It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Filesharing Conspiracy

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:25 PM
And I am sure if you were starving you would steal that grain of food.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:39 PM
Starving and stealing grains of food is completely different than stealing a luxury.

You have free radio, you have free TV. If it doesn't have what you want save up and buy what you want. Can't afford the book you want then go to the library. You can't afford the video game you want? There are thousnads of free flash games to play while you count your pennies.

There are free options. If you don't like them save up and pay for what you think is the better option. In most western countries you are given tons of free access to information, music, and art. If you find the free options lacking you can pay for better options.

You are not being denied your needs. You are being denied your wants, your luxuries. To try justifying stealing a non necessity is simply justifying being a common thief.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
First of all, its complete overload, millions of people into mega-consumers who spend most of the day in entertainment

I disagree.

Before anything else,
If I buy a CD, Burn it for my friend & give it to him. this is fine. but if I do the exact same thing with more recent & superior tech, that being via P2P, suddenly I am pirating & considered a distributor of pirated content.

Mega consumers were that way already and will be that way after,
just as an addictive personality will always find something to become addicted to.

I don't think its "complete over-load" either,
I personally thrive on art & knowledge but use a little self control & know my own limits, I agree however that most have no self control whatsoever, nor is the info environment set up for such things.

You say 'most of their day in entertainment'.....
I would suggest most people would be at work (if they can get any) & if you are referring to online sourced entertainment being digested at work via phones etc, perhaps if the workloads weren't constantly increasing, working days getting longer, and dollar worth lower, people wouldn't feel such a strong need to escape it all

Re: your ref' to it as 'theft' -
people still pay for the internet service, the download quota, spend the time to download etc money still changes hands & those that choose to download often do so knowing they are sacrificing quality to have it for free (albeit not technically free).

I have a passion for writing fiction & have been a passionate musician my whole life, I enjoyed both of those things before I EVER heard of money & will continue to do these things regardless of if it makes a profit.
there's that old saying, those that drop out of art school, become true artists & those who graduate become art teachers.
I studied sound engineering & eventually dropped out myself when (among other reasons) i found out the reality of the money making opportunities in the commercial music industry, and what the 'music industry' really was all about, who ran it & such, I didn't & still don't care to be part of 'that'.

Also there's a cop-out factor in this thread, if you don't like the way piracy affects YOU, take some action of your own to do something about it.

Radio head for e.g. they actually managed to make a larger personal profit with only %40 of fans paying for their latest, and only $6 a CD,
than if they'd sold the massive amounts of physical CD's with the label taking their cut like back in the day.

"Because I like the author" I said. "If everyone thinks like you, authors wont make any money.

this might sound absurd..
but if you downloaded the book,
and then posted a cheque or money order directly to the author,
to the price of what you WOULD have paid in the 'lovely' bookstore,
you would bypass ALL overhead AND the publishers cut,
and ALL the intended monetary value/profit of the artowork
would go straight to the artist who created it.
if you care so passionately about paying your favorite authors (and being paid yourself), you might be better off doing things that way instead.

"Musicians don't make the money, its record companies"

its true that's why we try for private grants or get bank loans & do it indie.
there is a website that sells indie via torrents.

The "I am entitled to have everything for free" crowd doesn't stop at anything.

you really have painted all of us with the same brush huh.

laws must catch up to the technologies once they enter the public domain there is no other way for the law to retain relevance otherwise.
Can't you see that?

the only other way that I can manage to think of otherwise to prevent technology abolishing cherished laws simply by existing would be to covet & hide, restrict them from the

funny how we curse the covetous & sharers alike...what to do with new technologies I wonder....

What will ultimately become of my beloved music, movies and books?

Release them & they will be digested remembered & loved, admired, etc.....
why does it bother you so much that you would have to get your money another way???
recognition is still possible through awards etc so it can't be that....
personally I only care about the quality of the artwork, what else matters??

Intellectual Property means something to me. Intellectual value may be the highest value we have as humankind.

So completely backwards (to me) that you mention this in terms of not paying for something, as apposed to the TRUE crime that this point relates to which is IDEA theft. there is nothing more cutting than having your ENTIRE work plagiarized, I have experienced THAT firsthand and it is crushing. To think you would evoke such a passionate statement about intellectual property within the context of how much it sells for is a little bit disgusting.

