally I would like nothing more than for people to hear my music on a grand scale, passing it around and giving copies to all their friends and family. I want it to be heard because of the message, and my purpose, not solely for making money. 

Please have a listen to my new song "Food For Thought". Please listen to the lyrics, don't just breeze through it. Also, please pass it around! Thanks!


http://www.fileden.com/getfile.php?...m/files/2009/6/8/2470210/Food For Thought.mp3

I did every aspect of this song (rapping, production, everything) except for the beatboxing. 

Breathless


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

You do realise guys that even though the ARTISTS themselves don't get much, the RECORD COMPANIES do. How are record companies going to sign people up when they have no money to pay them? What are they going to pay them with, salt? The record industry gets new artists out there. 

Consider that.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> You do realise guys that even though the ARTISTS themselves don't get much, the RECORD COMPANIES do. How are record companies going to sign people up when they have no money to pay them? What are they going to pay them with, salt? The record industry gets new artists out there.
> 
> Consider that.



The main reason the record companies were needed before is b/c printed mediums were needed to distribute music (vinyl, cds, ect). This is expensive, and one needs a big company to do it and promote it. Now all you need is an internet connection to accomplish the same task. Just look above, 10 years ago Breathless would have had to stand on the concert passing out singles or hope to get a record contract if he/she wanted to go national or international. Now all that's needed is a quick upload and everyone in the world can hear it. There can of course still be advantages of record companies, such as pooling recourses, advertising, and touring advantages, but they are not needed to get the music out there, and the industry is better served by their new found lack of power. They would of course disagree.....


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 8, 2009)

Fact 1.

Did you know that artist typically get paid less than 8% of the sale price of the CD/mp3. Think about where the other 92% is going before you scream about maintaining the status quo in the music distribution industry.

Fact 2.


ShadowFold said:


> Meh I don't feel like arguing. I just think stealing something that someone has made is wrong. How are they gonna make more music/games if they get no money from making it? Are they just suppose to just give it out for free and make another one? In a perfect world maybe, but not the messed up we all live in.



Think about it the other way... perhaps music artists are being stolen from by the music industry. 92%.  And often the contracts with the artists include cost subtractions, like they get 8% only AFTER all marketing and promotion has been paid.

The artist, especially inexperienced ones, get locked into contracts that last a lifetime. The get "legally" stolen from for all the music they write or perform. 

Fact 3.
Most people that argue against the methods and contracts of the various collection agencies such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, RIAA etc... DONT argue against copyright, per se, but about how it should be fairly managed, and if someone does breach copyright, the penalty should be equal to the injury and not 1000x more, like all this RIAA nonsense in the US.

Fact 4.
The music industry is attempting to go down the "licensing" route, just like software. You will not own music you buy, but have the right to listen to it a number of times. That is known to be the next step of what they want to implement. First DRM control, then number of plays control. Just like the same way you pay per minute for using the phone, or per GB for using the internet, or per burger that you eat, so you will pay per minute for listening to music

This method of distribution is  equally valid. Although I for one dont want it. Imagine buying a chair or a bed and you were only allowed to sit down do many times before you had to pay again!

Fact 5.
Consumer rights and civil rights are being constantly eroded. Any party that STANDS against that wins my favour. So long as they stay ethical.


----------



## mikek75 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> and UKIP - same party different colours.



Erm, no they aren't, get your facts straight and read their policies. They are for the withdrawl from the EU which is in no way facist.:shadedshu


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

mikek75 said:


> Erm, no they aren't, get your facts straight and read their policies. They are for the withdrawl from the EU which is in no way facist.:shadedshu



That's why i got my UKIP and BNP fliers through the letter box wrapped in a nice blue elastic band. 

And no they aren't the same, ones just openly racist the other isn't.



farlex85 said:


> The main reason the record companies were needed before is b/c printed mediums were needed to distribute music (vinyl, cds, ect). This is expensive, and one needs a big company to do it and promote it. Now all you need is an internet connection to accomplish the same task. Just look above, 10 years ago Breathless would have had to stand on the concert passing out singles or hope to get a record contract if he/she wanted to go national or international. Now all that's needed is a quick upload and everyone in the world can hear it. There can of course still be advantages of record companies, such as pooling recourses, advertising, and touring advantages, but they are not needed to get the music out there, and the industry is better served by their new found lack of power. They would of course disagree.....



And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.



Uhm, well how Breathless did right there. Or through myspace or various other internet tools, I'm not sure why I need to answer that. They don't _need_ companies to promote them anymore, they need people to. Record companies can still aid in various aspects as I said, but their importance is greatly reduced, and hopefully this will lead to them having less power to take advantage of consumers and artists alike.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

Thats what im saying. Barely any money is going to these artists anyways. The record companies are getting it all. Now they are getting pissy because of digital distribution and blame pirates for their sales. People dont want to buy their crappy expensive disks, they need to get with the program.

EDIT: Or better yet i wouldnt mind if some of those record companies just disappeared. Nobody wants/needs them anymore.


----------



## Breathless (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> And how are they going to find this new music on the interwebs? Artists need the companies to promote them.



I think that if anyone decides/bothers to listen to my song they will see why I would likely not _need_ a record company to promote my stuff. Good quality music with a good message that wasn't thrown together in a half hour, that actually took skill to make and is inspirational spreads like gangrene.


----------



## mikek75 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> That's why i got my UKIP and BNP fliers through the letter box wrapped in a nice blue elastic band.
> 
> And no they aren't the same, ones just openly racist the other isn't.
> 
> ...


Probably the person paid to deliver them being lazy, who knows. But they are not the same, not by a long way.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Ok the only argument I hear in this thread is yall think the record companies make to much. Thats not an argument. I think car dealers make to much. Should I steal their cars? No of course not. Artists not only need channels for distribution but a way of producing it. Who do you think pays for the studio time? You think thats free? There are so many variables to this its mind boggling.

Most artist are for organizations like the RIIA to protect their work. Intellectual property is in fact PROPERTY and its not something that can be protected by junk yard dogs or high fences. This is why the RIIA exists. To protect investments. So you bastards keep stealing and keep using semantics to sway the argument in your favor. The fact remains if you take something for sale and do not pay for it you are in fact a THEIF.

As for these Pirates being elected I have one word for you. Bush.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 8, 2009)

Just proves that ninjas are not as cool as pirates!


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok the only argument I hear in this thread is yall think the record companies make to much. Thats not an argument. I think car dealers make to much. Should I steal their cars? No of course not. Artists not only need channels for distribution but a way of producing it. Who do you think pays for the studio time? You think thats free? There are so many variables to this its mind boggling.
> 
> Most artist are for organizations like the RIIA to protect their work. Intellectual property is in fact PROPERTY and its not something that can be protected by junk yard dogs or high fences. This is why the RIIA exists. To protect investments. So you bastards keep stealing and keep using semantics to sway the argument in your favor. The fact remains if you take something for sale and do not pay for it you are in fact a THEIF.
> 
> As for these Pirates being elected I have one word for you. Bush.



That isn't by a long shot the only argument being made, nor is your analogy comparable. One no longer needs a professional studio to make music, nor do you need a record company to buy studio time, but yes there are many variables. We can keep discussing the morality of it but IMO the real thing here is and I repeat



farlex85 said:


> Right and wrong aside (really personal morality on theft doesn't need to play a part here), there still needs to be workable solutions for companies to receive compensation for works without invading the privacy of the consumers. Much work needs to be done in this, and simply suing isn't going to help things. Like it or not the technology has required adjustment, and adjustments need to be made. Hopefully this party will be able to work towards that goal.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

Plus, the Pirate party isnt trying to destroy everything. They are just pushing for stronger privacy for us and possible copyright and patent reform.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> That isn't by a long shot the only argument being made, nor is your analogy comparable. One no longer needs a professional studio to make music, nor do you need a record company to buy studio time, but yes there are many variables. We can keep discussing the morality of it but IMO the real thing here is and I repeat



Why is my analogy not comparable? Because cars are tangible? As for not needing a professional studio to create music fine. But file sharing networks (Pirate Bay) are not the answer. Paid distribution is the only viable answer.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't mind buying a .99 cent song from Amazon, I will not however stand to be told I can only have my music on approved devices, burn a CD twice, and have it on three PC's.


I have systems at multiple stores, a laptop, my home PC's and multiple MP3 players for me the wife and in the car. So the RIAA, and anyone else who tries to tell me I need to buy another copy can go fark themselves.


As far as the "artist", paint me a picture. When the floozies like Britney Speers can write her own tunes, play an instrument, and sing I will consider them something, but for now they are a meat popcicle.


All the bands I listen to have been around for awhile, or have made music and gotten famous from getting gigs and playing, on the internet or by friends mentioning them. I have as of yet to really hear a song on a clearchannel owned station that i considered worth buying.


Remove the problem with music, and that problem is a bunch of money grubbing whores deciding what can and cannot be done with legally purchased music, what will and will not make it onto a CD, what will and will not make it to the radio stations, and what will and will not be sung.


I for one am against a company that would like my camcorder to stop recording when I have the TV, radio, CD, comptuer or any other device on that could contain a copyrighted song or media on and within distance, and against a company that forces users to purchase new and different hardware to allow them to use the media they have purchased, against companies who remove internet videos as you could possibly hear a song in the background that they don't want you to hear from a CD that you may or may not own, while the video is about something that may or may not anything to do with the protected media in question.



If they can afford to pay people to go through youtube videos and make sure we aren't able to record a background noise song from a video, they are making too much and need to be takedn down a few .


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Steevo said:


> I don't mind buying a .99 cent song from Amazon, I will not however stand to be told I can only have my music on approved devices, burn a CD twice, and have it on three PC's.
> 
> 
> I have systems at multiple stores, a laptop, my home PC's and multiple MP3 players for me the wife and in the car. So the RIAA, and anyone else who tries to tell me I need to buy another copy can go fark themselves.
> ...



Well then you wont mind having a song you sang being played at a Al-qaeda beheading then would you? I mean we are not questioning right or wrong anymore so why not?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Why is my analogy not comparable? Because cars are tangible? As for not needing a professional studio to create music fine. But file sharing networks (Pirate Bay) are not the answer. Paid distribution is the only viable answer.



Totally different industries with different rules and different competitions, and yes, different levels of tangibility.

File sharing is here to stay. The sooner the industry accepts it the better. There is no viable way to eliminate them and still keep personal freedom at the level most of us desire to have it. If you are so violated then stop creating. Others will continue to find new ways to do so.


----------



## Zehnsucht (Jun 8, 2009)

Hellz YEAH! I voted on them! (Swedish citizenship)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Totally different industries with different rules and different competitions, and yes, different levels of tangibility.
> 
> File sharing is here to stay. The sooner the industry accepts it the better. There is no viable way to eliminate them and still keep personal freedom at the level most of us desire to have it.



Well then anything that isnt tangible should be free then huh? How about your credit? Thats not tangible. Property is property. No matter what industry.


----------



## Demon_82 (Jun 8, 2009)

Most of the artists that are so defensive with copyrights, at least in Spain, are artists that haven't been able to do a single new song for more than 10 years, and only live from the past records. If I'm forced to work every day, they should also work at least every now and then and do something new. Or I should get paid while evey computer I've made or repaired is still being used a small fee based on their uptime. Until then, I'm happy to see the Pirate Party there, to raise a voice against that so called artists.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well then anything that isnt tangible should be free then huh? How about your credit? Thats not tangible. Property is property. No matter what industry.



We have already gone down this path and need not tread the same ground with the same arguments. Credit is not at all the same thing, nor is it your property (your credit score belongs to lending institutions who use it to assess you). Really though, my thoughts on the tangibility of intellectual property are of no consequence, at least not yet. What is now of consequence is better systems of file-sharing and personal privacy to appease all. You have to work with what you have and be flexible, or you will break.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Demon_82 said:


> Most of the artists that are so defensive with copyrights, at least in Spain, are artists that haven't been able to do a single new song for more than 10 years, and only live from the past records. If I'm forced to work every day, they should also work at least every now and then and do something new. Or I should get paid while evey computer I've made or repaired is still being used a small fee based on their uptime. Until then, I'm happy to see the Pirate Party there, to raise a voice against that so called artists.



Ah yes Socialism we meet again....:shadedshu "if I have to work then they should too! Its not FAIR they did something before me and have a right to the money it brings. We should all be financially equal. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"



farlex85 said:


> We have already gone down this path and need not tread the same ground with the same arguments. Credit is not at all the same thing, nor is it your property (your credit score belongs to lending institutions who use it to assess you). Really though, my thoughts on the tangibility of intellectual property are of no consequence, at least not yet. What is now of consequence is better systems of file-sharing and personal privacy to appease all. You have to work with what you have and be flexible, or you will break.


 It is the same thing. Your credit score has a direct effect on your life. Some have it good. Some bad. But it is yours and you must protect it. Whats at consequence is the quality of every artists life. Weather they make a million bucks or .1 cent per song is up to the consumer. You take this away by making whatever they do free you open a door to pandoras box. Services of any kind will come into question.


----------



## Easo (Jun 8, 2009)

Hail, hail, HAIL!!!
P.S.
YAARRR!!!! 
Mailman, take it easy, they wont make everything for free, dont worry...


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Easo said:


> Hail, hail, HAIL!!!
> P.S.
> YAARRR!!!!
> Mailman, take it easy, they wont make everything for free, dont worry...



If you guys have been ripped off like I have you wouldn't be all for the Pirates. I'm calm man. You guys just do not have a concept what this could open the door too.


----------



## AnnCore (Jun 8, 2009)

*The reality of things...*

As far as digital content (just mp3s) is concerned, I'm willing to pay any artist I listen to and appreciate, the money it took them to produce their music and the money they need to live a decent life. I'll pay for the bandwidth it takes to get it on my mp3 player (I do already anyways).

