Bring4th

Sorry- just need to rant and vent for a bit

This will surely fit in perfectly with the theme of 'life on planet earth'... My wife and I bought a table and two chairs recently. But the person who delivered the items didn't realize that in addition to the table, each box has TWO chairs in it instead of one. So he gave us 2 boxes and therefore 4 chairs total- two of which we didn't pay for.

Well, we decided to keep the extra chairs, but also decided to go back to the store to pay for them. When we got there and explained the situation, the manager was amazed that we returned to pay for them when we could easily not have. But it wasn't the 'good' type of amazement. He proceeded to explain how it never would have been noticed, and are we sure we want to pay for this (which we did), etc... All of his body language and choice of words non-verbally told us that he thought we were pretty stupid.

Now- I'm not looking for compliments so much as just trying to do what I think is right, but I think it's fair to say someone who is in my position should (at least!) not be ridiculed by the very person who is benefiting by the action, especially where gratitude would normally be employed.

Well, I already know that the act in itself is it's own benefit and that karma is there, and so forth. But, sheesh! Can you believe it? Nobody said earth school was easy.

</rant>

Thanks Taha for your sympathetic comments I think you have an excellent point about the psychology behind the negative remarks, it makes a lot of sense.

putting my gold star on the mantle...

Well, you're not looking for compliments, but you'll get one anyway! Well done.
Please find comfort in that he learns other lessons in life than you, and they are not wrong for they will both be your own.

Ha ha, you're funny. And not for taking the money back, for getting so stressed about it all!

I used to work in a supermarket, and I was surprised at the amount of things that got stolen, it was like a small portion of the general population is comfortable stealing.

Anyway, I've had the same ideology been preached to me. I have a friend who is very money orientated, in that likes to get the best deal for his money etc. Downloads movies etc. Has that focus as an underlying motive.

Recently, we've had the expenses scandal in England, where our politicians are being scrutinised for behaviour approaching corruption in their expenses. I can just imagine this friend of mine saying 'you could get it on expenses. Oh my god, don't be so stupid, if you don't have to pay for it then don't.'

Seperate from them (as in be in a seperate room). Do your meditation, enjoy your food; and forget it, safe in the knowledge that all is peaceful.

When I was working at the local petrol forecourt, I always tried to be as nice as possible, and whenever I did overchange somebody, I did always get given the over back, of which I was always eternally grateful.

When it came to thieves, we had a local group of about 20 crackheads that came in daily to steal. At first it was very intimidating, but eventually I had a run in with thier 'ring leader' we had quite a giggle about him stealing actually. He was saying it's nothing personal against me, and I said the same back, it is merely my job to stop him. after that whenever we had eye contact when he walked in he would just put his hands up and shout you got me, and turn around. Of it all my colleagues where very confused I was actually having a laugh with the thieves.

I think to this specific group of people they felt there was nothing bad stealing from a company that made millions each year, it is half justifiable, but then if they can steal, why can't everybody else? then the comapny makes no money at all! This was why I stopped them, becuase I thought it was unfair to the people who actually paid for thier things.

10 points to Lavazza :p Gold stars are SO pre-school

Love and Light

Haha! These are great stories, keep them coming!

Stealing is indeed an interesting topic, especially as it relates to digital files. We're all familiar with the phenomenon of music and movie piracy. I must admit, that for a LONG stretch of time I was completely indifferent when it came to stealing / downloading copyrighted music via the internet. I'm almost 30 now and I pretty much got started with it when Napster came out in '99 or 2000. Although I realized on some level that it was wrong to do, it somehow felt justified because there were literally millions of others doing the exact same thing. Add that with not having much money and supporting arguments (to myself internally) that these companies are rich and it won't hurt them, and you produced someone who downloaded as much music as his bandwidth would allow. Same with movies.

Of course I came to a point eventually where I realized that I did not feel right about downloading things like that anymore. But it was an internal decision and I'm not sure that anyone could have convinced me externally. Now the hardest part about being "legit" with my music is that a lot of my friends still do download lots of music, and often times will hand it over to me. "You've got to hear this band! Here you go..." Well, instead of lecturing them about the philosophy behind the actions, I just accept the music and treat it as if I were listening to it on the radio. Once I've listened, I delete the files. If I love the music, I buy it. (still doesn't make it easy to hit the delete button I also let my friends know I do this with as small a degree of smugness as I can, so as to provide some sort of example.

Alas, I've come to value gold stars more than free music (or expensive dining room chairs... lol)

OH MY dont get me started on Piracy.

The reason I carry it on is becuase of the disgusting way the RIAA and MPAA conduct themselves. I think the most recent story I read was a single mother of 4 getting fined a few million dollars for downloading 24 songs with a value of 99c each. I do buy the games and movies that I do like, but unfortunately most of the film and music industry is stagnated with rubbish. Try before you buy is how I justify it personally. Not letting the big companies take advantage.

I had long been mulling over making a thread about the P2P issue of downloading 'illegally' but it is a never ending multifaceted argument.