So although I have about 3000 fans and can fill a room of 200 when playing live, I make less than $20 off online sales a month. I cant live on that. I have to get a regular job and cut back on making music"

he could do what my friends & I are doing and taking over the scene by handling ALL promotion, event management, etc hiring the clubs marketing the events blah blah blah, ALL profits go to artists & friends. get a network, have a plan, use your smarts. 3000 fans, $10 a ticket divided by 5 piece band where one is promo, one engineer, advert/marketing & the venue only take bar sales...

You can cut out the middle-men altogether in the virtual AND real worlds...btw ever heard of a 'shoplifters allowance'? most good businesses have them..

20 years ago, if you had 3000 fans you could build on that and make a decent living.

Times have changed, face up to reality & do the best you can or bury your head in the sand or whatever. deal with it. most of the musicians i know have. also there's so much more to it than piracy, live bands CAN still make decent money off gigs & radio royalties. electronic based (studio) acts are f*cked unless they can DJ or knock up a live show OR have awesome music videos, etc. its not as simple as you'd make it out to be.

I tried selling all of my DVDs and CDs at a garage-sale. Nobody wanted any of my junk. So I tried giving it all away for free. Still no takers!

I would have bought good ones for the better quality..

last point I want to make is that internet availability/affordability is such that (common scenario) 'Bill' the 14 year old C average student who lives in the government project housing with his 2 job working single mother, 'Bill' who dreams of growing up and becoming CEO of a ridiculously successful conspiracy based website one day, but who cannot afford $300 for 12 books on web design, nor his mother afford to send him to a better school, but Bill CAN afford the $2.50 to catch the bus to his mates house & download 100 books spanning all subjects, lift his grades, teach himself, etc.
there's plenty of broke-ass genius's out there who need P2P, etc..


[edit on 27/6/10 by B.Morrison]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:57 PM
Everyone has their own opinions on this matter.

I pay for books and music mostly. But movies on the other hand is my main problem.

I have downloaded a few songs in my past, usually because of pay 13 dollars for a CD with one amazing song on it wasn't worth it. That is, until I discovered I-Tunes.

Movies are a billion dollar industry. People will always go out and pay, always. For example, right now i am watching Toy Story 3, not really.

Will me watching this streaming video online make anyone go bankrupt, or will Disney take the 15 million they made in 3 days, 59 million overall and not make some sort of profit?

And what cut do the actors get out of that, with their 100 million dollar mansions and resort homes?

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:57 PM
I decided against all out piracy a few years back when I was thinking about ethical and moral ideas, and how I live my life, ordinary things of growing up I guess.

I do believe we need less restrictive copyright, and the world would be better if people just did this stuff for the joy, and so on, but I don't believe that kind of utopia is really possible until humans progress more.

I try to practise it myself, I make my music and software "open source", but if other people want to be restrictive, I consider that their right, and try to respect it as much as possible, with some exceptions in law such as fair use, etc.

[edit on 27/6/2010 by harpsounds]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by TylerKing

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by TylerKing

The talentless have a new credo, why pay when you can steal?

The trolls have an old credo: why answer questions when you can distract the audience with non-sequitors?

Answer my questions from the post you're responding to:

Why should it be the way you describe?

I'm not a troll, I'm a professional artist, my work pays for my rent/food/water/power. I'm not a millionaire (like DMX or Radiohead) but I work my ass off to get by, but if I was my work would be free. So when thieves like you say everything should be free where does that leave honest people like myself? Am I supposed to use your land of make believe argument when the bill collectors won't stop calling, or just use the library to upload my work for free because I don't have a place to live any longer?

See the problem with your argument is that it isn't one, it's an excuse. So where do you work, or do your parents pay for your living expenses? And can you trade the things you produce in that business you obviously own to the artists you steal from so they can survive?

I feel like being totally irrelevant, so nyah.

Anyway, the reason Metallica is the legendary band they are today (for better or worse) is because people bootlegged the hell outta their stuff back in the day. The band my have lost a little coin, but in return, I'd say they made out pretty good from all that "theft." If your stuff is good, your stuff will sell no matter what.

If I hear stuff I like -- free or not -- I will buy it regardless of technological gizmos. Why? Because throwing money at an artist sends a clear message to the artist that says "I like your stuff -- and I would like to see more of your stuff in the world." Getting dollars for your stuff when it's provided for free must be an amazing ego trip, I'd think.

Make good stuff, and people will buy it no matter what, I guess is my point.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by B.Morrison

When I was a broke ass little kid I walked myself five or six miles to the library and read the books. The town I lived in didn't even have a bus service.

When I lived out further I would catch a ride in with my friend's mom when she went to the grocery store. I would get her to drop me off and pick me up on the library steps. Then I would help her unload the gorceries when she got home.