I'll buy a CD if I like the music. I'll pay what it took a company to produce/fabricate the CD, transport the CD, etc but I don't like the idea of fattening some CEO wallets who have nothing to do with music. And again, I think the artist should make a decent living on the music. As long as they make good music, they'll have no problems making a good honest living.

I'll go to a concert, and I'll buy a shirt of their concert tour if I appreciate their music enough (just did a Limp Bizkit concert at an open-air festival and bought a shirt).

As far as I'm concerned, if I don't like someone's music, I won't buy their CD - ever. If an artist gave me his/her/their music for free to download, and I didn't like it - I wouldn't keep it on my mp3 player even "they" paid me to keep it. I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it to my friends. However, if I did hear something I liked, I'd seriously consider paying an artist for his music. The chances of me hearing something on the radio, MTV or in a CD shop are almost nil. Downloading music should be used like promotional material. 

Let people listen to mp3s (low quality) for free and a limited time (if people don't like it they'll deleted it in a very limited amount of time on their own!) and ask money for higher quality mp3s (which I think most people will want if they like something enough) and other media content. If artists wanna sue pirates for sharing the higher quality mp3 then fine because you're taking away from their livelihood. I definitely don't think people should pirate music to make profits off them with illegal copies etc.

Same thing goes for movies. People will pay a reasonable price for high quality media. I'll buy a DVD of a movie even if I have the same thing as an avi.

Artists need to harness the power of the internet. The truth is that the internet is their best friend, as it's the only medium that will give them an honest chance at making it "big". If you're good, you'll make it and you'll make it big. People will talk about you and people will support you (Susan Boyle anyone?). With a music company, you have a 1% chance of making it IMHO, even if you have great music. Again, why didn't we discover Susan Boyle before? What were record companies doing besides counting their money? Obviously not listening to Susan Boyle.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, looks like the pirates are in trouble again.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore: where the hell have you been hiding? a staff member ive never heard of?


I agree with our ninja staff member, i've downloaded movies in .avi, and gone and bought them on DVD the next day. my housemate does the same with Bluray.

The market is over-saturated with piles and piles of crap, and it can be very difficult to return a product if you dont like, since there is no 'try before you buy' option. what do people do? they find their own trial method, they download it.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore said:


> Artists need to harness the power of the internet. The truth is that the internet is their best friend, as it's the only medium that will give them an honest chance at making it "big". If you're good, you'll make it and you'll make it big. People will talk about you and people will support you (Susan Boyle anyone?). With a music company, you have a 1% chance of making it IMHO, even if you have great music. Again, why didn't we discover Susan Boyle before? What were record companies doing besides counting their money? Obviously not listening to Susan Boyle.



Yes they do - and artist need someone out there being paid to scream from the roof tops. And boyle was a pathetic excuse, that sorry excuse for an artist did nothing (NOTHING) to even get anywhere. In reality the X Factor was the record company that promoted her.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree AnnCore. Mailman, what band do you belong to or where have I heard your music before?

Also Viva La Revolution! (in french)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Yes they do - and artist need someone out there being paid to scream from the roof tops. And boyle was a pathetic excuse, that sorry excuse for an artist did nothing (NOTHING) to even get anywhere. In reality the X Factor was the record company that promoted her.



Admit it WhiteLotus. You'd do Boyle in the pooper. If nothing else but for the fame.



WarEagleAU said:


> I agree AnnCore. Mailman, what band do you belong to or where have I heard your music before?
> 
> Also Viva La Revolution! (in french)



I'm not a musician.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well then you wont mind having a song you sang being played at a Al-qaeda beheading then would you? I mean we are not questioning right or wrong anymore so why not?



They are free to play whatever they like. And if they would like to use a song i have sung and post it o youtube at a starbucks while playing mahjong, go ahead. No different than the psyhco killers we have here in waiting, playing mahjong, surfing youtube, taking guns to class.


Wait, we should force them to ban machete's so there will no beheadings, we will spoil their fun!!!!! Hell to prevent internet downloads, we should abolish the internet. And get rid of tapes and radio while we are at it. What will be right is what we will be served at the community dining hall for food and drink and the community music listening room comrade. 



How do I question right and wrong again? As i want waht i paid for, shame on me.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Admit it WhiteLotus. You'd do Boyle in the pooper. If nothing else but for the fame.




GOOD GOD MAN HAVE YOU NO SHAME!?!!!!!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> GOOD GOD MAN HAVE YOU NO SHAME!?!!!!!



None.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Admit it WhiteLotus. You'd do Boyle in the pooper. If nothing else but for the fame.



She is more than a double bagger.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Steevo said:


> She is more than a double bagger.



Naaaa thats something you relish in the beauty of. Its not often you get to bareback something that would make a maggot vomit.


----------



## erocker (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If you guys have been ripped off like I have you wouldn't be all for the Pirates. I'm calm man. You guys just do not have a concept what this could open the door too.



I do!  Suing an entire political party for copyright infringement!  They have much more money than your basic torrent whore.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

erocker said:


> I do!  Suing an entire political party for copyright infringement!  They have much more money than your basic torrent whore.



Now your talkin! Thats some American thinking right there. Where do I sign up?


----------



## AnnCore (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Naaaa thats something you relish in the beauty of. Its not often you get to bareback something that would make a maggot vomit.



Exactly. No record company would promote "that" but after 60 million something hits on YouTube, record companies know exactly how to do the math. 

Btw, if you're not a musician, what are you?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore said:


> Exactly. No record company would promote "that" but after 60 million something hits on YouTube, record companies know exactly how to do the math.
> 
> Btw, if you're not a musician, what are you?



"Fine artist" turned pro.


----------



## AnnCore (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> "Fine artist" turned pro.



Which means you're no longer fine?

I'll repeat my question in the hopes your next answer will be less obscure.

Most sincerely.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 8, 2009)

Why do I always here the arguement "I hate fattening the wallets of CEO's" That has no substence at all. In fact go to a communist country if your jelous of people who found a way to make more money than you. I'm sure as hell jelous of CEO's of big companies for making more money. I'm also envious of their position but I know if I had the right attitude I or most of us could reach such a status.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore said:


> Which means you're no longer fine?
> 
> I'll repeat my question in the hopes your next answer will be less obscure.
> 
> Most sincerely.



I used to paint and illustrate in the classic styles. Now I do it commercially. I'm an artistic prostitute you could say.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It is the same thing. Your credit score has a direct effect on your life. Some have it good. Some bad. But it is yours and you must protect it. Whats at consequence is the quality of every artists life. Weather they make a million bucks or .1 cent per song is up to the consumer. You take this away by making whatever they do free you open a door to pandoras box. Services of any kind will come into question.



Your credit score is not something you own. It isn't something that you can buy, sell, nor directly control. It is there whether you like it or not and you can only effect it through indirect means. You can't even look at it w/o paying for it. It is not even remotely the same thing other than it cannot be touched (1 definition of tangible). 

Nor does it follow that all services will fly out the window or that artists (poor artists) need to suffer. If services are still valuable, they will be continued to be paid for. This a natural evolution you see, it is the record companies services that are no longer needed, not the artists. They can still make money in various other methods, such as concerts or commercial licensing. How do you reasonably expect for all file-sharing to be brought down w/o invading personal liberty or seriously hindering technology? How can you expect simply saying, bad boy stop stealing and the occasional chance to say it in court will actually have any consequence on the system as a whole? CD's and the like didn't exist before the last century, nor did record companies. They had a good run, now their time has come to find other ways to thrive, cuz selling CDs just isn't needed.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I used to paint and illustrate in the classic styles. Now I do it commercially. I'm an artistic prostitute you could say.



And as an artistic prostitute you are paid for your services. Do you own your paintings? Or does the company you work for? As such who makes money when your art works for the company? You? If you were a true prostitute you would have a set price no matter who benefits most from the fornicating. Who really gets screwed? 



DrPepper said:


> Why do I always here the arguement "I hate fattening the wallets of CEO's" That has no substence at all. In fact go to a communist country if your jelous of people who found a way to make more money than you. I'm sure as hell jelous of CEO's of big companies for making more money. I'm also envious of their position but I know if I had the right attitude I or most of us could reach such a status.



Healthy optimism, it will be squashed as you see more of the business world. Being a CEO isn't a bad thing, however there are many who foolishly squander recourses of many w/o having done anything valuable to earn the right to do it. Having control over others is a huge responsibility, not something people who simply have the "right attitude" can handle.


----------



## AnnCore (Jun 8, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Why do I always here the arguement "I hate fattening the wallets of CEO's" That has no substence at all. In fact go to a communist country if your jelous of people who found a way to make more money than you. I'm sure as hell jelous of CEO's of big companies for making more money. I'm also envious of their position but I know if I had the right attitude I or most of us could reach such a status.



I'm not jealous. I think it's morally wrong. 

Ever hear of making an honest living? I'm sure you have and I'm almost sure you probably make one and would be somewhat pissed if your boss was being payed obscene amounts of money because you're the one with the bright ideas and you're the one that does all the work. 

The Mailman78, nice. I hope you enjoy what you do for a living. It's a pity not more people can enjoy themselves making a living.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore said:


> I'm not jealous. I think it's morally wrong.
> 
> Ever hear of making an honest living? I'm sure you have and I'm almost sure you probably make one and would be somewhat pissed if your boss was being payed obscene amounts of money because you're the one with the bright ideas and you're the one that does all the work.
> 
> The Mailman78, nice. I hope you enjoy what you do for a living. It's a pity not more people can enjoy themselves making a living.



I've not got a job atm going to the navy soon and I am jelous that some guys are doing nothing yet earning millions but even if I didn't get paid I'd still work in the armed forces because it is a passion.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 8, 2009)

im shocked i understand the artist view but lol i think its awsome at the same time. thart would never hapen here lol haahha


----------



## erocker (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Your credit score is not something you own. It isn't something that you can buy, sell, nor directly control. It is there whether you like it or not and you can only effect it through indirect means. You can't even look at it w/o paying for it. It is not even remotely the same thing other than it cannot be touched (1 definition of tangible).
> 
> Nor does it follow that all services will fly out the window or that artists (poor artists) need to suffer. If services are still valuable, they will be continued to be paid for. This a natural evolution you see, it is the record companies services that are no longer needed, not the artists. They can still make money in various other methods, such as concerts or commercial licensing. How do you reasonably expect for all file-sharing to be brought down w/o invading personal liberty or seriously hindering technology? How can you expect simply saying, bad boy stop stealing and the occasional chance to say it in court will actually have any consequence on the system as a whole? CD's and the like didn't exist before the last century, nor did record companies. They had a good run, now their time has come to find other ways to thrive, cuz selling CDs just isn't needed.
> 
> ...



So what is your stance on this?  It's ok to steal from others?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

erocker said:


> So what is your stance on this?  It's ok to steal from others?



No his stance is make it legal to steal that way no one is a thief. Next up.....rape.


----------



## AnnCore (Jun 8, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I've not got a job atm going to the navy soon and I am jelous that some guys are doing nothing yet earning millions but even if I didn't get paid I'd still work in the armed forces because it is a passion.



Power to you. I truly believe that people who make a difference in the world don't get enough credit or money.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well then anything that isnt tangible should be free then huh?



Whether you like it or not, welcome to the future.  :shadedshu




farlex85 said:


> Your credit score is not something you own. It isn't something that you can buy, sell, nor directly control. It is there whether you like it or not and you can only effect it through indirect means. You can't even look at it w/o paying for it. It is not even remotely the same thing other than it cannot be touched (1 definition of tangible).



Actually, in America, the credit companies have deemed in their _infinite_ wisdom and mercy to allow consumers to peek at their credit information for free, but only once each solar cycle.

(No, actually they're required to do it by law, thanks to the The Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003.  Figures.)


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

erocker said:


> So what is your stance on this?  It's ok to steal from others?



No, it is not. My stance on this particular thread subject is that I hope it will be a positive force in revising and contributiong to the improvement of digital trade so that there will be some sort of solution in which theft goes down, companies continue to earn profits, and consumers' privacy is not invaded. They will likely at least advocate the last one, which with some compromises will hopefully eventually lead to some harmonious solution with the former 2.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> No, it is not. My stance on this particular thread subject is that I hope it will be a positive force in revising and contributiong to the improvement of digital trade so that there will be some sort of solution in which theft goes down, companies continue to earn profits, and consumers' privacy is not invaded. They will likely at least advocate the last one, which with some compromises will hopefully eventually lead to some harmonious solution with the former 2.



More than likely, we're all going to be paying monthly fees in the future for unlimited access to everything, whether we actually access it or not.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Whether you like it or not, welcome to the future.  :shadedshu
> 
> 
> Actually, in America, the credit companies have deemed in their _infinite_ wisdom and mercy to allow consumers to peek at their credit information for free, but only once each solar cycle.
> ...



Yes you can look at your _report_ for free once per year. Your actual numeric score you still have to pay for though. However there are some nifty ways to get that too for free, once every 6 months you can use this site: www.quizzle.com



mdm-adph said:


> More than likely, we're all going to be paying monthly fees in the future for unlimited access to everything, whether we actually access it or not.



Yeah, and I can live with that. That seems to be one of the better solutions come up with so far. For instance just make TPB a paid subscription site. You still share but now TPB pays artists and games and such for putting them on there. Better dl speeds probably.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Remember guys this party isn't called the "Artist empowerment movement" Its called the Pirate party. By thief's for thief's. Don't try an sugar coat it damn it.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember guys this party isn't called the "Artist empowerment movement" Its called the Pirate party. By thief's for thief's. Don't try an sugar coat it damn it.



It's true the name is a rather poor choice I think. I imagine they did that so as to gain instant recognition, unfortunately that recognition will likely often be negative, as pirates are by definition thieves. Their cause is not a bad one though, at least not according to their reported objectives (privacy).


