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: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:50 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:59 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:03 AM

I personally know a few musicians who have given up. Why? Because nobody wants to pay for music, it can be had for free. Here's what a musician-friend of mine says:

And herein lies the problem.

We are so used to earning money from 'album sales' that the average lazy musician gives up when downloading enters the forefront. He/she doesn't consider how a musician earned their money before recordable media was available in shops.

In my eyes the people who give up are in it for the money, not true musicians.

A few of my colleagues have moved on to regular gigs, sure they earn less money but they still make a hell of a living. Not doing 20 gigs a year anymore, it's now nearly 20 a month... sheesh, they're working for a living???

A brilliant thread though.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by and14263]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by TylerKing

Have fun. In your ideal, dystopian, world, EVERYTHING would have to be bought outright. In such a reality, everyone would be so strapped for cash, paying $20+ per CD, and $25+ per DVD, that no one would be able to buy anything other than the latest mainstream.

Following your unrelenting logic to its climax, people wouldn't even be able to rent anything. We'd have little choice but to buy everything (we actually know about), or watch it on TV. Internet wouldn't even exist, because inherently it crashes down the walls of construct you wish to maintain.

I'd really dig it if you responded to my other contributions to this thread, starting on page 12. Don't worry. I don't mind if you quote me. I wont charge you anything, or sue you. I won't even demand that you pay me to quote you, as it gives you recognition.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:14 AM
Piracy... It's far from being a digital age phenomenon. When I was growing up in the 70's, everyone was copying their friends vinyl with audio tapes. In the 80's everyone was copying videos and television with video recorders. How about bootlegs (illegal recordings)? They've been around for decades!

All these patterns were in-grained before the digital age.

I freely admit that I download Mp3's - but only for the sake of previewing an an artists work. If I don't like it, I trash it. If I like it, I go out and buy it from a retail store or amazon every time.

Because my musical tastes are obscure, I often cannot find said artists/music in regular stores to even listen to them so I have no guilt about what I do. IMHO, the torrent I downloaded just made the artist money because more often than not, I will like it and buy it.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with road testing something. If you buy a car, you get to drive it first, if you buy a house, you get to walk through it, if you buy a television, you can watch it in the store and compare it against competing brands. Try before you buy is cool with me. Just so long as you use it for those purposes.


posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:21 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Ok. I buy my movies, music, and computer programs; except for the truly free program stuff on CNet. Now here is what gets me mad. I go buy music a CD from a known chain music retailer. The CD I bought was pirated! It sounded bad; you could tell it was a bad compression MP3. I did return it and received a refund. So, now we have retailers making pirated copies of music. This has happened to me 3 times in the last 4 months with different retailers. All the CD’s were MP3 encoded that I returned. I might just start downloading music off the net. The music industry has fallen behind big time, and so have the movie CD recordings. Why CD’s anyway? Why can’t they sell music and movies on a memory stick or something like that? I’m willing to pay if they can do it. I guess CD plastic is cheaper to produce. I’m beginning to hate CD plastic.

I know you can download music and movies but, both are very stripped in quality, or it would be a larger download. I say so what. I’m sure the industry has heard of fiber optics and Comcast. Big downloads are not a big deal anymore. I willing to pay for this.
News papers are going to be a thing of the past. I have ATS. I haven’t bought a news paper in like 6 years. Amazon has the kindle, very popular. The Mac tablet is out and selling like crazy.

I hoping they get rid of that stupid phone book.

Last but not least. The biggest rip off I’ve seen to date. University books that are nothing but someone’s material that is copy righted or not; being sold in the form of a paperback book at the university book stores that you can download on the net. Yep that’s right. Wife needed a book for her Master’s degree, what did I get. A Book that was photo copied of another book, and a bad job at that. I’m like, this is bull. She asked the professor about this. , Answer: “University is downloading some material from the net now. You can buy it in the book store” I could’ve downloaded this myself for free. If they gave me the address. The material was not from a university web site. I found the material on the net for free. There just reselling it. The author states on the site “download are free “the author should get this money for copies being sold in a book store. I’m sure he is not.

The bottom line is profit. I’m all for a product that is top quality. The artists deserve their pay. But, when Corporations and Universities are doing the same, then what?

My point is the industry is starting to follow people like you in the for free market and It shows. My wife can never keep that book it's junk and will not even do for a reference. People like you need to wake up and get a job. Just pay the artists and authors they work hard . Don't depend on others like me to foot the bill for you.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by SJE98]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:37 AM
reply to post by Oozii

That is why i`m planning on buying Kindle

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:40 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

dystopian, world

I think the people angrily arguing that side of it aren't motivated by wanting to make the world a nicer place. They're people who personally benefit from these things, and so they're desperately trying to protect their little nest egg.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by TylerKing
Gawd, you're like a needy insecure girlfriend. Here, I'm paying attention to you now, happy?