There is no justification for stealing luxuries or some one's time and effort.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by TylerKing

Anyway, the reason Metallica is the legendary band they are today (for better or worse) is because people bootlegged the hell outta their stuff back in the day.

I'm not sure I buy this as the sole reason. I suspect it has much more to do with a large record company pumping millions into advertising the product, and getting it on the radio, etc.

[edit on 27/6/2010 by harpsounds]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:09 PM
I heard a PSA today while at work about reporting what they call soft core piracy for a cash reward. Don't know exactly what that means, but greed seems like it's the downfall of every thing.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:13 PM
LordBucket's views are way too extreme. There can be no progress in the entertainment industry, or even one at all, if people followed his view. Heck, he might as well should have just said, why was I even born(really, why was I), because technically, if you weren't born, you don't need anything.

What's scary is so many agreed with him. I mean, I download stuff, and even I can't justify it(let's just say that if there's a thing as Ascencion and I need to be above 50% positive, I wouldn't make it
On the other hand, if you're poor and can't afford it, then I guess I could see some justifications.

On the issue of Ascencion, it's said that most people will NOT make it(perhaps for actions like this), so at least I won't be alone. My only regret is that I don't know where this girl that I like(which I would have never known, without the entertainment industry, so at least I know for me, that has served some purpose) will go to.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:21 PM
Well thought out OP and I applaud you. I disagree quite a bit with some of your viewpoints but you have probably some of the best insights I've seen on the topic.

One thing I have to chime in about is music. I can't speak for print media but I know the music industry first hand. Just as you did a "show of hands" of who has downloaded music illegally I can do one with my friends who are artists signed to labels (of varying degree from local to national). You will see that same 90% FOR free access to their works. Why? It has pretty much become "price of admission" to share at least some of your works these days.

Take a trip in the wayback machine to the 60s or 70s say. No internet. No cell phones. Less commercialization. There were three ways to hear a band: buy the disc/tape, radio, or live show. And how would you discover that band? Print media, word of mouth, radio. Common factor is the radio.

How could a middling artist grow their fanbase? Get someone to write cushy reviews. That maybe sold some discs but already we humans were forgetting how to read. Have a great live show? Woodstock and other festivals launched various storied careers and probably helped quite a bit.

But if you were on the radio ... you sold media. And you made a fortune. And you became famous.

But times have changed. The radio industry along with most of the media industry is a Convoluted Commercialized Conglomerate (CCC). The CCC ensures that each area of artist exposure is covered (N'SYNC popsicles people!). As time goes by the CCC sticks their hand in the cookie jar more and more in each area. I can't disclose names without consent but one band member I know has sold roughly 580,000 copies of his band's record over the last 8 years and has seen no more than $60,000 in royalties after the CCC was done ravaging them. See this link for examples.

The average local to regional artist makes little off records these days. Any artist worth his or her weight that wants to be successful NEEDS to be able to perform. The live show has overtaken the radio as the number one area where a mid-level artist can still grow a fanbase, sell some merch, and make some money. My friend in the band above holds a full time job but still does weekend gigs with his band 2-4 times a month because the live shows make them so much money it's impossible to pass up.

My point is there is a fine line between sharing, exposure, and stealing. The argument of "well it's the law" is moot because we as humans wrote the laws. I agree that as humans we should vote people in that will change them for us (those 9/10 people) but apathy and usefulness of our political system is a whole other argument ... heh ...

Regardless of your view on the points above and from the OP, I think we can all agree one one thing - the nature of business surrounding our creations is changing and will keep on doing so. Hopefully we can all find a middle ground somewhere.

[edit on 6/27/2010 by Fiverz]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:24 PM
Patents and copyrights are a very old idea and paradigm. People have always understood that if inventors and artists gave away their work for free, they wouldn't have a way to make a living. The internet hasn't changed that, it has just made it a lot easier to get these works for free. That's why we see various artists and organizations using lawsuits so aggressively in the internet age.

I'd like to think a new paradigm could come about where an artist can have it both ways- Give away his work for free, so it gets to the largest possible audience, AND make a good living. The brute force approach is to have government subsidize it, but that's usually unpopular with people knowing their tax dollars are funding art they find offensive.

More likely some new paradigm will form organically. During the renaissance, great artists would find a patron who would pay them to produce art, but that would limit the artist to pleasing his patron. Maybe some day it will become stylish for wealthy, influential people to support troupes of artists doing a wider variety of work, just for bragging rights.