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Yeah, and I can live with that. That seems to be one of the better solutions come up with so far. For instance just make TPB a paid subscription site. You still share but now TPB pays artists and games and such for putting them on there. Better dl speeds probably.



Honestly, I could live with it too, if only so big companies would stop suing the shit out of everyone in existence over licensing/pirating/sharing matters.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember guys this party isn't called the "Artist empowerment movement" Its called the Pirate party. By thief's for thief's. Don't try an sugar coat it damn it.



Look, I'll agree with you -- it's a stupid name, and needs to change.  But it isn't the shadowy worldwide thieving organization you're making it out to be, either.


----------



## laszlo (Jun 8, 2009)

guys you're arguing too much and in vain

better drink a cold beer and listen the pirated or non-pirated music and relax


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

laszlo said:


> guys you're arguing too much and in vain
> 
> better drink a cold beer and listen the pirated or non-pirated music and relax



Without debate there can be no compromise. Without compromise there can be no peace. Still though, music, relaxing, and drinking can go hand in hand with debating. In fact, I think it should be required for all members of parliament to drink beer and play Mozart in the background........


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

I have an idea. Its a crazy one. How about we pay for the stuff we want. Instead we are changing the moral landscape to justify our gluttony. Its sad we are to the point we glorify even elect thieves.......well ones that are open to the idea publicly. 



laszlo said:


> guys you're arguing too much and in vain
> 
> better drink a cold beer and listen the pirated or non-pirated music and relax



Dude we are just tech junkies that barely have the power to change our underwear. This "debate" is all in good fun.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 8, 2009)

I still don't understand how stealing movies, games and music is "moral" or whatever you're saying. What's ok with stealing?


----------



## laszlo (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Without debate there can be no compromise. Without compromise there can be no peace. Still though, music, relaxing, and drinking can go hand in hand with debating. In fact, I think it should be required for all members of parliament to drink beer and play Mozart in the background........




believe me you won't see any compromise on this matter


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Some things never change my friend. One thing is for sure. Whatever is decided the artist will suffer. That never changes. I just don't want to have a new slave owner. I know this ones moods all to well.



ShadowFold said:


> I still don't understand how stealing movies, games and music is "moral" or whatever you're saying. What's ok with stealing?



Nothing unless you rewrite what's wrong and right.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I have an idea. Its a crazy one. How about we pay for the stuff we want. Instead we are changing the moral landscape to justify our gluttony.



I want air.  Should I have to pay for that?  

"Information" is quickly become as ubiquitous as the aforementioned air -- you can't regulate it, you can't control it -- you can't charge people for it on a piecemeal basis, as the old way was.  ("Information" being anything you can't hold in your hands.  Anything in the digital world qualifies as this.)

I'm not saying everything should be free, but the old price systems are beyond dead.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Some things never change my friend. One thing is for sure. Whatever is decided the artist will suffer. That never changes. I just don't want to have a new slave owner. I know this ones moods all to well.



I know what you mean -- in the end, nothing for the artist will really change (but perhaps he/she will have more control over what they create).

However, you really need to reexamine your idea of "suffering."  YMMV, but I don't create art for money -- I do it for the love of creating art.  (When I decide to do something artistic.)  If you're only an artist for the money, perhaps you need to look deep within yourself and ask yourself is that really what you want to be doing?


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I still don't understand how stealing movies, games and music is "moral" or whatever you're saying. What's ok with stealing?



Legally nothing.  



TheMailMan78 said:


> Some things never change my friend. One thing is for sure. Whatever is decided the artist will suffer. That never changes. I just don't want to have a new slave owner. I know this ones moods all to well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unless you rewrite what's wrong and right.



Artists will/have flourished with the internet. It's amazing all the wonderful art you can find so quickly. 



laszlo said:


> believe me you won't see any compromise on this matter



I know, some people are more receptive than others. Compromises unfortunately have to sometimes be forced, and those unwilling to bend are, as I said, broken. There is always room in the middle.


----------



## Shadin (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Some things never change my friend. One thing is for sure. Whatever is decided the artist will suffer. That never changes. I just don't want to have a new slave owner. I know this ones moods all to well.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unless you rewrite what's wrong and right.



This is just awful.  Now record executives might have to stop buying private jets and owning multi-million dollar mansions in order to make ends meet.  Maybe they'll even have to stop putting artists into a medieval form of indentured servitude as well.

If you think anything about the RIAA or MPAA is pro-artist, then you are sadly, sadly mistaken.  Socking it to those executives is the best thing for artists and consumers.


----------



## laszlo (Jun 8, 2009)

all these problem will disappear when humanity won't work and live to accumulate fortune and everyone will have free access to everything so basically the money will be mentioned in history books like the worst thing invented by homo sapiens... but we won't live enough to see it .. even our children kids won't  so we're doomed to live and accept all what's going on now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Shadin said:


> This is just awful.  Now record executives might have to stop buying private jets and owning multi-million dollar mansions in order to make ends meet.  Maybe they'll even have to stop putting artists into a medieval form of indentured servitude as well.
> 
> If you think anything about the RIAA or MPAA is pro-artist, then you are sadly, sadly mistaken.  Socking it to those executives is the best thing for artists and consumers.



 If you only knew about the industry I work it. Musicians have it easy. I would kill to have something like the RIAA or MPAA.



laszlo said:


> all these problem will disappear when humanity won't work and live to accumulate fortune and everyone will have free access to everything so basically the money will be mentioned in history books like the worst thing invented by homo sapiens... but we won't live enough to see it .. even our children kids won't  so we're doomed to live and accept all what's going on now.



La, La, La, La, Elmos world.


----------



## Disparia (Jun 8, 2009)

Whether true or not, it is a goal (the Star Trek life) that I'd like to shoot for


----------



## Shadin (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If you only knew about the industry I work it. Musicians have it easy. I would kill to have something like the RIAA or MPAA.



I'm an art major myself with specializations in photography and drawing mediums (mostly graphite and charcoal).  First off, the goals of this group don't really apply to those of us who work in physical mediums because with the exception of photography there's just not a lot of widespread digital distribution to the masses the way there is for music and movies.  Second off, if you don't love what you do enough to not worry about this, then probably want to find something else to do.  

And if you think musicians have it easy because of the RIAA, then you've read nothing in depth about the matter, and you don't know anyone trying to work in the music business.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Shadin said:


> I'm an art major myself with specializations in photography and drawing mediums (mostly graphite and charcoal).  First off, the goals of this group don't really apply to those of us who work in physical mediums because with the exception of photography there's just not a lot of widespread digital distribution to the masses the way there is for music and movies.  Second off, if you don't love what you do enough to not worry about this, then probably want to find something else to do.
> 
> And if you think musicians have it easy because of the RIAA, then you've read nothing in depth about the matter, and you don't know anyone trying to work in the music business.



Glad to hear it from an "art major". When you get the water from behind your ears come back and talk to me in 10 years.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 8, 2009)

im very intrested in seeing how this pans out. this is deffinetely a very intresting move and the things that are going or are going to be tried to change should prove an intresting feat. i congradulate them in getting a chair though.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

Every computer breaks copyright laws millions/billions of times a second.  Copyright laws only make sense when dealing with non-digitized data.  I'm glad they succeeded but there needs to be a whole lot more where that came from.


----------



## Shadin (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Glad to hear it from an "art major". When you get the water from behind your ears come back and talk to me in 10 years.



Whatever, I've been out of school for over ten years now, and have three close friends that created an upstart label working in the music industry themselves that I see first hand how antiquated the RIAA companies are and how their model is anti-artist and too top-heavy to continue existing in a digital era.

But since you're obviously not interested in researching your knee-jerk reactions, go back to worrying about how the Swedes are going to relentlessly pirate your "commercial paintings" on torrent sites.  Like I said, the vast majority of this shit doesn't apply to those of us working in physical mediums.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Every computer breaks copyright laws millions/billions of times a second.  Copyright laws only make sense when dealing with non-digitized data.  I'm glad they succeeded but there needs to be a whole lot more where that came from.



i think that their intelligent enough to realize that the changing or rewriting of laws is more important and worthwhile than making torrents legal or something. im confident that their not their to try and pass or push mediocre or rediculous laws and regulations.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> im very intrested in seeing how this pans out. this is deffinetely a very intresting move and the things that are going or are going to be tried to change should prove an intresting feat. i congradulate them in getting a chair though.



F$%king Solaris is back!


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> F$%king Solaris is back!



it will be on and off but more frequent and rest assured i am on the road to return


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> it will be on and off but more frequent and rest assured i am on the road to return



Thats what I'm talking about. Its been tough holdin' these bitches in check.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> i think that their intelligent enough to realize that the changing or rewriting of laws is more important and worthwhile than making torrents legal or something. im confident that their not their to try and pass or push mediocre or rediculous laws and regulations.


I need only cite DMCA to prove that inaccurate.  DMCA was authored with only lobbying RIAA and MPAA in mind.  Some exceptions were added for libraries but the act effectively took away most consumer rights (even to backing up media).  There's not enough intelligence in political circles; the dollar sign makes all their decisions for them.

It will be a very long time before the laws in regards to digital copyright favor the consumer.  This is only the first step in a very long journey.


By the way, Torrents are legal and so is all forms of peer to peer networking.  The only thing that can be labeled illicit is the content shared.  RIAA succeeded in the past in convincing a court that peer to peer has no use besides illicit activities; the only reason the RIAA won is because they got far more money than the developers of P2P technology (basically keep counter suing until the developer goes bankrupt).


Edit: Oh, by the way, current Vice President Biden played a critical role in making sure DMCA happened.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

erocker said:


> So what is your stance on this?  It's ok to steal from others?



My stance is it's not OK to steal from consumers. 

It's not OK for a record company for force someone to buy a crappy album (with little or no idea about how crappy the rest of the album is other than one or two 'star' singles, with major reviewers (so called "subjective analysts") on recoding companies' payrolls, and then be restricted from doing anything but playing it or using it as a coffee-mug coaster. 

It's not OK for a record company to dictate how people should consume content they paid for.

Television and radio are mass-media. Once a song/video is broadcast from the broadcaster, it's gone. There should end the recording companies' liabilities over the content. Consumers shouldn't be told not to add a 'copyrighted' piece of content from YouTube videos, if it's coming from a TV or radio recording. 

There's no way you can call TV or Radio recording illegal. Doing so is blatant theft. For the logic stated above.

Penal codes around the world suck. So he illegally downloaded a .mp3 (worth 99c on Amazon), and is made to pay >10 times the amount as fine? Appalling. This is exactly what TPP is out to set right...cash-rich recoding companies with their shitty contracted artists robbing the masses blind.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 8, 2009)

^ talk about hitting the nail on the head, nicely said btar


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I need only cite DMCA to prove that inaccurate.  DMCA was authored with only lobbying RIAA and MPAA in mind.  Some exceptions were added for libraries but the act effectively took away most consumer rights (even to backing up media).  There's not enough intelligence in political circles; the dollar sign makes all their decisions for them.
> 
> It will be a very long time before the laws in regards to digital copyright favor the consumer.  This is only the first step in a very long journey.
> 
> ...



its the beggining yes but atleast it has started. im not arguing that regulations on stealing games or w/e is wrong but i dont see how im wrong either if i have 2 laptops and a desktop i want to copy burn and move all the songs i want. if i want to rip a dvd i will. if i want a player that will play the burned backups because i dont trust my bestfriends little siswter enough to bring over the legit copy i better be able to do that. stealing something from sombody is wrong.....limiting what someone can do with a physical let me reitterate PHYSICAL peice of property they own...is also wrong.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

btarunr said:


> My stance is it's not OK to steal from consumers.
> 
> It's not OK for a record company for force someone to buy a crappy album (with little or no idea about how crappy the rest of the album is other than one or two 'star' singles, with major reviewers (so called "subjective analysts") on recoding companies' payrolls, and then be restricted from doing anything but playing it or using it as a coffee-mug coaster.
> 
> ...



One hole in your argument. No one forces you to buy anything.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> One hole in your argument. No one forces you to buy anything.


If they win a lawsuit against you, the court forces you to pay.  No, you're not "buying" anything.  Just getting smacked with buying a private jet for BMG, Sony, EA, Universal, or what have you.

The exorbitant fines are a sign of the archaic copyright laws in place.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 8, 2009)

For example - I was accused of downloading a pirate copy of Call of Juarez - the RRP of that game is around £7. The company wanted £565. How can that be called logical?


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> One hole in your argument. No one forces you to buy anything.



One in yours too. As content provider (or better still, service provider, or content 'manufacturer', whichever way you look at it), you can't rip off people. 

Make one or two attractive songs, fill the rest of the CD with crap, and selling 10 songs (because only the entire album is marketed, not the hit single), is ripping off. Especially for those who don't use digital downloads, and believe in having a hard-copy of everything they buy.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If you only knew about the industry I work it. Musicians have it easy. I would kill to have something like the RIAA or MPAA.



You do realize you're basically wishing for a union, right?    Never thought I hear you'd say it.  

That's pretty much what the RIAA and MPAA are.  



FordGT90Concept said:


> I need only cite DMCA to prove that inaccurate.  DMCA was authored with only lobbying RIAA and MPAA in mind.  Some exceptions were added for libraries but the act effectively took away most consumer rights (even to backing up media).  There's not enough intelligence in political circles; the dollar sign makes all their decisions for them.
> 
> It will be a very long time before the laws in regards to digital copyright favor the consumer.  This is only the first step in a very long journey.
> 
> ...



And Clinton signed it into law.  When it comes to digital rights, both parties in the US screw people over.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If they win a lawsuit against you, the court forces you to pay.  No, you're not "buying" anything.  Just getting smacked with buying a private jet for BMG, Sony, EA, Universal, or what have you.
> 
> The exorbitant fines are a sign of the archaic copyright laws in place.