Well, now you got me started on pirating

I cannot see downloading as stealing, for you are not stealing anything, you are merely copying - albeit stealing the profit from those who wants money. But money is separating, and I do not think in the ways of money paid = appreciation given. So I download, for I have no money. I have no interest in making money. Yet I give appreciation. I think, when I meet the people who created the things I download, they will not be angry, for money is only applicable on this planet and something extremely transient and humorous. Our friends in space are likely snickering to the folly and disservice we did to ourselves when we created these papers of imaginary value and meaning

Well, I'd love to hear the counter arguments on P2P for sure, especially since I was so close to the piracy scene for so long.

Sirius:
I followed the RIAA lawsuits closely, and I agree the legal actions they have taken are not equal to the copyright violations that have taken place, especially in situations involving single mothers. It's pretty revolting in fact. However the base of the RIAA's complaint is still legitimate I think, that people should not get music without paying for it. Speaking simply (and of course it is complicated), a music artist signs on with a record label. The artist gets promotion and the label gets money when the artist does well. But if you download it for free, both the artist and label lose out financially. I like the concept of music being free, but unless the artist is giving it away himself in full agreement with it being free, it must be stealing.

Ayadew:
You make a very interesting point about the non-physical nature of music, and how you can copy it infinitely with no seeming loss of the original content. But we (on this forum) of all people should recognize the importance of non-materialism. I guess music is almost a service more than a good. I've heard that a lot of bands (like Nine Inch Nails) are going more in the direction of giving away free music and then charging money for live shows as a business model... But unless this is the intent of the musicians, aren't we going against the wishes?

Now to be my own devils advocate, I suppose one thing that's emerging out of music piracy is industry reform. Since you can get everything for free, the industry is being forced to adopt different methods (like NIN). In that sense it might be a positive thing overall. But that brings us full circle again, is not the hallmark of STS doing things to supposedly show someone else the right path, instead of the typical STO action of letting them realize it themselves? Maybe that only works on a personal level, I'm not sure.

I'm very interested in this topic... I feel fairly certain about my views but I would love to be shown how they are possibly distorted or wrong.

I think my new signature reflects what ayadew was saying

The final blow from the MPAA and RIAA was when the bands started protesting and threatening to take them to court becuase they never saw any money from the countless lawsuits which where created so the bands would get thier money! So they do it to themselves without help from me and my neighbor By trying to get the piracy to stop they have broken so many international laws, most notably and repeatedly, Privacy.

The piracy issue does make a statement about the advancing of an industry referm, but this reform wont go fully fledged until the claws are in it beyond skin deep, just as they are in the aging system of CDs etc

This is going rapidly off topic, maybe somebody should make the separate thread for it, which I was not inclined to do haha

Love and Light my fellow Pirates

(07-09-2009, 01:44 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]Well, now you got me started on pirating

I cannot see downloading as stealing, for you are not stealing anything, you are merely copying - albeit stealing the profit from those who wants money. But money is separating, and I do not think in the ways of money paid = appreciation given. So I download, for I have no money. I have no interest in making money. Yet I give appreciation. I think, when I meet the people who created the things I download, they will not be angry, for money is only applicable on this planet and something extremely transient and humorous. Our friends in space are likely snickering to the folly and disservice we did to ourselves when we created these papers of imaginary value and meaning

Dearest friend ayadew,

Why do you think they call them Copyrights? Yes, according to the letter and intent of the intelectual property laws of our fine blue orb, copying something that is Copyrighted without permission is tantamount to stealing, and can result the 3D manifest portion of your mind/body/spirit complex being fined or imprisoned. Will it? Probably not, but I prefer not to temp fate.

The extent to which such actions run afoul of any cosmic laws has, IMHO, more to do with your intent and attitude and ability to forgive yourself. You seem to be on firmer ground here, but you are the ultimate judge.

As to the inherent humor and folly in monitary systems, I agree, but it is unfortunately the custom of the peoples here. "When in Rome", as they say.

3D Sunset

Quote:Now- I'm not looking for compliments so much as just trying to do what I think is right

Well done. Good Job I thought that was super classy and awesome style...
Oh wait. NOT looking for compliments..

I have a similar story, I once tried to pay for a pile of books I bought. The guy forgot to scan one of the books. And I mentioned that he made a mistake. He was offended and said he made no mistake. I told him he did. And he refused to look at the books or the price... I ended up demanding he brings in a manager. The manager understood me. Scolded the guy but did not make the effort to thank me in any way. I should not have insisted on a manager. I should just have thanked the guy for his generosity.

However the other way round happens too.. I was buying a bathrobe for my grandfathers birthday. There were a bunch of lousy robes. And one that I loved that was much more expensive than I had in mind. But you know, the guy is quite old and I won't be buying many more birthday gifts for him so I thought what the heck and decided to bring the expensive one. I went to pay for it, and there was this really cute girl behind the register. I put the robe in front of her and tell her it's for my 90 year old granddad. She says, "How sweet!" and promptly gives me a wink and 15% reduction. So I said thank you.