Or maybe artists will form a huge union that goes on strike when the public fails to support them sufficiently.

My ideas probably suck, but when the present paradigm is so broken, it seems inevitable that a new one will come along. Necessity is the mother of invention.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:43 PM
The answer is simple. Sociality can not keep up with technoglly. It never has been able to and it never will be able to. And as time goes on the wider the gap becomes. The technoglly changes every day but sociality takes a long time to change. This will some day cause the whole mess to shut down. It is starting to happen now. Technoglly being banned or outlawed just because sociality is so far behind it can not grasp it. It is almost like giving a caveman a CD player. OK, maybe that is a bit over the top but you get the point. I am afraid that sociality will never come close to keeping up with technoglly. History has shown us how the two have always been apart.

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by np6888

LordBucket's views

What's scary is so many agreed with him.

I think, actually, that very few people agree with me. I think that most people think that "it's wrong" but do it anyway.

Which seems strange to me.


Ultimately, I see "theft" as causing somebody else not have something that they have, rather than causing yourself to have something that somebody else has.

Scenario 1:
They have a bicycle. You take the bicycle. They now no longer have a bicycle. This is theft.

Scenario 2:
They wear a red top with blue jeans and furry hat. You like the look, so the following day you also dress in a red top with blue jeans and a furry hat. You now have the look, but they also have the look. You have not taken it from them. You have copied it for youself. This is not theft.

I think most people would agree that scenario 1 is theft and scenario 2 is not theft.

I see copying music and movies as being more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. When you copy these things, you are not causing someone else to not have them. It is therefore not theft.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by LordBucket]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by MrParanoid
I grant you the right to my work ONLY when you buy it. And I retain the right to my work even after you buy it so you can't sell it and profit from what I did.

YES but that does in NO WAY mean -

Buying something doesn't give YOU the right to GIVE IT AWAY.

Well I'm sorry but due to technological progress - yes it does.

the only difference is the technology used,
and I think you will struggle to find a court in this day and age that will persecute a torrent downloader, because no profit is had, it is sharing and furthermore impossible to prove the initial upload wasn't sourced from a legitimate purchase.

people like you used to bitch about cassette tapes ruining the radio industry...

A copyright is there to protect my rights as the creator.

yes in terms of people stealing your idea & claiming it as theirs OR making unlicensed profit

It's that freakin' simple.

no its not really simple at all, if you ever recorded a rented VHS onto a blank to watch again later, you broke these laws yourself, and in terms of VHS, no one would enforce it today, no one.

this P2P, etc technology, while already so deeply integrated into society, is still very new


[edit on 27/6/10 by B.Morrison]

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 11:57 PM
Just because it costs something, doesn't mean it's valuable.

Look at Linux. It's free. And it blows the doors off any commercial operating system available.

It exists because there were people out there that recognized that there is more to be gained in the long run by contributing to something important than there is to gain in the short run by demanding payment for it.

The same holds true for all of the things humanity creates: our knowledge, experience, wisdom, technology, copyrights, and legacy.

They are our birthright, our gifts from our mothers and fathers.

We expand on it and become more prosperous.

The short-sightedness of the profit motive is the greatest hindrance to prosperity in existence. It creates disposable garbage that is out of style and obsolete overnight with the purpose of selling you something similar tomorrow. We create cars in one country that are virtually the same as cars in another country, but spend billions shipping them opposite directions in the name of profit. Materially, it makes no sense.

Common sense will tell you that a great majority of human "work" and "labor" amounts to raking leaves into one corner of the lawn, then letting them scatter to the wind just to rake them up again. There is so much that we do that doesn't matter, isn't effective, doesn't last, serves no purpose, is wasteful, and goes where it doesn't belong.

Just because you work as an author to some copy-written material doesn't mean you deserve something. It might be crap. Enforcing payment when the audience makes no use of it, nor desires it... is fascism. Almost all files "illegally" downloaded end up deleted because they weren't worth saving. Those that are act as advertising for live concerts where the artists make their real money. FREE advertising. Then those who claim that their business suffers "loss" because of "non payment" for "non material goods" that were "stolen" from people who make choices every month of whether to pay the rent late or eat is ridiculous. Let them try to squeeze blood out of a turnip. The reality is that most of those "customers" are ghosts and don't have more they can fork over to the entertainment "industry." Holding them accountable for a "crime" when they had no money in the first place is trying to extract something real from zero potential. It's impossible. Get over it. Your greed exceeds your grasp.