 Um what they do with their money is their business.



kyle2020 said:


> For example - I was accused of downloading a pirate copy of Call of Juarez - the RRP of that game is around £7. The company wanted £565. How can that be called logical?


 Well if you did it then yeah. They should be able to fine you also. However if you didn't do it you have a case against them. You cant dissolve an institution for making false accusations. You can correct or punish them however. Everyone makes mistakes.



btarunr said:


> One in yours too. As content provider (or better still, service provider, or content 'manufacturer', whichever way you look at it), you can't rip off people.
> 
> Make one or two attractive songs, fill the rest of the CD with crap, and selling 10 songs (because only the entire album is marketed, not the hit single), is ripping off. Especially for those who don't use digital downloads, and believe in having a hard-copy of everything they buy.


 How is it ripping off? Maybe Ill like the songs you don't. Just because you dont like something does not give you the right to steal what you want.



mdm-adph said:


> You do realize you're basically wishing for a union, right?    Never thought I hear you'd say it.
> 
> That's pretty much what the RIAA and MPAA are.


 Terrifying I know! You bastards better hope artists never form a real union. You think things are expensive now?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't think it has anything to do with parties; it is the fact there isn't severe restrictions on lobbying.  If you wine and dine someone enough, they'll feel guilty not to help you out.  The number of politicans watching out for special interests (producers) far exceed those watching out for the people (consumers).


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jun 8, 2009)

Solaris17 said:


> im very intrested in seeing how this pans out. this is deffinetely a very intresting move and the things that are going or are going to be tried to change should prove an intresting feat. i congradulate them in getting a chair though.



Possibly two seats actually. Though there are over 700 seats. So they won't have much to say.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 8, 2009)

For one, I didnt download it.

Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't agree with fining someone 500$ for something that costs 10$, they should just make you pay the original price and if you don't, then they fine you. But that wouldn't make sense.. But then again, charging 500$ for something that's 10$ doesn't either.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> For one, I didnt download it.
> 
> Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds?


Don't do the crime if you cant do the time. But you didn't do anything so f$%k em. I wouldn't pay shit.


----------



## Perra (Jun 8, 2009)

The thing that really bugs me about copyright and such is the absurd time that stuff stays copyrighted, what is it, 70 years? I know it was 50 and then the big companies wanted to make even more cash from Elvis and such and pushed the politicians to pass a law to extend it even further. That if anything is just greed.


----------



## kyle2020 (Jun 8, 2009)

No, it was a letter that was sent around a few thousand Virgin subscribers, that had some kind of legal loop hole in it.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How is it ripping off? Maybe Ill like the songs you don't. Just because you dont like something does not give you the right to steal what you want.



Hence I should be able to download the album and decide whether it's worth buying, or not.

Putting up one or two good songs on MTV, and making that song sell the rest of the album people have little or no clue of (other than 'reading' someone else's subjective take on them), is ripping off. I shouldn't be forced to make my buying decisions on what someone else feels about a bunch of songs. Following subjective reviews are always hit-or-miss.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> For one, I didnt download it.
> 
> Secondly, you agree with a £500+ fine on a product that costs under £10? Id agree if they charged, say double the RRP, but in the hundreds of pounds?



Well, if you shoplift something from a store you are liable to end up with all kinds of court fees if prosecuted, do community service, or something of that nature even if what's stolen is just a $2 pen or something. So in that respect it's really par for the course (with things the way they are now).What makes this different is if it happens in a civil court, and thus the payout goes to the other party rather than the state.



btarunr said:


> Putting up one or two good songs on MTV.



Songs on MTV? _Good_ songs on MTV? My head is reeling......


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Terrifying I know! You bastards better hope artists never form a real union. You think things are expensive now?



Hey, watch out -- if you start slipping, soon we'll have you agreeing that people should be allowed to go to the doctor if they're sick and (Gasp!) not have to worry about going bankrupt because of it! 



TheMailMan78 said:


> Don't do the crime if you cant do the time. But you didn't do anything so f$%k em. I wouldn't pay shit.



It's called the 8th amendment to the US Bill of Rights.  Read it.  (There's a comparable law in the UK).

Some people would call a $500 fine for a $10 theft cruel and unusual.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Some people would call a $500 fine for a $10 theft cruel and unusual.


 Have you ever played Call of Juarez? They should have paid kyle2020 to download it. The game itself is cruel and unusual.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Songs on MTV? _Good_ songs on MTV? My head is reeling......



Read: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If they win a lawsuit against you, the court forces you to pay.  No, you're not "buying" anything.  Just getting smacked with buying a private jet for BMG, Sony, EA, Universal, or what have you.
> 
> The exorbitant fines are a sign of the archaic copyright laws in place.



Thank you sir. I think everyone is misunderstanding our arguments. Im not talking about stealing from people. Im talking about companies that have forgotten how to compete properly. 

Again I sure would believe their doomsday stories about piracy if it wasnt for the fact there are successful companies in all this. EA is a primary example. They were the main ones talking about doomsday of piracy. Now that they are into steam they are having the time of their lives. 

Same goes for iTunes and such. People love them and its successful because it properly moves into the new times and internet infrastructure. No one wants to go out and spent extra cash and cash for a giant box(I CANT FIND ROOM FOR THESE DAMN THINGS) and hours of playing with the slightly warn off key, then having to install this strange extra software that keeps bugging you and always runs. 

I have bought a fat list of games on steam. If a game i like is available on steam, il get it. I will hesitate if its not on steam, wondering if i should go through the trouble because again not enough room for giant box thing/ disk procedures. Sometimes because I have two drives it wont even work right because my DVD drive isnt D. I love and support buying games by account. 

Now moving on I also believe what the record alliances are doing is wrong and hurts their legit customers. They believe if we arnt buying their crappy CDs and big box softwares off of the store shelves, we must be pirating it. Their sales are down, they cant keep track of the digital sales well enough so it leads them to believe all their customers are bad. They are losing money so they make it back by suing potential customers for minor things. 

Also if we are talking about IP, i believe that lays with the developers and artists as well. They arnt the ones though fighting, its the publishers. They defend it like its theirs when its not. I no longer recognize them because of their actions and refusal to adapt.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Read: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.



He was pulling your chain bta.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 8, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Read: the one or two singles that end up selling the rest of the album. Anyway, I'm adding too much fat into my arguments. I made my point.



I was joking, I suppose it may be different in India, but here in the US MTV no longer has any association with music, and the little music they do play at 3am is generally of the terrible variety (and I like almost all music). It's just reality tv, or Mainstream TV as opposed to the long forgotten Music TV.


----------



## ShogoXT (Jun 8, 2009)

Woops i think i missed several pages while at work. I guess all resolved aye?


----------



## Disparia (Jun 8, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Terrifying I know! You bastards better hope artists never form a real union. You think things are expensive now?



I hope that's not your backup plan 

I've already stopped buying music and movies (nor do I download them). They could raise the penalty of piracy to "death", yet that didn't help them get my dollar, now did it?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 8, 2009)

ShogoXT said:


> Woops i think i missed several pages while at work. I guess all resolved aye?



This will never be resolved as long as I'm a member of this forum. I'm way to radical.....almost tubular but not quite narly.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I don't agree with fining someone 500$ for something that costs 10$, they should just make you pay the original price and if you don't, then they fine you. But that wouldn't make sense.. But then again, charging 500$ for something that's 10$ doesn't either.


The reason why the inflate the fine is from times before computers.  If someone, for instance, was going to copy a painting, most likely they were going to sell it in effect committing plagarism.  The large fines accounted not only for the crime, but also profits the criminal most likely gained from breaking copyright law.

Now, because copying any digital takes a matter of seconds and very, very few of those copies are sold for profit, a separate set of laws need to be established for digital content.  Effectively, it could be summed up by two clauses:

1) Knowingly distributing digital, copyrighted content on a public network without a license incures an fine of $5,000 and requires filing for a license.

2) Selling digital, copyrighted content without a license incures a fine of two times the retail value of the content.  Possible incarceration for up to five years.


#1 protects those that had their computer sucked into a drone network, consumers right to backup data, and the various transactions that are ongoing in a computer.  It also protects the publisher by forbidding people from distrobuting content at their own whim thereby defeating the purpose of a publisher.

#2 makes it strictly prohibited to sell someone else's content without a license.

Such a law would need a "consumer bill of digital rights" appended to it.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 8, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> I was joking, I suppose it may be different in India, but here in the US MTV no longer has any association with music, and the little music they do play at 3am is generally of the terrible variety (and I like almost all music). It's just reality tv, or Mainstream TV as opposed to the long forgotten Music TV.



MTV India still has music, and we get VH1 for international music, though the trend of shitty reality TV is catching up. They're bad at even pseudo-reality, so you can imagine.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 8, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The reason why the inflate the fine is from times before computers.  If someone, for instance, was going to copy a painting, most likely they were going to sell it in effect committing plagarism.  The large fines accounted not only for the crime, but also profits the criminal most likely gained from breaking copyright law.
> 
> Now, because copying any digital takes a matter of seconds and very, very few of those copies are sold for profit, a separate set of laws need to be established for digital content.  Effectively, it could be summed up by two clauses:
> 
> ...



And your law protects those who only receive the content from any harm whatsoever.  I like it.

Don't know about incarceration, though -- I'd still say "distributing without a license" should be just a civil matter if it isn't already.  Just make the fine bigger.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 8, 2009)

The reason why selling would warrant incarceration while distrobuting wouldn't is because selling most likely means a crime ring/organized crime.

But yes, that would have to be expanded to include specifics in regards to selling, for instance, reselling/trading an audio CD you don't like.  That shouldn't be viewed as a crime because you are forfeiting your access to the content once it transfers to someone else.  That is, digital copyright law is violated when you are making a copy and selling it for profit; it is not violated when you are selling the original to recoup a loss.  If you sell a single digital copyrighted article more than once, it is a violation of the law (implies a copy was made and one or more of the copies was sold illegally).


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 8, 2009)

dude.. all i have to say to Piracy
is


----------



## wataMG42 (Jun 8, 2009)

I dont post often so please bear with me  
First off id like to say thanks this has been an "eye-opening" debate,one of the more serious ones ive seen on good old TPU 
IMO both side raise some very vaild points and both mailman and farlex have articulated there points very very well! 
I believe this argument is very important to our society/culture at the moment and the fact that TPP have been elected will mean this argument will be brought to the fore politicaly and socialy, which i think is very important for both consumes and artist alike.So cheers to progress  ( Ithink thats my longest post ever  )


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 8, 2009)

and.. i get free software
everyone wins.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 8, 2009)

is that software called free-ware? if not then the person that made it doesn't win. That's a pretty huge hole in your logic.


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 8, 2009)

oh by everybody
i meant me
sorry


----------



## morphy (Jun 8, 2009)

Shogo touched on a good point about Steam and EA. I am probably guilty of downloading as much as the next person but since Steam came along I have bought more games than I have time to play. There are many who can't stand Steam but for me it's a model that works and benefits both sides.

On a similar token, the music industry just need to wake up and look beyond their money grubbing hands. In the digital age, it's clear the current model isn't working and employing scare tactics and exorbitant fines isn't the answer. Or maybe they have and realized that their time and place in the industry have ceased to be relevant and they are doing all they can to hold on to it.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 8, 2009)

AnnCore said:


> Power to you. I truly believe that people who make a difference in the world don't get enough credit or money.



People who make a difference are the most underappreciated people on the planet. Who won the battle of el alamein ? montgomery ? fuck no it was the soldiers who ran across that desert murdering each other that shaped the world following one man's word who got all the glory.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

wataMG42 said:


> IMO both side raise some very vaild points and both mailman and farlex have articulated there points very very well! .


 Articulate? Wow I never thought someone would call me that. I expected insane rantings and pointless circles guy.......or something like that. I like naked women.


----------



## ascstinger (Jun 9, 2009)

can I just point out that this argument has been going on for the past few years and will go on for as long as we have "protected media."

I honestly believe the recording industry is heading the same way the american car industry was (and still is). Sales are dropping on CD's due to digital media and instead of trying to find better ways to distribute content over the internet, wether it be through a website or a program, they hang onto old ways (and can because they sue the crap out of the public to support themselves and their practices).

I'm a huge fan of the way steam distributes games, I used to pirate anything and everything I played, due to the costs and hassle of driving to buy the game (good 30-40 min due to heavy traffic), installing it only to find the protection built in is preventing me from playing the game for one reason or another and having to pay to talk to a representative who treats me like a kid in grade school. Honestly it was easier to go around the copy protection than try to activate it in some games. Steam is a simple solution that works well and allows me to play my games without "bullshit".

The only thing I could see stopping the music publishing industry from having a similar system is profits, some time spent in R&D and perhaps what consumers do with the music when it's on a portable media device as opposed to a computer. But honestly if someone had the intent of distributing music illegally, they will succeed and like copy protection in a fair amount of pc games, will only hinder the consumer's experience if it is too harshly implemented and turn people away.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 9, 2009)

Paintface said:


> good job! democracy that actually works for the people



Rule by the people ...


----------



## morphy (Jun 9, 2009)

ascstinger said:


> Steam is a simple solution that works well and allows me to play my games without "bullshit".
> 
> The only thing I could see stopping the music publishing industry from having a similar system is profits, some time spent in R&D and perhaps what consumers do with the music when it's on a portable media device as opposed to a computer.



Not to mention instances where I previously uninstalled an old game or moved to a new system and can't remember where I placed my install CD plus the key that came with it. With Steam that isn't even an issue.