@LaVazza... It's not stealing, stealing is defined by law as taking an article making it impossible for the original owner to make use of the article. A copy does not make this impossible. In fact nothing is missing therefore nothing is stolen... This is called a violation of copyright. Copyright is the law involved. It is not stealing and we should not allow ourselves to be guilt tripped into believing it is stealing. Also copyright law clearly includes the right for copies for personal use. The fair use of parts of songs and parts of articles in your own material. And the reorganization of copyrighted material into new products. This is our right, by law. They would like to call it stealing and are effectively putting in measures to stop us from exercising our lawful rights.

Mickey Mouse was a copy of another cartoon character, steamboat mike or something. Mickey Mouse was not invented by Walt Disney. According to their own vocabulary: He stole it, became rich from it. And then lobbied for these reductions in copyright.

Sony, sells us Mp3 player's and music... Do you think you're allowed to listen to the music on your Mp3 player? If you do, according to them... You're stealing!

The vast majority of bands who get involved with record companies do not succeed. You need 3 records to get paid. Before that time you're giving your time and effort for free. The record company however makes a lot of money from you. Then when the third record is not so successful. Bye bye! They kick you out. You never received a cent for your effort.

It's a bunch of STS parasites sucking the life out of music. Turn on your tv switch between music channels. See any music? Because I sure don't.. It's all an attempt to recreate the last hit. Where's the new Jethro Tull? The new Morrison? The new Hendrix?

I don't feel guilty over copying the music I do like... I just feel angry at being called a criminal for it.

There was no defined topic to begin with. I would say that this thread is generally about stealing, and piracy is truly a part of that.

Lavazza: My thoughts are about the same as yours, thank you for formulating them.

You speak of non-inteference when you say oppose "forcing", which indeed is the very end extreme of STO. But to be purely non-inteferent, would be to end your own life to totally respect and honor all other peoples wishes.
I feel, as long as you think your action benefits the world and humanity as a whole it can be classified as a service to others - this of course sparks the classic dilemmas of:
Kill 1000 to save 1000000. And such.

And I feel strongly that money has only brought us separation, and it's my strongest motivation to why I pirate - to encourage the action of spreading freely, and find solutions that do not require money.
It's a small step, and may indeed not be against all people's wishes, but whatever I do in this world it will be against some people's wishes. Particularly in the time we live in now.

---

Hello 3D Sunset. Thank you for your concern. As outlined by Ali Quadir, I do not wish to feed the STS companies either. Money is simply not in my interest, and if I shall be classified as stealing while I uphold this ideal of mine, then I will take the consequences. Will I be imprisoned, I will be grateful for this, for it will be a completely new experience and a great catalyst where it will be a challenge to find the love of all.

And thus I am quite self-righteous in this, to the better or worse I do not know. But I feel that it's my only path in this, if I continue to use my computer for enjoyment that is. In a not too distant future, I can see myself growing distant from all this digital communication and entertainment, for I am currently moving in that direction.

(07-09-2009, 03:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Now- I'm not looking for compliments so much as just trying to do what I think is right

Well done. Good Job I thought that was super classy and awesome style...
Oh wait. NOT looking for compliments..

And although they were unasked for, I will offer thanks

(07-09-2009, 03:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]@LaVazza... It's not stealing, stealing is defined by law as taking an article making it impossible for the original owner to make use of the article.

I am not versed in the actual law as it is written and recorded, but if this is how the law defines stealing, I will have to slightly disagree with it. In my view stealing is the simple act of taking something without permission. So unless a record label or music artist, or someone else who has authority over the original content tells me it is ok to download it for free, I would call it theft.

The legal system and the music industry is infinitely more complex then the example that I am about to offer, but please bear with me:

Suppose I recorded an album of myself playing the spoons with an old fashioned washboard. (I just might!). I have an idea in advance of how many people will buy it. Lets say 10 people for example. I launch the album, and of my estimated 10 customers, 2 of them download it for free from the internet. Thus I only earn 80% of my expected income, almost as if someone had stolen the other 20%. This is simplified from reality, but on a fundamental level is this not the real life scenario?

(07-09-2009, 04:44 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Suppose I recorded an album of myself playing the spoons with an old fashioned washboard. (I just might!). I have an idea in advance of how many people will buy it. Lets say 10 people for example. I launch the album, and of my estimated 10 customers, 2 of them download it for free from the internet. Thus I only earn 80% of my expected income, almost as if someone had stolen the other 20%. This is simplified from reality, but on a fundamental level is this not the real life scenario?

Wait Lavazza, you didn't take into account the evil, money grubbing, STS corporate lynch-pins like Walt Disney (who is apparently exerting his influence even from within the cryogenic tube in which he awaits future reanimation) that are the ones you would have to approach, on bended knee, in order to get your music properly launched to begin with. They would increase your potential audience from 10 to 1,000,000, of which 200,000 would pirate it, but the pirates would go see you in concert, and that's where you make most of your money, so it all really works okay in the end.... right? (Oops, sorry, Ali, I think I'm guilty of flamebaiting again.. can you forgive me?).