Let them say that there will be no more good movies, entertainment, music, or books if the "thieves" ... "get away with it." We'll turn to our neighbors and friends for a laugh like we used to. And I've had more fun watching youtube than television these days.

Real authors and musicians do it because of their love for what they were born to do, and they'll do it even if they don't make a cent. Mozart died penniless. Music meant something to him. Money didn't.

Most arguments about "payment" for art come from the brokers, businessmen, and corporatist who pimp talented people's work and get the lion's share of the revenue.

It has always been a lie when they said that money makes the world go 'round. We do what we do not because we're motivated by money, but because we love. You were never paid to care for your wife, husband, father, mother, or child. You do it because you are compelled to. This is what the heartless ones don't recognize. Since they couldn't make you believe in their religion of capitalism by loving it, they made you submit to it by creating a desperate situation where you couldn't live without it. This is the sad state of the world today, where most people have forgotten what they love and do things just so they can be alive.

The reason the authors of intellectual material are so worried about getting paid are the same reasons everybody is worried about getting paid: there isn't enough money for everybody. Not because there can't be, but because it's value is manipulated, and so much of it goes into the hands of those who already have too much, leaving fear for those who barely have enough, and starvation for the rest. It's wrong, it's corrupt, it's manipulative, unnecessary, brutal, and unjust.

Look deep in your hearts and see the world as it should be. Notice that there are no salesmen, bankers, lawyers, politicians, or courts there. Because they're parasites that blame their hosts for the disease they cause.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by 30_seconds]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:02 AM
Here's one:

If you wouldn't have bought whatever it is you downloaded anyways, then what's the harm?

If you do like it you might tell people to go check it out themselves. This actually helps underground musicians.

Then consider Blockbuster and Netflix. They buy it 'once', you rent it for a few dollars, and the Man doesn't get the $20++ out of you to buy it yourself.

Much like video games: Nintendo sued Blockbuster in the 80's in a landmark case. Nintendo lost. Now you can actually try out the $50 game before you buy it, and even play it long enough to beat it without buying it.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

I buy books.. I refuse to read a book on a computer screen, I prefer my little library the way it is, regardless of how much it cost. What is $20 for a book that can last until I read it till it's spine falls off or I die of old age?

A book on a computer?.. It's stupid, it's ignorant, it takes away from the actual act of read -- to escape into your self, away from noise and light pollution of screens and such.

For music I have a rhapsody account, I put the songs on my mp3 player, cost me 15 a month .. a waste of money, for sure, and I only do it for easily accessible high-quality songs. But since the invention of sites like Pandora, I doubt I will have this account for much longer, and I will certainly never buy a CD. Besides, Musicians make their money at concerts not through cd sales -- that's record companies.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:05 AM

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by B.Morrison

When I was a broke ass little kid I walked myself five or six miles to the library and read the books. The town I lived in didn't even have a bus service...

oh boo you want me to steal you a tissue?

when I was a kid I lived in a cardboard box & crawled 2000km's through broken glass to get to even read an advertising billboard.....

yeah we all had tough lives, tell someone who cares.

I still appreciate and use the new technology & means available to me to further my education & strive for a better life for myself,
no one is perfect & if accepting invitations to receive gifts from fellow citizens of planet earth is the worst of my crimes I will die the happiest man on earth.

There is no justification for stealing luxuries or some one's time and effort.

your apparent priorities are baffling.

there is no justification for many things, I find your choice of battles to fight frankly ridiculous in the face of the OTHER problems each and every one of us are facing in this world today.


I suggest you grow up a little bit.


[edit on 28/6/10 by B.Morrison]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:07 AM

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by mblahnikluver

if they keep pushing that crappy device that they wouldnt have a job soon
cause everyone will be downloading books and their services will not be needed.

Exactly. And isn't that a good thing?

We have the technology right now to make the function of standing around a bookstore waiting for people to walk in and buy books, completely irrelevant.

Why is it better to not use that technology, and keep people working mindless, useless jobs?

Sorry! I have to speak for the people working at those mindless, useless jobs. I am a dishwasher in one of those restaurants, and a lot of my friends are waiters and waitresses, I hate to have to inform you, but the people at these useless professions, would still like the opportunity to make a living.
I make close (just over) minimum wage as a USELESS dishwasher, but I don't find the need to steal software, movies, or music.
Granted I do use the 20 second sound clips, found at amazon, and other places to decide whether an album is worth buying, the same with software, when there are free software versions I use them. I have also sent donations to a number of free software developers.
I am tired of hearing people whine that $9.95 is too much money to spend on a CD. Someones time and talent, created.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in