As for music distribution they've made some headway but it's going at a snails pace and going about it the wrong way. Take subscription based music model - on the surface it's exactly what I need and I don't mind paying a yearly sum for unlimited music but as the case may be, the implementation leaves alot to be desired. Not every service is available in my country and when I find one that does I run into the dreaded DRM and incompatible devices...I'm willing to pay for what I use but like you said there's so much BS to deal with and you wonder if it's worth it.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 9, 2009)

All I hope to gain out of this, is a system that protects the consumer as much as the companies. I want my fair use rights for the media I buy, and I don't want to deal with invasive and draconian DRM schemes to be able to use it. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Biker (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys have no idea how much this pisses me off as an artist. There is no argument for this.



Why don't you concentrate on the talent side of things, and leave the worrying and other stuff to the rest of us?


----------



## Steevo (Jun 9, 2009)

Wile E said:


> All I hope to gain out of this, is a system that protects the consumer as much as the companies. I want my fair use rights for the media I buy, and I don't want to deal with invasive and draconian DRM schemes to be able to use it. Is that too much to ask?



You said draconian


----------



## Wile E (Jun 9, 2009)

Steevo said:


> You said draconian



lol. Well, isn't that how it feels?


----------



## Roph (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok the only argument I hear in this thread is yall think the record companies make to much. Thats not an argument. I think car dealers make to much. Should I steal their cars? No of course not. Artists not only need channels for distribution but a way of producing it. Who do you think pays for the studio time? You think thats free? There are so many variables to this its mind boggling.
> 
> Most artist are for organizations like the RIIA to protect their work. Intellectual property is in fact PROPERTY and its not something that can be protected by junk yard dogs or high fences. This is why the RIIA exists. To protect investments. So you bastards keep stealing and keep using semantics to sway the argument in your favor. The fact remains if you take something for sale and do not pay for it you are in fact a THEIF.
> 
> As for these Pirates being elected I have one word for you. Bush.









Add in the overwhelmingly common scenario of where if somebody who would like to pirate your work but is unable to would not simply buy it instead but simply go without or choose an alternative product.

I always liked seeing the figures the RIAA quietly publish showing how their sales and profits skyrocket, while in the next press room they cry foul of piracy.

If your work is good, people will pay for it. Vagrant Story has the best soundtrack of any game I've ever played, and consequently, I bought it. But your average yearly turd in franchise X laid by EA Games that will be gone and forgotten in 6 weeks, no thanks.


----------



## CyberDruid (Jun 9, 2009)

Don't copy that floppy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI


----------



## 1c3d0g (Jun 9, 2009)

This is GREAT news!

/me laughs at all the RIAA-like organizations...what u gotta say now, huh? The people have spoken.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

Roph said:


> http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8809/piracy.jpg
> 
> Add in the overwhelmingly common scenario of where if somebody who would like to pirate your work but is unable to would not simply buy it instead but simply go without or choose an alternative product.
> 
> ...



Thank God you posted the image. It all makes sense now.


----------



## Black Hades (Jun 9, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> wow. EU politics finally dont seem so boring.
> We have a nazi, and we have a pirate LOL.



Sadly we have at least 2 confirmed natzi in the EU parliment.


So one step forwad for freedom (pirates) two steps back.. or should I say 178 steps back:
24% of seats of European Parliamen are being held by extremist parties Link


----------



## Agent_D (Jun 9, 2009)

While I can see your side MailMan, I don't believe piracy affects less advertised/less popular media or art like it does mainstream commercialized media and/or art. Forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over Jay-Z making only $50 million in a year instead of $100 million because of piracy.

The majority of people I know who download torrents, or any other kind of media/art from other sources, will buy the product/art/music/etc if they like it. While this is not the case 100% of the time, the actual amount of people who actually buy what they download after they use/try/see/hear it is probably quite a bit higher than you would think. The amount of money the entertainment industries, and artists themselves make, is proof enough for me that piracy isn't as big of an issue as some make it out to be.


----------



## Black Hades (Jun 9, 2009)

Piracy will make art rise from it's dark age in the long run.
Mediocre so called "professional artists" will have to lose. The "undiscovered genius" type will swiftly rise on it's own without the need of corporate promotion.

Piracy helps art free itself from corporate slavery.Real artists don't/shouldn't rely  on businessmen for prestige but on their own skills.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 9, 2009)

Roph said:


> http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8809/piracy.jpg



You're stealing someone else's potential earnings, hence it's theft. The 'theft' here, is not of the item being pirated.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

Black Hades said:


> Piracy will make art rise from it's dark age in the long run.
> Mediocre so called "professional artists" will have to lose. The "undiscovered genius" type will swiftly rise on it's own without the need of corporate promotion.
> 
> Piracy helps art free itself from corporate slavery.Real artists don't/shouldn't rely  on businessmen for prestige but on their own skills.



 Oh man thats rich. I really lol'd on that one.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 9, 2009)

Ironic how the capitalist system is indirectly transitioning into socialism with DRM. 

As I said earlier. When you make music, or art, why do you make it? You don't make it to make money. I find people who make art/music for money specifically just make crap. Look at 50% of the deviantart stuff!

Piracy allows us to try before we buy. As stupid as it sounds, most of the time the trial version/samples aren't enough of the product, or only display what we'd like to see but not the crap, or lack of it(cough cough EA). Its almost a scam if we buy a game because we think its good until we actually use it.




Talented artists, before going major should NOT worry about their money. AT that point you the artist shoudl be more concerned about the stuff that you are putting out. I will laugh at record labels when theres a totalitarianistic set of laws in place to stomp out piracy because at that point the consumers in general will have little to no exposure to the music, and thus we wont be inclined to buy anything. I only wanted to buy an album after I listened to it already and knew it was good. Same goes for all my relatives. It is different for those who have loads of money however.

What these anti-piracy corporations should really be pushing for is something in another field. Ways to eradicate the massive inequality in some of the nations, just raising the bar of the poor's living standards, instead of worrying about their own overinflated assets. I mean are any of the record labels anywhere near bankruptcy? They're all driving lambos and shit for only publishing what is not theirs, and paying the artists which make their money a small amount of it.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 9, 2009)

My post has nothing to do with music, but it has plenty to do with piracy.

I buy things which are worth the money. Case in point - I own every single game Bioware ever made since Baldur's Gate, even if I did download some of them prior to buying so I can play it before it hits the stores here (There's one hugeass delay in that).

On the other hand, I've been screwed over by DRM. I bought Mass Effect retail. I upgrade my systems every few months and I have three computers I game on (My Q9650, my i7 and my XPS laptop when I am on the road). I installed the game on all of them, and quickly ran out of activations. Talking to EA customer service is like swallowing razors, and it took me four days to get another activation out of them. The de-authorization tool did not exist back then, and the tool that exists now can only be run on the computer the game was installed on. The problem is that save my laptop, all my systems massively changed from that time.

So I had three options - Download the game, buy it again, buy it from Steam.

I bought the game from Steam, since I'll never buy another activation limited game on Retail - That's just asking to get robbed again, but had I downloaded the game, I would have not seen the act as morally wrong. I bought this game. Quite frankly - I don't care if they want to limit me to using it on X computers, I bought the game. If I want to install it on every one of my seven systems, I should be able to. If I lend the original copy to a friend, I should not be handicapped in any way when it gets back. If I make a backup of the DVD, I should be able to play it. The same as happens when I buy a book.

The same almost happened to me with Crysis: Warhead but I was a little wiser this time around. I have the game lying here next to me, and I haven't used it once. I have a downloaded and cracked copy of the game, so that I don't run out of activations when I really need them, if I ever do. Since I don't play multiplayer, it works for me.

But notice something - I am a paying customer who is forced to jump through hoops to use what I bought with my money. If I just pirated both games, I'd have never run into those problems and would have saved myself around 100$ and a ton of headaches (Not to mention the horrible withdrawhal symptoms from lacking Mass Effect for several days, ugh   ).

DRM does not work, and as long as that model is so horribly, horribly broken - I want to be able to go around it, just like I did with Crysis: Warhead.

Steam on the other hand is a model I have no problems with. I can install my games on any number of systems I want, I can play them, uninstall them, reinstall them, update them and never worry about anything more than my Internet connection (And most games start even with Steam in offline mode, so even that is a near non-issue). Hence my growing Steam game collection.

Just my .02c


----------



## morpha (Jun 9, 2009)

I just want to add my two cents into this sh*t storm of a discussion

If we go back 2-300 years an artists was rarely heard outside of his country, or even the city he worked in. He would play for HOURs just for a bed to sleep in and a meal in his belly. Today, in the pub/club band scene (im a musician so i know for fact, at least in Aus) a musician might play for 2hours a night and get around $150 with meal and a bed to sleep. 
Music has and NEVER will be a means to support your entire life. You just dont make enough money.

In the international scene musicians work hard but they make enough to sit on their ass and write their next album and its the fans that pay them for that. they should be thanking US. Thanks to the internet I can listen to bands from Sweden and Germany and god knows where else whos albums will never hit the Australian market. They all have one more fan that they otherwise wouldn't have.

also FACT; The band Killing Heidi (Locals from where I live) for all the Fame and Popularity they had in Australia for a few years. Got nothing to show for it. the Publishing companies took ALL the money. They sold their art to them for next to nothing but some time in the spotlight.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 9, 2009)

btarunr said:


> You're stealing someone else's potential earnings, hence it's theft. The 'theft' here, is not of the item being pirated.



That's an arse-ended way of thinking about it! Money not earned doesn't equal money lost.
Also you are assuming 1 download results in 1 loss of sales.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 9, 2009)

silkstone said:


> That's an arse-ended way of thinking about it! Money not earned doesn't equal money lost.
> Also you are assuming 1 download results in 1 loss of sales.



Yours is arse-ended since you are not paying for the content you're supposed to pay for. Money not earned very much does equal money lost in this case. Then again, I didn't specify how much money lost, so that part of the argument is abstract to us both.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

morpha said:


> also FACT; The band Killing Heidi (Locals from where I live) for all the Fame and Popularity they had in Australia for a few years. Got nothing to show for it. the Publishing companies took ALL the money. They sold their art to them for next to nothing but some time in the spotlight.


Yup, just look at bands like Nine Inch Nails that said F-you to their publisher.  They're doing better than ever now because there's no middle man imbalancing the trade.  Artists, these days, really only make lots of money from concerts where the publisher can't stick their hand in the pot.

Publishers really need to shift to a digital mindset where they tweak and fine tune the music and give the finished product back to the artist.  The artists pays them $x amount per song to finalize it.  They can either leave with their digital copy (which they own) and release it on their own terms or give the publisher a license to mass produce it where the publisher pays $x amount per item sold to the artist.  If the artists no longer publishes music, it really doesn't matter because the publisher no longer "owns" an artist/works.  Until publishers shift to that kind of model, they'll continue to kick and scream until they have a heart attack and take a lot of good artists down with them.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 9, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Yours is arse-ended since you are not paying for the content you're supposed to pay for. Money not earned very much does equal money lost in this case. Then again, I didn't specify how much money lost, so that part of the argument is abstract to us both.



But then the person may not have downloaded the content if he/she had to pay for it. Therefore, if the person "would" have paid for it, it would be money lost. I also believe the majority of people that would pay for artistic works do, even if they can get them for free.

I both download content and buy the stuff i really like. I have to say, if i had to pay for the stuff i have taken i just would have gone without. And then i would have actually bought less not knowing how much i would have liked it. And the stuff i would have bought would proababily be junk.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> Ironic how the capitalist system is indirectly transitioning into socialism with DRM.


 What? Do you know what socialism is? I hate DRM but I don't see a connection between it and socialism.



tkpenalty said:


> As I said earlier. When you make music, or art, why do you make it? You don't make it to make money. I find people who make art/music for money specifically just make crap. Look at 50% of the deviantart stuff!


 How romantic. Then you have kids. Now the only thing you do well is art. So you do the best you can to support yourself and your family. You apparently have no clue as to how an artist survives.



tkpenalty said:


> Piracy allows us to try before we buy. As stupid as it sounds, most of the time the trial version/samples aren't enough of the product, or only display what we'd like to see but not the crap, or lack of it(cough cough EA). Its almost a scam if we buy a game because we think its good until we actually use it.


 How many demos haven't represented at least one level of the game or the gameplay? Also if a game doesn't have a demo then don't buy it. Nothing in what you said gives you the right to steal.



tkpenalty said:


> Talented artists, before going major should NOT worry about their money. AT that point you the artist shoudl be more concerned about the stuff that you are putting out. I will laugh at record labels when theres a totalitarianistic set of laws in place to stomp out piracy because at that point the consumers in general will have little to no exposure to the music, and thus we wont be inclined to buy anything. I only wanted to buy an album after I listened to it already and knew it was good. Same goes for all my relatives. It is different for those who have loads of money however.


 If the artist signs with a record label then you have to respect the laws that protect their property. Doing anything less makes you a thief. It takes you longer to go to Pirate Bay and find the music than to hit Amazon and listen to a trial of each track. Also if an artist wants exposure then there are better ways of distribution then file sharing networks where you risk your listeners getting a virus.



tkpenalty said:


> What these anti-piracy corporations should really be pushing for is something in another field. Ways to eradicate the massive inequality in some of the nations, just raising the bar of the poor's living standards, instead of worrying about their own overinflated assets. I mean are any of the record labels anywhere near bankruptcy? They're all driving lambos and shit for only publishing what is not theirs, and paying the artists which make their money a small amount of it.


 Who are you to say the assets are overinflated? What makes you better than them? Its their money. Now you sound like a socialist.


----------



## Paintface (Jun 9, 2009)

took so much time to read all the comments i downloaded 2 games and 48 music albums in the meanwhile.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 9, 2009)

I cant see why such a commotion Pirate Party got over 7% of the vote and would earn at least one seat fair and square. Thakfully we have democracy were this can happen and they have as much right to compete as the next party. My own guess they will become even more popular in the years to come as more younger ppl come to voting age change it happens.


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well then you wont mind having a song you sang being played at a Al-qaeda beheading then would you? I mean we are not questioning right or wrong anymore so why not?