I must say that I'm having a little difficulty with Ali and ayadew's perspective on this one myself. Ultimately their arguments sound like "it's okay to do wrong to those that do wrong" (meaning the recording industry, not the artists, who are apparently collateral damage).

To each his own I guess, but this is not how I raise my children. Which brings up an interesting question... How would or do you explain this position to your children? I am reminded of the time that my middle child asked me why we bring our own candy into the movies. I explained that, well... um, the candy is outrageously expensive at the movies, because they are gouging us since we're a captive audience. To which she innocently replied, "But Daddy, the sign says no outside food or drink allowed in the theater". Even though this assertion by the theater does not even have the full force of the law on its side, I said the only thing I could say, "You're right, we won't take any candy in." And henceforth, we have had no candy at the movies. My best and favorite lessons in life have been taught by my children.

3D Sunset

(07-09-2009, 03:33 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]You speak of non-inteference when you say oppose "forcing", which indeed is the very end extreme of STO. But to be purely non-inteferent, would be to end your own life to totally respect and honor all other peoples wishes.

True, but I don't think we need to go to the extreme of suicide

(07-09-2009, 03:33 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]I feel, as long as you think your action benefits the world and humanity as a whole it can be classified as a service to others - this of course sparks the classic dilemmas of:
Kill 1000 to save 1000000. And such.

This is a great point. Perhaps the mass music piracy IS indeed bringing about a more positive change that will ultimately help more than it hinders. I hope that is the end result. But wouldn't another way to achieve the same thing be a boycott of RIAA affiliated music (purchased or pirated) altogether? I do not know if it's a better solution, just musing at this point.

from most of the 'pirates' I have known boycott is certainly what they call it. hehe

I must say I go browsing for torrents when I read RIAA court cases...

Perhaps it's more constructive to be for an alternative versus against a system. If you sell through the record labels one way or the other with piracy or the manipulations of the record labels you get a bad deal. You could say they're taking money in amounts that do not belong to them. Loosely speaking stealing from their artists.

The alternative are small and big groups setting up internet sell points where you can actually buy directly from the musician the musician pays a per sale percentage that is a lot smaller than the insane percentages they have to pay to big record labels. The difference is that it's still their own music it's not music they made but owned by the labels. Amazon is setting up such a service right now. The artist must invest a small sum but selling 10 albums is projected to break even. In other words: school kids could do it. They don't care for quality at amazon, everything is just present in a category and treated equal. Either you go browsing or get linked there through the artists site.

This alternative won't stop piracy but the profits for the actual musicians go skyhigh compared to before. Also this decentralizes the music business and gets it back in the domain of consumers and artists. You'll get successful school bands selling to their own public. And the variety and diversity of music will increase a thousand fold.

In a way the strangle hold of the labels and the customers that become loyal pirates might cause a shift in the business that we'll literally all profit from. The pirate community is surprisingly ethical if you momentarily ignore the fact that they're pirating everything digitalized. But from another point of view they're self regulating and have no bias to where they distribute meaning culture is divided among the population equally. Culture has always been a human birthright. The early copyright laws recognized this fact. Only under modern day copyright laws has it become unethical to just take other peoples work and build on it. Before this this was considered recognition. And in reality isn't it the ideal for most artists to be an inspiration to their fans?

As a poor kid and student I mostly downloaded and copied what I desired. When I became older and got my own job I started to use my wallet to vote. I do spend money on music movies and software. I tend to spend it in the places that in my understanding reflect this basic principle that culture needs to be free.

Right now the laws of my country allow me to download content for personal use. I do not share the labels opinion that doing this within the law is stealing. And I don't like to be lectured about ethical behavior by the bunch the music business have become. I occasionally get the chance to reward good behavior by purchasing a product. When I get the chance I often just go for it. Apparently there's many like me Nine inch nails released a free album and offered a 300$ deluxe edition. It sold out in no time landing him 750 thousand in a matter of days after release.

Of course that guy is a big star. But in smaller scale, a buddy of mine knows a game programming student who sold a simple puzzle game for the iPhone you could buy it for a pound and for every sell he received 70 cents. This college kid sold 10 thousand copies for a few weekends work. If he repeats the trick a few times he can fund his own game company by the time he graduates.

I think they're just forerunners of a new way of doing business.

(07-09-2009, 09:14 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Nine inch nails released a free album and offered a 300$ deluxe edition. It sold out in no time landing him 750 thousand in a matter of days after release.

Yeah, it was a nice move for Trent that worked well. It was a four part album and he gave the first one away for free (this would be 'shareware' technique, that id software first explored with the game Doom). Then you could buy the other 3 parts for just $5 which I did. (I wish I had gotten the $300 edition however!)

Interestingly though, the entire 'Ghosts' album was also available on all the major torrent networks within a few hours of it's release and had a good deal of activity Certainly there are many who simply enjoy the free aspect of torrents, not necessarily the philosophical side.

It's a very interesting time in the music and movie industry... and other industries. Old systems are breaking down and being replaced with newer, better ones. I was listening to a public radio spot yesterday about how Google is trailblazing the 'free' approach to software. Did you hear that they are developing a free operating system?

Sorry, I seem to be derailing this thread even further.

(07-08-2009, 08:52 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]...the manager was amazed that we returned to pay for them when we could easily not have. But it wasn't the 'good' type of amazement. He proceeded to explain how it never would have been noticed, and are we sure we want to pay for this (which we did), etc... All of his body language and choice of words non-verbally told us that he thought we were pretty stupid.

Evidently, that manager didn't care because it was just a job to him. If it had been a family-run business, the owner would have surely been most appreciative! But nowadays, since most businesses are corporate, there's very little sense of loyalty to the company.

---

(07-09-2009, 02:37 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]...However the base of the RIAA's complaint is still legitimate I think, that people should not get music without paying for it. Speaking simply (and of course it is complicated), a music artist signs on with a record label. The artist gets promotion and the label gets money when the artist does well. But if you download it for free, both the artist and label lose out financially.

I myself have mixed feelings on this. I think the whole system needs an overhaul. I know a lot of musicians have felt ripped off by the record companies for a very long time, and I'm not sure that it's any better with the downloading system. And, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Think about it: We've all grown up listening to music on the radio for free, and watching music videos on tv for free, and we have always had the ability to record them. I still have my old collection of cassette tapes I recorded off the radio back in the 70s! So how is copying from the internet any different, really? I'm not saying it's ok; just that it's a difficult situation. I would like to see the artists benefit more and not be so dependent on the record companies, and that is happening, thankfully. There are lots of artists who sell their music on the internet without a record company. They're not mainstream, but then, most of the best music (imo) tends to not be mainstream.

---

(07-09-2009, 02:37 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]I've heard that a lot of bands (like Nine Inch Nails) are going more in the direction of giving away free music and then charging money for live shows as a business model... But unless this is the intent of the musicians, aren't we going against the wishes?

Remember when Metallica made a big deal about it and alienated their fans? How ironic. Yet they did have the right to feel as they did.

---

(07-09-2009, 03:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I don't feel guilty over copying the music I do like... I just feel angry at being called a criminal for it.

Wow, thanks Ali! I was hiding my head in shame. Now I feel better.

---

(07-09-2009, 03:33 PM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]And I feel strongly that money has only brought us separation, and it's my strongest motivation to why I pirate - to encourage the action of spreading freely, and find solutions that do not require money.

It's definitely not a black-and-white issue. What about when we copy a cd to give to friend who's depressed, and the music cheers them up?

I do try to support artists and buy music whenever possible. But I also loooooooove turning people on to music! So I create 'sampler' cds of music to give to people - it's truly a love of mine. Now, with youtube, I like to send links to live videos of great shows, that might otherwise have been forgotten. I see tremendous value in this and cannot fathom limiting myself to ONLY sharing cds I've actually bought.

Music is food for the soul...and, as has been pointed out, copying it does not diminish it. Sort of like the saying "A candle loses none of its light by lighting another candle."

Ideally, art, like knowledge, should be freely given and enjoyed by all!

And yet, I do think the artists should be compensated somehow...but I don't have a solution for that. The system needs an overhaul.

(07-09-2009, 09:56 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]It's a very interesting time in the music and movie industry... and other industries. Old systems are breaking down and being replaced with newer, better ones. I was listening to a public radio spot yesterday about how Google is trailblazing the 'free' approach to software. Did you hear that they are developing a free operating system?

I agree...old systems breaking down and being replaced by newer, better ones. Case in point: the medical industry (corrupt, cumbersome, oftentimes harmful & even barbaric) being replaced by the alternative health industry (elegant, wholistic, harmless).

There already is a free operating system - Linux! And free office software - Open Office. I've been using them for awhile.

I've not read the posts up to this point, but I thought I'd share a result of piracy:
https://www.spotify.com/en/
It's a client that hosts mainstream music for free, with the drawback of having to listen to commercials every 5 song or so. I think this is a great change, and I often use it instead of pirating. I think it costs a little to initially get the program now though, and may only be aviable in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain.

(07-09-2009, 09:56 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]It's a very interesting time in the music and movie industry... and other industries. Old systems are breaking down and being replaced with newer, better ones. I was listening to a public radio spot yesterday about how Google is trailblazing the 'free' approach to software. Did you hear that they are developing a free operating system?

Meh, you should read that as "they're going to release a distribution of chrome that gets started by a linux kernel" which has been a free operating system for the last 20 years or so.

But this is a great example of how free works. The linux operating system including all software freely available with it has an estimated value of a couple of billion dollars in labor alone. The result works quite well and is freely available for everyone. There are many spin offs like this chrome OS is going to be. (Which will certainly find it's uses, just not on the desktop imho.) But it was also used for laptops for kids in developing countries.

I believe Trent Reznor (to get back to the NIN guy) actually released his music under a license where he basically allowed (and encouraged) users to do everything holy or unholy to his music as long as everyone is allowed to do everything to their results when they're done.