WTF has that got to do with ANYthing? Are you just trying to see how many people you can get riled up?


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Great one small step for pirates, One giant fall for artists. WTF is wrong with the EU for allowing this. To hell with *these people*.



I've got to ask, When you say These people do you mean the normal tax paying working public I.e me and many many others ?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember guys this party isn't called the "Artist empowerment movement" Its called the Pirate party. By thief's for thief's. Don't try an sugar coat it damn it.



Don't sensationalize it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 9, 2009)

silkstone said:


> That's an arse-ended way of thinking about it! Money not earned doesn't equal money lost.
> Also you are assuming 1 download results in 1 loss of sales.





btarunr said:


> Yours is arse-ended since you are not paying for the content you're supposed to pay for. Money not earned very much does equal money lost in this case. Then again, I didn't specify how much money lost, so that part of the argument is abstract to us both.



Sorry, Silk has a point that many miss. Money not earned does not equal money lost. Just because I downloaded (and subsequently purchased) Rev Theory's album because I wanted to know if all the album was as good as the ones I heard at RotR last year, doesn't mean they lost that money. Just because I downloaded CoD4, doesn't mean I don't have a legal copy that I play online on the OMC server with. It just means I took a test drive with the software before I bought it.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

its not money lost, if people were NEVER going to pay for it.

you cant afford it: you pirate it.
You dont think its worth the price: you pirate it
you want to try before you buy, and wont buy WITHOUT trying: you pirate it.

In none of those situations was the company ever going to get money. its a pirate or nothing deal.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 9, 2009)

Gam'ster said:


> I've got to ask, When you say These people do you mean the normal tax paying working public I.e me and many many others ?



As I remember, MailMan is an American Nationalist, so "these people" would be anyone who's not part of Real America™



Ahhzz said:


> WTF has that got to do with ANYthing? Are you just trying to see how many people you can get riled up?



It's called demagoguery.  If this thread goes on for a long time we'll probably start seeing a lot of it, from all sides.  



btarunr said:


> Yours is arse-ended since you are not paying for the content you're supposed to pay for. Money not earned very much does equal money lost in this case. Then again, I didn't specify how much money lost, so that part of the argument is abstract to us both.



There's a lot of people who are starting to think that no one should have to pay for _any_ digital content, since it can be infinitely duplicated at almost no cost to the original producer.

See, for instance, MIT putting all their classes on the internet *for free*.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What? Do you know what socialism is? I hate DRM but I don't see a connection between it and socialism.



We are not entitled to property. DRM basically strips us of owning things. 



> How romantic. Then you have kids. Now the only thing you do well is art. So you do the best you can to support yourself and your family. You apparently have no clue as to how an artist survives.



Afaik you only get paid up front. If you are so concerned about your family, I don't think it would be a good idea to undertake anything creative, especially when you can barely feed your family. And anyway, when I say something i don't mean it to everything. There are exceptions to what I said, but you could really blame the record labels themselves for taking such a huge share of what they make and then overall making more than all the artists combiend. It is the record labels I am scrutinising here. They are the ones to blame for the lack of money that you talk about. We wont mention major label artists because they are the ones who suffer the least. They breakeven from the financial stress of being a music artist.



> How many demos haven't represented at least one level of the game or the gameplay? Also if a game doesn't have a demo then don't buy it. Nothing in what you said gives you the right to steal.



Yes we dont have rights to steal, but I think EVERYONE needs to realise that society is not as law abiding as it seems. Sometimes bending the laws leads to much more returns. IF you really want to stomp out piracy, the more you stomp, the more piracy there will be. Historically speaking any problem that is repressed will result in more of it. 

Game demos lately have been very misleading in terms of the game quality. In most cases the games end up being highly underwhelming; they chucked the best into the demo. Wouldnt you say deceiving the customer is basically a scam? You the law abiding person, would sue wouldnt you? I think not. 



> If the artist signs with a record label then you have to respect the laws that protect their property. Doing anything less makes you a thief. It takes you longer to go to Pirate Bay and find the music than to hit Amazon and listen to a trial of each track. Also if an artist wants exposure then there are better ways of distribution then file sharing networks where you risk your listeners getting a virus.



You seem to be very protective of the money that you earn from the record labels. Yes getting the amazon trials is a good idea but in the end its just one listen. Most giant corporations have massive amounts of profits that they will never use. Its like a E-penis, well more like Cash Penis. Thats where your money is. 



> Who are you to say the assets are overinflated? What makes you better than them? Its their money. Now you sound like a socialist.



Read what i typed above. Look at the revenue numbers. Will they EVER utilise that? No they will just keep expanding. These huge cash reserves basically give so much power to one or two individuals. You the artist receives an extremely tiny portion. I'd like to think of Piracy as a unofficial "tax" only in a slightly different way. Despite the piracy i dont see ANY party really "suffering" apart from the underpaid artists.

Yes I sound like a socialist because you extremely embrace capitalism. I'd support a "mid wing" system completely though, high tax, but still allow a market, etc. I smell some 1970s esque cold war attitude in you. Get rid of it. Pure capitalism, and Socialism both dont work. You need a mix. I dont think this economic downturn would have been that bad if hte governments had the power to fabricate statistics to prevent pessimism, as the downturn was mostly pessimism driven. Seems like those nations who dont have much government intervention did worse. 

I think its a waste of resources to stamp out piracy. It will only make the filthy rich even richer and the poor have less to spend. Cant we not mention it and let it co-exist? Because its not causing any problems for anyone in particular. It is not at a rampant stage where a company has collapsed because of it.

I hope the pirate party takes a "middle wing" approach however, and not a "freebies to everybody" approach which will fail.


If you have so much money that you dont need it for anything actually of use, or assets, why not give some away to alleviate poverty, etc? Even bill gates does it.






Finally I find the lack of a public healthcare system disgusting for a "Developed country". All because major corporations are too anal to pay a little bit more tax, from money which they will never use.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> As I remember, MailMan is an American Nationalist, so "these people" would be anyone who's not part of Real America™
> [/URL].



That clears things up a bit, But i thought that posting on a techforum such as TPU was to give your opinion on tech news and the topics that surround it not attack and damn people for being a citizen of a state/country. 

But on topic, If The Pirate Party go about things the right way then more power to them, If not well then they will sink to the lower levels were most other politicians live and corruption breeds.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

mailman is our resident piracy hater. while he is entirely steamed up and ready to set people on fire for talking about it, i get just as worked up over people saying a 2GHz dual core adds up to 4GHz of power.


----------



## DaveK (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> its not money lost, if people were NEVER going to pay for it.
> 
> you cant afford it: you pirate it.
> You dont think its worth the price: you pirate it
> ...



That's how I go by, for example the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall, it's not the movie that I would go and see or rent, I downloaded it to see what it was like as it has a few people I like in it. They never would have got my money as I never would have went to see it, but, they made money on the DVD I bought of it: 







Same goes for stoner comedy Friday and its sequels, a movie my friend told me about I had no idea existed, downloaded it, liked it, downloaded the sequels, bought them on DVD: 






And for American TV shows no one over here watches (forget Everybody Hates Chris, but I bought that from the US before it was popular over here)






Not pirating wouldn't have gotten those greedy fucks anything, all they care about is money, hence why they dislike pirating, but if I didn't pirate them they wouldn't have got any sales. And besides, I'm fucking 17 and unemployed I don't have money to rent movies every week.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

I'll join in.

heres half of my collection.




90% of this was downloaded, and i liked it so i bought it.


unrelated, but yes thats an 8800GTX drying off in front of the heater. i gave it a bath cause it wasnt working.

(i wonder what those fuzzy lines are? hope my cam aint breaking)


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i get just as worked up over people saying a 2GHz dual core adds up to 4GHz of power.



Oh god, I *hate* those people... :shadedshu

They are everywhere, and many sound knowledgeable enough to know better.



tkpenalty said:


> We are not entitled to property. DRM basically strips us of owning things.



Never thought of it that way!    Proponents of DRM are basically communists!



tkpenalty said:


> Afaik you only get paid up front. If you are so concerned about your family, I don't think it would be a good idea to undertake anything creative, especially when you can barely feed your family.



This is off-topic, but... Welcome to America!  A land where sex education is practically nonexistent, abortion is becoming quickly illegal, and birth control getting harder every day.  A lot don't plan to have families there, and have to make do with whatever careers they have at the time, be it a radio DJ or an artist or just a trash collector.  I'm sure MailMan's got good reasons for feeling the way he does.



tkpenalty said:


> Read what i typed above. Look at the revenue numbers. Will they EVER utilise that? No they will just keep expanding. These huge cash reserves basically give so much power to one or two individuals. You the artist receives an extremely tiny portion. I'd like to think of Piracy as a unofficial "tax" only in a slightly different way. Despite the piracy i dont see ANY party really "suffering" apart from the underpaid artists.



In America, it's not looked down upon for an organization or individual to have so much money that they can never actually spend it all.  It's even lauded -- it's almost like people want to live like Egyptian Pharaohs there and be buried with piles of gold coins.

In places like Europe, it looks to me like it _is_ looked down upon, because it's wasteful.  Am I getting this right?

Now, there are exceptions to both rules, but the vast majority of people in both places seem like they think like this to me.

I need a citation for this, but all you have to do is look at the "lowest worker to highest worker" ratios in some countries.  In places like Germany, the UK, etc, I remember the average CEO makes something like 20-40 times what the average lowest paid worker does -- for instance, if the lowest paid worker in a company is making $40k a year, the CEO usually makes around $1.2 million. 

In America, it's something like *400 times as much.*  It's a root problem that makes people in these two places look at the problem of piracy much differently!


----------



## DaveK (Jun 9, 2009)

There's also the matter of availability, I downloaded Top Gear Season 1-12, I love the show, I watch it all the time/all the new episodes every week they air and always watch their new clips on YouTube, but it isn't available on DVD (Except Season 10 which is US exclusive) Believe me I'd prefer to have it on DVD, but it isn't available on DVD so no sale which means no money lost, it's also free to watch on TV and it's on BBC which has no adverts so it's not like they need money.

If I liked an indie movie or a movie that's unknown/small company, documentary or whatever I'll buy the DVD to support them, but most movies are from the big dogs like Paramount or Fox and they won't tank if they don't get €20, I buy from Play.com anyway so all my DVDs are bought cheap. What about pricing, I saw the Rocky Anthology new in a DVD shop for €15.99, that's €2.66 per movie, so paying next to nothing for a movie isn't bad at all? Not like they would even notice if they didn't get €15.99 with the amount of money they make. Alien Quadrilogy, retailed for like €80, I paid €28.99 for it, in a way buying cheap is almost as bad as pirating, they get almost nothing for these DVDs I pay for so they wouldn't be making much of a profit.

If I pirate a movie chances are I would want to own it on DVD, I like having hard copys, I like extras like a commentary and making of featurettes, not to mention DVDs are higher quality than most DVD rips on the internet and have 5.1 surround, if I don't own it it's simply I do not have the funds at the time.



Mussels said:


> I'll join in.
> 
> heres half of my collection.
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090609/Arrrrrr.jpg
> ...



At least you know where your cam is, I can't find mine lol.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Oh god, I *hate* those people... :shadedshu
> 
> They are everywhere, and many sound knowledgeable enough to know better.


It gets pretty close if you have quality multithreaded software running on it.  If the application is unithreaded or only has one heavy thread, then no, it doesn't even come close.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 9, 2009)

Can i have a recap of this thread please?


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 9, 2009)

Same here on the movies/TV shows. I have (shudder, and some of the faint at heart may want to hide their eyes...) the entire Buffy AND Angel tv seasons on fully legal, purchased, dvd sets. Downloaded about half of each, and from my memory of watching, and the ones I d/l'd and liked, decided to get them all. Also, support for Joss, the developer. My favorite Anime and movies? Buy em. May buy them second hand, may spend $90 and get a bunch on sale (latest anime bill...hope the g/f doesn't see that one heheh), but I get them. 

For those supporting the artists in this discussion, I request you take 5 minutes and go here, read, and attempt to understand the concept being explained here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> Can i have a recap of this thread please?


Pirates are taking over the world!  Get you're buccaneer boots, warm up the vocal cords for "ARRRRGH," and put your eye patch on. 

If you have a badge, hide it.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 9, 2009)

ah so we're still debating pirating good verse bad. OK, just didn't want to read the last load of pages.

Can i say that digital music should be cheaper? There is no physical product to produce so not much in the way of costs, so why still £7-9  an album?


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> In places like Europe, it looks to me like it _is_ looked down upon, because it's wasteful.  Am I getting this right?
> 
> Now, there are exceptions to both rules, but the vast majority of people in both places seem like they think like this to me.



I wouldnt look down upon it as being wastefull, If someone has piles of cash it doesnt in the slightest bit bother me, If they have it they've either earned it, through Inheritance or even won it lol.
Its the same here with CEO's earning X amount more i have no proof of figures but an example is: I work as a driver for First Group, A large transport company that has operations in both the EU and US, So the gap in my pay and a US drivers pay prob isnt all that much hence the gap from us two drivers to the CEO is the roughly same, If that makes sence.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It gets pretty close if you have quality multithreaded software running on it.  If the application is unithreaded or only has one heavy thread, then no, it doesn't even come close.



Hz is a measurement of time. its the same as saying a two cars doing 100MPH = 1 car doing 200MPH. they may be able to carry twice as much, but two cars wont reach a destination 200 100 miles away for an hour, no matter how many there is.


Whitelotus: this thread is basically the mailman disagreeing with everyone else.


that linked thread is giving a good read!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> Whitelotus: this thread is basically the mailman disagreeing with everyone else



But i do agree with everything he says, even though I am guilty of acquiring things by means of not paying for them. 