(07-10-2009, 03:48 AM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]I've not read the posts up to this point, but I thought I'd share a result of piracy:
https://www.spotify.com/en/
It's a client that hosts mainstream music for free, with the drawback of having to listen to commercials every 5 song or so. I think this is a great change, and I often use it instead of pirating. I think it costs a little to initially get the program now though, and may only be aviable in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain.

http://www.pandora.com/ is another great one. But it's ad-free so far as I know. The audio quality is about the same as the FM radio however.

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:We've all grown up listening to music on the radio for free, and watching music videos on tv for free, and we have always had the ability to record them. I still have my old collection of cassette tapes I recorded off the radio back in the 70s!

The difference is that the artists and record label heads, etc. know in advance that this will happen and are happy to let it happen. Permission is given, whereas it is not in digital music copying. Although it is a great point to bring up!

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Music is food for the soul...and, as has been pointed out, copying it does not diminish it. Sort of like the saying "A candle loses none of its light by lighting another candle."

And yet copying does diminish the sales that would otherwise be earned, hurting the artists themselves on some level. Ali said earlier that in some instances, bands have to produce three good albums before they can even start to see revenue. As unjust as that is, is that not the agreement that is made with the artist's knowledge? They know what they're getting in to by this point, I can't accept that they are being victimized in the same way that some have portrayed it. (not necessarily anyone here).

Certainly reform is needed, but I am undecided as to whether pirating music is the proper avenue. Wouldn't the better route be from the bottom up, instead of the top down? I.e. the musicians themselves boycott RIAA affiliated record labels or other organizations that are unfair and thereby spur change. Why is it that the music fans are the ones that are helping the artists, instead of the artists helping themselves?

I may be going overboard here, but could we liken the situation to peaceful vs. violent protests? Both have the ability to bring about change, but one is harmful and one is not. Likewise with music industry reform, one is illegal (copying digital music files) while one is not illegal (musicians standing up for themselves and giving their business to fair companies)... Artists like Reznor, Saul Williams, Madonna Radiohead (to an extent) are taking responsibility. Not to mention every artist who has submitted work here: www.jamendo.com

It is a very interesting topic for me.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.pandora.com/ is another great one.

I use Pandora.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is that the artists and record label heads, etc. know in advance that this will happen and are happy to let it happen. Permission is given, whereas it is not in digital music copying. Although it is a great point to bring up!

Are you saying the permission is what makes the difference? What about books? We've all loaned books to others. If another person reads a book we bought, is that stealing from the author? Authors know that their books will end up in public libraries, but have they given explicit permission for us to loan their books?

For that matter, what about buying used books at garage sales or used book stores? Or buying used cds or dvds? Used anything? Are we robbing the artist by buying the item used instead of new? How many of us have purchased used books, cds or dvds on amazon.com?

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]...And yet copying does diminish the sales that would otherwise be earned, hurting the artists themselves on some level.

That's true in the case of someone routinely downloading instead of buying, but it's not necessarily true in many cases.

Serious fans of certain artists tend to support their artists. For example, I'm a serious fan of Peter Gabriel, Radiohead, AFI, Sonata Arctica, and a few others whose new releases are anxiously anticipated, and I would buy the cd even if someone gave me a copied version, simply because I feel strongly about having all their works in my collection, and I want to support the artist who has brought so much joy into my life with their music.

otoh, I have lots of music that was given to me by others who downloaded it, and my enjoying that music does not in any way reduce their sales, because I would not have bought the music anyway! In many cases, if my friend had not given me a copy of the music, I would not even have known they existed!

Before the digital age, there were 'pirate' vinyl albums and 'bootleg' vinyl albums. I had a boyfriend who owned a used record store, and he never carried any pirated albums, because they clearly replaced the originals, but he proudly carried bootlegs, which were illegally recorded live shows. Why? Because no one but the hardcore fans ever bought bootlegs! The quality was typically poor, but the hardcore fans wanted them anyway. It did not rob the artists because the hardcore fans already owned everything the artist had ever done; they just wanted more.

I think there is still an honor system in place among the serious fans. Those who are able to buy the official releases do, and those who are unable to because of financial reasons wouldn't have bought it anyway, so there's no harm done. And those who browse the torrents for cool, obscure stuff wouldn't have found that stuff in the stores anyway.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people downloading the new Metallica album instead of buying it. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that the diminishment of sales might not be as drastic as it seems at first glance.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Ali said earlier that in some instances, bands have to produce three good albums before they can even start to see revenue.

I would modify that to say "bands have to produce commercially accessible albums before they can even start to see revenue."

As a connoisseur of non-commercially-accessible, even obscure music, I think the best music is usually NOT what makes it to the radio/mainstream. In fact, I am forever asking people to please not judge an artist by their hits, but to give their obscure works a chance. Good examples are Judas Priest, Scorpions, Blue Oyster Cult, and Peter Gabriel. These are all known for their hits, but I personally consider their hits to be their worst songs! They have so many other songs that have far more depth than what was played on the radio & vh1.