[watches the internet with shifty eyes]


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> But i do agree with everything he says, even though I am guilty of acquiring things by means of not paying for them.
> 
> <watches the internet with shifty eyes/>



sure, more than a few people agree with him. but that doesnt mean he agrees with you 
Mailman has a valid, but very strong opinion on this matter.




			
				baen free library said:
			
		

> Take, for instance, the phenomenon of people lending books to their friends — a phenomenon which absolutely dwarfs, by several orders of magnitude, online piracy of copyrighted books.
> 
> What's happened here? Has the author "lost a sale?"
> 
> ...



emphasis mine.



			
				another segment said:
			
		

> don't know any author, other than a few who are — to speak bluntly — cretins, who hears about people lending his or her books to their friends, or checking them out of a library, with anything other than pleasure. Because they understand full well that, in the long run, what maintains and (especially) expands a writer's audience base is that mysterious magic we call: word of mouth.
> 
> *Word of mouth, unlike paid advertising, comes free to the author* — and it's ten times more effective than any kind of paid advertising, because it's *the one form of promotion which people usually trust.*
> 
> That being so, an author can hardly complain — *since the author paid nothing for it* either



Oh i love this guy. (again, emphasis mine)


----------



## DaveK (Jun 9, 2009)

Dammit I lost my eye patch, anyone seen it? lol


----------



## Ahhzz (Jun 9, 2009)

I liked it too


----------



## Paintface (Jun 9, 2009)

i would post my collection but dont have a cam to take a pic of my 1TB drive


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> Hz is a measurement of time. its the same as saying a two cars doing 100MPH = 1 car doing 200MPH. they may be able to carry twice as much, but two cars wont reach a destination 200 100 miles away for an hour, no matter how many there is.


If you simplify it to just cycles per second, you miss the other half of the equation: instructions per cycle.  Multiple cores effects instructions per cycle, not cycles per second.  In the end, their output (instructions per second) can be equal.  For instance, these two equal:

4.0 GHz * 3 IPC = 12 GIPS
2.0 GHz * (3 IPC + 3 IPC) = 12 GIPS

Despite one having a faster clockspeed, they are equal in quality multithreaded apps.


MPH is a bad comparison because the greatest inhibitor to speed is air resistance.  If you take the air resistance out of the equation, the amount of force is equal.  If those two cars collided head on, the impact force would be equal to a single car hitting a wall at 200 MPH.  Likewise, if they were bumper to bumper and hit a wall, the impact force on the car in the middle would be very close to 200 MPH.


If you're 200 MPH car only seats two people but your 100 MPH car seats four and you have to get three people from point A to point B, they would finish at about the same time (the faster car would have to make two trips to achieve the same end).


----------



## Mussels (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you simplify it to just cycles per second, you miss the other half of the equation: instructions per cycle.  Multiple cores effects instructions per cycle, not cycles per second.  In the end, their output (instructions per second) can be equal.  For instance, these two equal:
> 
> 4.0 GHz * 3 IPC = 12 GIPS
> 2.0 GHz * (3 IPC + 3 IPC) = 12 GIPS
> ...



you're making my point for me.

Equal in some cases yes - but we're talking a measurement of time. sure, two cars gets the job done twice as fast, but these people are saying that it doubles in speed. not that its equivalent in a perfect world, that its actually double.

2x2GHz = 4GHz.
2x100MPH=200MPH.

it doesnt equal it. 2x just means you have two cars at that speed. twice as much load, yes. twice as FAST? no.

anyway my pet hate is derailing this fabulous topic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

For processors: Your way of measuring "speed" is by clocks per second.  Their way of measuring "speed" is instructions per second.

For cars: Your way of measuring "speed" is by MPH.  My way of measuring "speed" is how long it takes to get the job done.

In the end, it is semantics.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you simplify it to just cycles per second, you miss the other half of the equation: instructions per cycle.  Multiple cores effects instructions per cycle, not cycles per second.  In the end, their output (instructions per second) can be equal.  For instance, these two equal:
> 
> 4.0 GHz * 3 IPC = 12 GIPS
> 2.0 GHz * (3 IPC + 3 IPC) = 12 GIPS
> ...





FordGT90Concept said:


> For processors: Your way of measuring "speed" is by clocks per second.  Their way of measuring "speed" is instructions per second.
> 
> For cars: Your way of measuring "speed" is by MPH.  My way of measuring "speed" is how long it takes to get the job done.
> 
> In the end, it is semantics.



Yeah, but the problem is that these people aren't thinking about it like you are.

They're simply adding "2.0 and 2.0" to make "4.0" which infuriates me.  

And they're only doing that because they really don't know what they're talking about.  Ask them about clock cycles or workloads and they'll just look at you with a blank face.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

I blame the sales person that convinced them they _needed_ that dual-core: "Two cores mean twice as fast!" 

Customer: "I'm a genius because I got a really 'fast' processor!"  

...

Ads are bad source of information.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

Forget about the freaking processors! YARRRR be the topic.

For all those who have lost or misplaced their eye patch I'll put a torrent link to mine up. But in all truth, the only thing I download regularly anymore is porn. A lot of porn too. But now with websites that offer free streaming like Youtube, well then I'm just out of things to download. I've got all this bandwidth and nothing constructive to do with it. Free streaming porn is forcing me into piracy! I've got all this bandwidth and nothing constructive to do with it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

No, no, no!  Don't give ISPs a reason to add bandwidth caps/pay per GiB crap!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

tkpenalty said:


> We are not entitled to property. DRM basically strips us of owning things.


 You don't own it. You'll never own it. You pay for the right to listen to it. Nothing more. 



tkpenalty said:


> Afaik you only get paid up front. If you are so concerned about your family, I don't think it would be a good idea to undertake anything creative, especially when you can barely feed your family. And anyway, when I say something i don't mean it to everything. There are exceptions to what I said, but you could really blame the record labels themselves for taking such a huge share of what they make and then overall making more than all the artists combiend. It is the record labels I am scrutinising here. They are the ones to blame for the lack of money that you talk about. We wont mention major label artists because they are the ones who suffer the least. They breakeven from the financial stress of being a music artist.


 Well its the only thing some can do. I guess I should let the government decide what's best for me and mine. :shadedshu



tkpenalty said:


> Yes we dont have rights to steal, but I think EVERYONE needs to realise that society is not as law abiding as it seems. Sometimes bending the laws leads to much more returns. IF you really want to stomp out piracy, the more you stomp, the more piracy there will be. Historically speaking any problem that is repressed will result in more of it.


 Like slavery? They tried to oppress it and more of it was established? 



tkpenalty said:


> Game demos lately have been very misleading in terms of the game quality. In most cases the games end up being highly underwhelming; they chucked the best into the demo. Wouldnt you say deceiving the customer is basically a scam? You the law abiding person, would sue wouldnt you? I think not.


 I follow the law. If I don't like something I don't buy it. If I buy something and find out later I don't like it I take it as experience. After all we are talking about luxury items here.



tkpenalty said:


> You seem to be very protective of the money that you earn from the record labels. Yes getting the amazon trials is a good idea but in the end its just one listen. Most giant corporations have massive amounts of profits that they will never use. Its like a E-penis, well more like Cash Penis. Thats where your money is.


 Yes I'm very protective of my money and the right to do with it as I please without someone telling me I'm a bad person because I want to drive a nice car.



tkpenalty said:


> Read what i typed above. Look at the revenue numbers. Will they EVER utilise that? No they will just keep expanding. These huge cash reserves basically give so much power to one or two individuals. You the artist receives an extremely tiny portion. I'd like to think of Piracy as a unofficial "tax" only in a slightly different way. Despite the piracy i dont see ANY party really "suffering" apart from the underpaid artists.


 Again what they make is of no consequence to you.



tkpenalty said:


> Finally I find the lack of a public healthcare system disgusting for a "Developed country". All because major corporations are too anal to pay a little bit more tax, from money which they will never use.


 Join the red cross and stop trying to take everyone else money.



Gam'ster said:


> I've got to ask, When you say These people do you mean the normal tax paying working public I.e me and many many others ?



These people was meant as the jack asses who voted for the party. It has nothing to do with anyone in particular. Relax. Put the pitch fork and torches down.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, no, no!  Don't give ISPs a reason to add bandwidth caps/pay per GiB crap!



Uh, I'm in Canada. We've been capped for years. Most every place BUT the US has caps.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Uh, I'm in Canada. We've been capped for years. Most every place BUT the US has caps.



Well thats not fair. We need to be like everyone else or we will be marked as bad people.


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

It might cut down on your piracy issues.   

Of course, according to Obama's administration, Canada is a lawless hub and safe haven for pirates and we have hordes of pirates here. Thus we've been blacklisted.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> It might cut down on your piracy issues.
> 
> Of course, according to Obama's administration, Canada is a lawless hub and safe haven for pirates and we have hordes of pirates here. Thus we've been blacklisted.


Not Obama! He would never do such a thing! Blasphemy!


----------



## silkstone (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> mailman is our resident piracy hater. while he is entirely steamed up and ready to set people on fire for talking about it, i get just as worked up over people saying a 2GHz dual core adds up to 4GHz of power.



You meant that my dual core isn;t an 8ghz equivelent? 

Actually 2ghz dual core does add up to 4ghz of "power" if you use the car analogy and consider power to be momentum. 2ghz dual doesn;t equal 4ghz speed is all.

But as anyone will tell you 2 cars  with a 500 hp engine will be much more "powerful" than a single car with a 1000 hp engine. But electronics is very different from classic physics so that comparison obviously can;t be used here.

computers, computing power vs speed???? will a dual opteron be twice as powerful as a single? of course! will it be twice as fast? never!


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> These people was meant as the jack asses who voted for the party. It has nothing to do with anyone in particular. Relax. Put the pitch fork and torches down.



, Was just asking out of curiosity, Also i rarely vote as i believe most politicians are full of BS more often than not, And no matter whos in power doing what ill still have to pay tax, Go to work and all that so it makes very little difference to my life.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 9, 2009)

Sorry MM, i love debating with you. I agree with some of your points but i have to argue with these:



TheMailMan78 said:


> Like slavery? They tried to oppress it and more of it was established?
> 
> I follow the law. If I don't like something I don't buy it.
> 
> Yes I'm very protective of my money and the right to do with it as I please without someone telling me I'm a bad person because I want to drive a nice car.



1 - slavery. Sent underground putting fortunes into criminal hands. Slavery still exists and is prevalent in the world today with a different guise. It has just evolved with capitalism. I can give you hundreds of different examples if you like?
Examples of failure would have to include prohibition and current drug laws.

2 - You don;t know if you like it until you try it.

3 - A cardinal sin, is greed (Yoda, i am!). Too much money is a bad thing according to some people and religions. We're not talking about 1 car here are we?


----------



## Steevo (Jun 9, 2009)

What is normal is right.


At least in society today. So piracy becoming normal is making it right to most.


Is/was slavery wrong?


The slaves in the US had slaves of other tribes in the their home country, thus the idea that they were victims is incorrect. 

But is it right? Judged against the backdrop of the time it was right for many. And then those with power made it wrong, and the majority accepted this, so then it was wrong.


Is smoking right?


Not by the general populace, so we have more and more laws to regulate and control it.


Is drinking right?

By the majority in the US it is, however there are still "dry" counties and areas where it is not sold and is illegal to posses

Right and wrong as defined by a person, government, and general population is subjective to the time and feelings of that day, time.



Back to the thread, if the majority are pirating or wanting to handle media differently then the large corporations have little choice other than to try and change the minds of many, and or force their hand and risk the wrath of the user.


I would pirate a few games if I had known how terrible they would have been, test Drive unlimited for example. A total piece of crap. The studio who made it deserves to go under. Civ however continues to be a excellent game, as do many others.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't own it. You'll never own it. You pay for the right to listen to it. Nothing more.



Now, you sound like a socialist.  

Not saying I don't agree with you, of course.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Now, you sound like a socialist.
> 
> Not saying I don't agree with you, of course.



Nice flame bait. I almost bit


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You don't own it. You'll never own it. You pay for the right to listen to it. Nothing more.


You also pay for the implicit right to copy it.  All modern audio devices copy the music to their local memory and play it from the memory.  If you aren't allowed to copy it, it is then illegal to listen to digital music.

We can't forget DRM which mandates copying not once (encrypted form) but at least twice (decrypted stream passing through the multiple caches of a processor, back to the system RAM, then linked to the audio device which may, or may not, also copy it to RAM on the audio card).

Does modern copyright even acknowledge all those required copy operations just to listen to a product which was lawfully purchased? Nope, this is why the MPAA and RIAA losing lawsuits is the norm, not the exception.  In effect, the existing laws are only good at allowing publishers to harass consumers.


Seriously, I can't believe you are siding with the publishers and majority of politicians.  It is bad for everyone except those with their hand in the money jar.


@Steevo: There is no right or wrong, only consequences.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @Steevo: There is no right or wrong, only consequences.


 If there is no right or wrong then how come I have so many infractions?


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

The radio should be banned. I can pirate songs with my mind! Recording parts of them in there. Why weren't casettes banned as pirate material back in the day? There's really only one thing that could be recorded on them, as opposed to CDs which have several non musical applications. So because something is easier now its all of a sudden illegal?


Mailman: There's also being a dick. He just didn't list it.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> The radio should be banned. I can pirate songs with my mind! Recording parts of them in there. Why weren't casettes banned as pirate material back in the day? There's really only one thing that could be recorded on them, as opposed to CDs which have several non musical applications. So because something is easier now its all of a sudden illegal?
> 
> 
> Mailman: There's also being a dick. He just didn't list it.



Oh, they tried to ban VHS tapes when they first came out.  See Sony v. Universal, 1984.  "They" lost.