And this is my main complaint about the music industry: that it is an industry at all. Artists are not free to create art for the sake of art; they must create what sells or get dropped from the label.

Case in point: Peter Gabriel. He was the vocalist for the prog-rock band Genesis in the early 70s. As soon as they started having a bit of commercial success, he left, for myriad reasons, not the least of which was personal/family issues, but the commercial success was definitely a factor, as portrayed in the lyrics from a song off his first solo album:

Climbing up on Solsbury Hill
I could see the city light
Wind was blowing, time stood still
Eagle flew out of the night
He was something to observe
Came in close, I heard a voice
Standing stretching every nerve
Had to listen had no choice
I did not believe the information
(I) just had to trust imagination
My heart going boom boom boom
"Son," he said "Grab your things,
I've come to take you home."

To keep in silence I resigned
My friends would think I was a nut
Turning water into wine
Open doors would soon be shut
So I went from day to day
Tho' my life was in a rut
"Till I thought of what I'd say
Which connection I should cut
I was feeling part of the scenery
I walked right out of the machinery
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" he said "Grab your things
I've come to take you home."

When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free
Watched by empty silhouettes
Who close their eyes but still can see
No one taught them etiquette
I will show another me
Today I don't need a replacement
I'll tell them what the smile on my face meant
My heart going boom boom boom
"Hey" I said "You can keep my things,
they've come to take me home."

Everyone thought he was nuts leaving Genesis at the height of their fame, but he never regretted it. He grew as an artist, without the pressure of a band, while the band went on to become a commercial success. (Serious fans like me prefer the Gabriel era of Genesis to the pop fluff they became later, but I digress.)

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]As unjust as that is, is that not the agreement that is made with the artist's knowledge? They know what they're getting in to by this point, I can't accept that they are being victimized in the same way that some have portrayed it. (not necessarily anyone here).

Such is the musical genius of Peter Gabriel that he actually made a few hits intentionally, just so he could earn enough $$ to open his own recording studio and be free to create whatever kind of music he wants. After his hits, did the unthinkable: he made soundtrack albums! This was commercial suicide, but he didn't care. He wanted to focus on composing serious music instead of fluffy hits, and that's what he did. He also got more involved in humanitarian work, which further delayed releasing new music, much to the dismay of his fans (including me, ha!).

Peter Gabriel is gifted enough to know how and when to play the game, but not all artists have the ability to create a hit at will just to keep the record companies happy. Too often, the artist's creative expression is compromised.

Another case in point:

Boston. Their debut album in 1976 was considered a 'perfect' album - absolutely brilliant! It was a huge hit and got a lot of radio play. It took them several years to write that music. Well, the record company demanded a repeat performance! They weren't free to create something new and different, but were expected to duplicate the first album, since it was a known success. Hence, instead of being ART, it became formulaic. Boston had no choice but to oblige, and produced another album that was basically just a rehashed version of the first. The mainstream didn't know the difference, but fans of their first album lost respect. Boston became a joke, which was a shame because their first album really was masterful; quite a classic.

This has happened with many other bands. Blue Oyster Cult was a heavy metal band in the 70s. But as soon as Don't Fear the Reaper became a hit, they were expected to produce more of the same. So their subsequent albums all had Reaper clones, with Buck doing the vocals instead of their main singer, Eric, only because Buck had done the vocals on Reaper.

The serious fans consider this criminal! Because the talent of the artist is curtailed.

Just because someone knows they're being victimized doesn't mean they're not being victimized. I've read enough rock star autobiographies (and met some in person) to know a bit about how artists have been routinely exploited by the record industry.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Certainly reform is needed, but I am undecided as to whether pirating music is the proper avenue.

Agreed.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't the better route be from the bottom up, instead of the top down? I.e. the musicians themselves boycott RIAA affiliated record labels or other organizations that are unfair and thereby spur change. Why is it that the music fans are the ones that are helping the artists, instead of the artists helping themselves?

They are. The big names like NIN, Radiohead, and Peter Gabriel have already been mentioned. But I know of many, many underground artists who have never released their music on cd and will never be on itunes, but they have multiple releases all the same. They probably won't ever hit the big time, but they are creating ART! Some of the most exciting new music won't ever get any airplay.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]Both have the ability to bring about change, but one is harmful and one is not. Likewise with music industry reform, one is illegal (copying digital music files) while one is not illegal (musicians standing up for themselves and giving their business to fair companies).

It's a great start, but I don't think it's quite that simple. As with sonograms, DNA testing, and other medical screening technologies, technology has surpassed humans' abiility to ethically utilize it. Certainly a harmless solution is preferable, if we can figure out how to do it. But how to undo the freedom that comes with technological advances?

Pink Floyd summed it up nicely:

Have a Cigar (Waters) 5:24

Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far, fly high,
You're never gonna die,
You're gonna make it if you try;
They're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect,
And I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

We're just knocked out.
We heard about the sell out.
You gotta get an album out.
You owe it to the people.
We're so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green,
Have you seen the chart?
It's a helluva start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

---

(07-11-2009, 03:27 AM)Taha Wrote: [ -> ]On another note, with the mention of Blue Oyster Cult...

Yeah, it's funny.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any good footage of them from when they were heavy. They were stunning in the 70s, but later became a joke...victims of record company exploitation. BOC meant a lot to me. It was just tragic.

(07-10-2009, 12:27 PM)Lavazza Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-10-2009, 03:48 AM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]I've not read the posts up to this point, but I thought I'd share a result of piracy:
https://www.spotify.com/en/
It's a client that hosts mainstream music for free, with the drawback of having to listen to commercials every 5 song or so. I think this is a great change, and I often use it instead of pirating. I think it costs a little to initially get the program now though, and may only be aviable in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain.

http://www.pandora.com/ is another great one. But it's ad-free so far as I know. The audio quality is about the same as the FM radio however.

It's not really like pandora, because you can chose the songs you want to listen to. Last FM and Pandora choses similar songs to that you wish to listen to, I recall.

(07-11-2009, 11:36 AM)ayadew Wrote: [ -> ]It's not really like pandora, because you can chose the songs you want to listen to. Last FM and Pandora choses similar songs to that you wish to listen to, I recall.

I've never heard of Last FM, but I will check it out. I love Pandora because you get turned on to new artists you've never heard of before. It's a really cool concept!

Oh Taha, just the mention of "Cowbell" made me laugh! Thanks for that.

In regards to Pandora, they do insert commercials unless one pays for an upgrade to the service. (Just discovered that last week after not having visited the site for a while.) Still, the commercials are very brief and only periodic - as opposed to TV commercials, which overshadow the programming to such an extent that I personally can no longer tolerate commercial TV. Too bad, too, because I do have my "guilty pleasures". (Mostly shows that focus on the paranormal, albeit in a pablum kind of way, it being commercial TV and all.)

Sorry. Off-topic.

I'm not a pirate of music or movies, but for me I'm afraid it's more a matter of I just don't care.... Although, strangely enough, I care enough about you all that I read through this entire thread!

*a shrug and a giggle*
plur

(07-14-2009, 12:51 AM)pluralone Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad, too, because I do have my "guilty pleasures". (Mostly shows that focus on the paranormal, albeit in a pablum kind of way, it being commercial TV and all.)

Sorry. Off-topic.

That's alright, this thread has changed focus a couple of times so it's more of a sandbox at this point My wife and I are hooked on the 'Lost' TV series, ever see that one? Some fun paranormal elements in there.

(07-14-2009, 12:51 AM)pluralone Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a pirate of music or movies, but for me I'm afraid it's more a matter of I just don't care.... Although, strangely enough, I care enough about you all that I read through this entire thread!

Haha, Cheers to you as well, Pluralone!

---

(07-10-2009, 09:21 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying the permission is what makes the difference? What about books? We've all loaned books to others. If another person reads a book we bought, is that stealing from the author? Authors know that their books will end up in public libraries, but have they given explicit permission for us to loan their books? - For that matter, what about buying used books at garage sales or used book stores? Or buying used cds or dvds? Used anything? Are we robbing the artist by buying the item used instead of new? How many of us have purchased used books, cds or dvds on amazon.com?

Yes, I would say permission is exactly what makes the difference. Theft is, as I understand it, is the taking of something without permission.

In the case of books, the difference is that they are a physical good that cannot be replicated with a few mouse clicks. Since you would have purchased the book from someone, the book itself becomes your property, just like anything else. So if you decide to give it to your friend for free, sell it at a garage sale, or even just loan it to someone, there is nothing wrong with that because you are the owner of that item. But what you don't own is the right to copy and distribute the content (via Xerox machine, PDF scanner, etc.) to others, which is where copyright laws come in. By and large it's not a problem with books because people generally speaking don't want to read a book that has been printed out of a Xerox machine or squint their eyes at the computer screen, and people also like the experience of opening and reading a book.

But the same cannot be said of digital music files, where you are making an identical copy. A MP3 I get from iTunes is identical to the one I download with bittorrent. Therein creates the problem- you are not loaning your music to someone so that you do not have it when they have it. You both have it at the same time. Same thing can apply to computer software, movies, stock photos, and most other digital assets that are bought and sold.

(07-10-2009, 09:21 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]That's true in the case of someone routinely downloading instead of buying, but it's not necessarily true in many cases. Serious fans of certain artists tend to support their artists.

Agreed. Would that everyone would do the same! Alas...

(07-10-2009, 09:21 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]And this is my main complaint about the music industry: that it is an industry at all. Artists are not free to create art for the sake of art; they must create what sells or get dropped from the label.

I agree that this is bad, and that reform is needed. But in the interim, should we use this as a right to pirate music from the bad guys? As 3D Sunset said earlier, is it alright to do bad things to bad people? How does that make us better? Forgive me if I am making the assumption that you feel this way as you did not explicitly state this- but it is a common theme in the pirate community (I of all people should know )