Oddly enough, if you "record" that song with your mind, and then "play it back" by singing it out loud, you actually are breaking US laws regarding unlicensed performances.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> The radio should be banned. I can pirate songs with my mind! Recording parts of them in there. Why weren't casettes banned as pirate material back in the day? There's really only one thing that could be recorded on them, as opposed to CDs which have several non musical applications. So because something is easier now its all of a sudden illegal?



You did have data cassettes. Commodore used to have a cassette drive. Applications used to come in cassettes. Loading times were a bitch.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If there is no right or wrong then how come I have so many infractions?


Infractions are the consequence of going against the powers that be.  Being promoted to moderator is the consequence of going with the powers that be.  If the "powers that be" are altered, what is perceived to be right and wrong may go with it.  The consequence alone determines what is "right" and what is "wrong."  When there are no consequences, the concept of right and wrong ceases to exist.



Cassettes are still the norm for backing up data on the enterprise level.  Think of all the copyright infringments Walmart and Amazon commit when they backup their databases or copy it to a mirror server. :|


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Oh, they tried to ban VHS tapes when they first came out.  See Sony v. Universal, 1984.  "They" lost.
> 
> Oddly enough, if you "record" that song with your mind, and then "play it back" by singing it out loud, you actually are breaking US laws regarding unlicensed performances.



I was thinking tape deck not VHS. As for the unlicensed song thing that's awesome.




btarunr said:


> You did have data cassettes. Commodore used to have a cassette drive. Applications used to come in cassettes. Loading times were a bitch.



Yes, I recall as my parents used them and I frequently saw them around the house. Though weren't these a different size than the standard cassette?


----------



## btarunr (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Yes, I recall as my parents used them and I frequently saw them around the house. Though weren't these a different size than the standard cassette?



Standard compact cassettes. What's more, the Dutch had mastered a technique of "broadcasting" computer software over radio. People could tune in, and record the radio channel from a set time to another set time on cassettes using ordinary tape recorders, and straightaway use it on computers.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 9, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Infractions are the consequence of going against the powers that be.  Being promoted to moderator is the consequence of going with the powers that be.  If the "powers that be" are altered, what is perceived to be right and wrong may go with it.  The consequence alone determines what is "right" and what is "wrong."  When there are no consequences, the concept of right and wrong ceases to exist.



WOW! Thats the biggest over analysis of a joke I have ever seen.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 9, 2009)

Sorry. XD


----------



## El Fiendo (Jun 9, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Standard compact cassettes. What's more, the Dutch had mastered a technique of "broadcasting" computer software over radio. People could tune in, and record the radio channel from a set time to another set time on cassettes using ordinary tape recorders, and straightaway use it on computers.




Ah. Well I stand corrected. I seemed to remember them bigger for some reason. As for the Dutch, its been known for a long time they are crazy. This just further proves it.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 9, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Ah. Well I stand corrected. I seemed to remember them bigger for some reason. As for the Dutch, its been known for a long time they are crazy. This just further proves it.



Don't you realise now that they were one of the first with "wireless networking"  ?


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 9, 2009)

Mussels said:


> thats my way of seeing things. Sure, SOME ways of life wont work. Sitting on your ass letting your last good song pour in the millions, for example. But you can still make a lot of money even if no one buys the album - radio stations will pay to play it, TV music channels will pay for the video clips. And then theres all the live performances - people can pirate your songs, but they cant copy you so do things that focus on you, not the music.



Logic +1 :


----------



## caleb (Jun 10, 2009)

Nice to see these guys got into EU.
I dont care if they are right or wrong. Its the diffrence of perspective that helps the overall result over there.
Still I get the feeling its gonna be like Poland with germans having their 2 seats as the local minority just so we get a break from "bla bla bla we wanna have a vote too".

On the mailman hand. The old nice CD in Virgin store system is dead. 
Internet gives us such freedom nobody should ever gain any control of its content.
I really dont get it why wont artist make good use of internet and finally kick out money leeching producers from buisness. Just sell your stuff over internet for 25% of the retail shop price and everybody will be happy. Im pretty sure that on the long run you will get more from this when ppl will totally depend on getting digital entertainment from inet.

Its the same when computers came with robotics and suddenly everybody noticed ppl will loose their jobs. "Oh noez us cheap bastards will loose our jobs because of this hardware. We should stop this now !" .
Nobody will adjust the ways of evolution for some smaller group. If its bad for some but its  good for everyone that will be the way..


----------



## DaveK (Jun 10, 2009)

I've just skimmed through this thread, but who ever thought of paying the original price instead of a large fine is genius, that's a fucking brilliant idea. If I pirate a €20 DVD and get caught I should have to pay €20, not €250,000 and upto 5 years in prison which is what it currently is in Ireland.

I pirate a €20 movie so they would want me to pay €250,000...why? It's not like they would have got QUARTER OF A FUCKING MILLION euro from me buying 1 DVD. Funnily enough, most people I know have pirated, it's everyday stuff if for most people, doesn't matter if it's "just a few songs" or a fucking Blu-ray movie it's still piracy, but pretty much everyone I know has done it because it's so easy, everyone else does it and no one gets caught. How many people have I read in the paper getting caught with piracy, fined and jailed? None. Lotta rape, murder and drugs going on though.

Piracy is harmless, why should someone have to pay €250k and be looking at 5 years in a prison, 5 years in fucking prison over a movie? It's a joke. If they nailed us all most of Ireland would be in jail.

"You pirated a most likely shitty movie? YOU MONSTER! We're going to fine you something you can't afford and put you in a cell with a man who killed someone to death, raped women and children and sells hard drugs!"

You're not allowed copy movies to your hard-drive since it's illegal to break the security, yet no one cares. You're not supposed to show movies in schools/hospitals and so on, yet they still do it and no one cares. So why should anyone care if a person pirates a movie? Fair enough if they're stingy bastards and wont pay, but I have good intentions, and so do a lot of people.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2009)

DaveK said:


> put you in a cell with a man who killed someone to death



thats how serious piracy is. not only did he kill someone, he killed them so hard they DIED.



The reason for the fine is a deterrent - why would anyone pay, if there was no punishment to steal?
for a $20 DVD, the fine should be $100. deterrent, but SANE.


----------



## DaveK (Jun 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> thats how serious piracy is. not only did he kill someone, he killed them so hard they DIED.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess that makes sense, if it's a $20 fine they will probably do it again, $100 is reasonable, not something stupid like 250k which most people probably can't afford, hence why they probably pirated a movie in the first place lol.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> thats how serious piracy is. not only did he kill someone, he killed them so hard they DIED.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your right a 20 buck fine would be bugga all deterent but 200,000 and thats a whole different ball game. Course it dont stop ppl and even if you do get slugged its not like most of us would have that money in our wallets.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 10, 2009)

DaveK said:


> You're not allowed copy movies to your hard-drive since it's illegal to break the security, yet no one cares. You're not supposed to show movies in schools/hospitals and so on, yet they still do it and no one cares. So why should anyone care if a person pirates a movie? Fair enough if they're stingy bastards and wont pay, but I have good intentions, and so do a lot of people.



1)  I'm pretty sure the law barring the backing up of your own movies onto your hard drive is only present in the US, but I could be wrong.  (Has the EU passed their DMCA-like law yet?)

2)  In the US, showing movies in schools/hospitals is legally permitted under the "Fair Use" exemption to copyright.

Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2009)

Mussels said:


> thats how serious piracy is. not only did he kill someone, he killed them so hard they DIED.


 I lol'd on that one. It reminded me of a Family Guy were Peter was drunk and said "I took off my pants off."


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 10, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Ah. Well I stand corrected. I seemed to remember them bigger for some reason. As for the Dutch, its been known for a long time they are crazy. This just further proves it.



All I know about the Dutch is that you should never, ever, say their language sounds like German.

Even if it does.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> All I know about the Dutch is that you should never, ever, say their language sounds like German.
> 
> Even if it does.



I thought the Germans were Dutch that didn't have the funky fresh wooden shoes.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 10, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I thought the Germans were Dutch that didn't have the funky fresh wooden shoes.



I'll have you know that those shoes are actually far more stylish and comfortable than the Dutch let on.  It's a national secret.

Oh yeah -- also, never, ever refer to the Netherlands as "Holland," even if that's what everyone else calls it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Oh yeah -- also, never, ever refer to the Netherlands as "Holland," even if that's what everyone else calls it.


 I thought the Netherlands was the place between your privates and your anus. Man you guys are confusing me.


----------



## pantherx12 (Jun 10, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys have no idea how much this pisses me off as an artist. There is no argument for this.




You would get money other ways ...

Music and art would be distrubuted freely but websites would have a fuck load of ads and people would make some money.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 10, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> You would get money other ways ...



Yeah, like this:


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 10, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Yeah, like this:
> 
> http://imadeafunny.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/funny-hobo.jpg



Daddy?


----------



## Steevo (Jun 10, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> @Steevo: There is no right or wrong, only consequences.



Consequences are caused by a action or reaction and thus weighed and determined against the moral fiber of another to be right or wrong. Thus right and wrong exist, but are totally subjective.



If I post a nude woman in this thread, I will probably get a infraction, and thus it would have been determined that I did wrong. If the mod etc... were to like the image and add that to their fap folder and just remove it with out the infraction being given did I do wrong? By consequence no, but by rule yes, and yet the only weighted factor was the subjectiveness about how nice the tits looked.



I like boobies.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 12, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I thought the Netherlands was the place between your privates and your anus. Man you guys are confusing me.



No, no, no. That's the Nether-_regions_. 



Steevo said:


> _blah, blah, blah, saying some stuff that nobody cares about, droning on............_
> *I like boobies.*



The only important part of the conversation bolded.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 12, 2009)

I am torrenting a large set a friend did from TPB right now, and it is .......not illegal. 7GB of music in lossless format.



Still faster than a DVD of it in the mail, and free too, except the long wait.........



And I swear if I hear a song I like i will look it up in the index and buy the song and or CD.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 19, 2009)

i vote for pirates , they make me buy any dvd pay 3$ only , cuz this is real cost and this is what is deserve


----------



## El_Mayo (Jun 20, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> i vote for pirates , they make me buy any dvd pay 3$ only , cuz this is real cost and this is what is deserve



a dvd costs only $3?
how much does a CD cost then? :O


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2009)

El_Mayo said:


> a dvd costs only $3?
> how much does a CD cost then? :O



he's talking about pirate copies. in every country theres always one guy willing to download stuff, burn it to a DVD and charge people money for it.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 20, 2009)

Cd's dont cost more than that before they hit the music stores markup is huge wich equals ripoff.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Cd's dont cost more than that before they hit the music stores markup is huge wich equals ripoff.



Then dont buy them. Its still not an excuse to steal.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Then dont buy them. Its still not an excuse to steal.



Or set up a similar shop and sell them for less than your competitors.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 20, 2009)

Im just saying from the wholesaler to the stores there seems to be a rediculous markup on many products.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Cd's dont cost more than that before they hit the music stores markup is huge wich equals ripoff.



Then dont buy them. Its still not an excuse to steal.



Steevo said:


> Consequences are caused by a action or reaction and thus weighed and determined against the moral fiber of another to be right or wrong. Thus right and wrong exist, but are totally subjective.


Ok then while we are at it lets go ahead and redfine some other subjective "wrongs". Rape, molestation, murder, kidnapping and assault.



Triprift said:


> Im just saying from the wholesaler to the stores there seems to be a rediculous markup on many products.


Yup. Its called profit. Don't buy them and the price will go down. Its called supply and demand.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 20, 2009)

More like greed you could have lower prices and still have companies making huge profits.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2009)

Triprift said:


> More like greed you could have lower prices and still have companies making huge profits.



Again its simple. Don't buy their product.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 20, 2009)

Mailman you know were i stand on this as i do with you lets just choose to disagree as your a good man and i dont want to argue.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2009)

Triprift said:


> Mailman you know were i stand on this as i do with you lets just choose to disagree as your a good man and i dont want to argue.



 Agreed. I wish they would lock this damn thing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 20, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yup. Its called profit. Don't buy them and the price will go down. Its called supply and demand.


I just want to point out that videos and music CDs, the price really never comes down much.  They're almost always at around $15 each (starting at $20 and never get less than $10).  Games, on the other hand, their price comes way down once the sales figures start to slump from $50 to $15.  The game industry reacts to demand where the recording and motion picture industries really don't.  I could never figure that out.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I just want to point out that videos and music CDs, the price really never comes down much.  They're almost always at around $15 each (starting at $20 and never get less than $10).  Games, on the other hand, their price comes way down once the sales figures start to slump from $50 to $15.  The game industry reacts to demand where the recording and motion picture industries really don't.  I could never figure that out.



in this modern age when production costs are nullified online (no manufacturing, no shipping, no middlemen), people know that they should be getting things cheap. look at steam vs retail, the lower prices make people gobble the games up.

These industries wont allow that, simply because they're full of middlemen who dont want to lose their profits. Cant blame em really, it would suck to have your job taken away by the internet - but they can always move over to internet based stores and make the profit there (less profit per sale, but 100x more sales at least)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 21, 2009)

A DVD case which most games and videos ship in cost less than a $1.  Add in $0.50 (very high estimate) for producing the cover and other material.  Add in another $0.50 to copy a disk (very high estimate again).  That's at most $2 per CD/DVD sold in retail packaging.

Online, there is are a few factors that weigh in including including the size of the content to be distributed, the monthly charge to the hosts ISP(s), and the average number of times the content is downloaded per user.

There is a point where online distrobution costs far more than retail.  What that point is, I can only guess.

Which distrobution method is selling the best, and by how much, is also an industry secret.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A DVD case which most games and videos ship in cost less than a $1.  Add in $0.50 (very high estimate) for producing the cover and other material.  Add in another $0.50 to copy a disk (very high estimate again).  That's at most $2 per CD/DVD sold in retail packaging.



you're forgetting labor. it may cost that much to produce, but they dont CHARGE that much.


----------