I was having a good time, but if you insist on getting nasty...

All right, lets see, blah blah blah, stuff that I didn't say, I hate the internet.

Nice try. Somehow I felt you'd say something like that. While I wrote i also had already thought of the response to your looming obvious response...

You didn't have to say that's how you want things. It's merely an issue of taking your logic to its logical climax. That climax I've already outlined. It could be furthered with the reality that studios and executives would own everything, as they at least attempt. This is how it would go under a total dystopian system of total control and costs. The big shot media houses would be the ones with all the money to fund and advertise, their mainstream.

The entire concept of mainstream, under such strict controls, is what said controls almost literally assures. Following any media consumption budget would ensure lack of affordability for all to access widely varied sources of media. No Budget, Non-Profit Internet would be nearly irrelevant, as most who can;t single-handedly produce music, video, etc, wouldn't be able t make but deeply lackluster productions.

Hmm, nope you didn't really write anything.

Nope. Nothing!

I didn't write ways the Big Media corp's could provide material directly, that still ensures revenues while making it nearly irrelevant for us to even download half the media out there. Definitely didn't do that. I also forget to try to discuss the in's and out's of content hording when it comes to others trying to use bits of your media for NON-profit positive goals. I don't know how I managed to forget to write any of that.

But what I seem to gather is that I'm a jerk for wanting to get paid for my work (hey that rhymed, enable stealing powers everyone), and that you and the other thieves on here are willing to let us come to your jobs and take what we want, you'll handle the boss?

Well, after you make millions, like the majority of those most deeply pissed about file sharing, are you still going to be a maniac about having to get paid for your ART???

The funny thing is I create or compose both video art, and music art. I also mix them together with content I didn't create from scratch. My NON-PROFIT efforts into my art I don't EXPECT to get paid for. I don't get paid for. So should I have to pay you to effectively expose you to potentially new audiences?

Following your one size fits all approach, YES!

SNAP: I forgot to get nasty.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:05 AM
reply to post by TylerKing

Damn. I also forgot to write anything about the hypocrisy that companies such as Blockbuster can buy a piece of media once, and then prevent the Big Media houses from getting top dollar by charging people to rent that media. While going up against your most ultimate extreme super-ultra-mega insight, I managed to not say anything about that.

I apologize that all I did was spit nothing but regretful, disturbingly nasty and repulsive hate speech that prompted you to get nasty and disrespectful comments. I', also sorry that you're so disappointed in your lack of profits in your personal endeavors that you've adopted such a one-sided one size fits all approach to human affairs.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:24 AM


Go cry to blockbuster, go to Amazon and voila, you can preview books! So don't act as if you can't try before you buy, it's a lie. Hey another rhyme! Now I've written this before but it's the last time even though the ATS way of doing things seems to be arguing the same points over and over again, if I was rich I would give away my work for free. I don't care about the corporations, I care about me and my loved ones, I also don't care if you guys want everything for free, your greed will get you the government intervention you seem to be begging for.

Here I'll bold this so maybe it gets through. I'm fine finacially, my complaint isn't from lack of making money it's with the idiotic thought that an artist's work should be free just because the lazy say so. It isn't yours, it's mine.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by TylerKing]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:28 AM
buying leads us to copyrighting and that is not so good.

example i invent some great and simple machine that can benefit every person on planet. in copyrighted world that invention would be even after 1000 years still adressed to me and to my familly give some benefits. well that makes no sense to me.

example gmo food. 1000 years from now company could say this tomato is ours, this is not and therefore is not legal or to eat. example i invented wheel, and so what? i invented light blubs, so what? i invented plastic, paper, key mehanic, TV, telephone, lighter.. anything. that is something that every person on planet can benefit and copyright in some weird way means that i put all humanity in debt to me forever and ever becuse i invented all that fancy things that everyone uses

you can assume that if more people are using it, that is bigger need to copyright. that is a bit silly.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by ferumbra]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:40 AM
reply to post by TylerKing

Wow. I hope you're as artistic as you are dodgy.

Advice: Don't quit you day jobbie job, yo yo!

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:33 AM
People always wanted and always will want free things everywhere.
So naturally things are going that way.
This is why everything that catches on on the internet is free. That is reality, and no one can change it. They can implement new laws and regulations but that can`t change the inevitable, it can only postpone it for some time.
The problem (or paradox) is that people will agree on this when it comes to intellectual property ( books, music, movies... ) but disagree when it comes to all material things. That is because of fear that they are going to lose everything and cannot support their life, this is where the greed kicks in.
One of definitions of greed is "a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power." Bu this definition most greedy people are: corporate leaders, royalties, celebrities and politicians. These are the same people that are for copyright laws and bans, and for charging on everything intellectual. So there is no real moral dilemma should everything online be free, there is only a question who you are willing to listen.

The ordinary folk understand that he can survive if he share intellectual property with everyone. And when he can understand that he can survive when he share material property as well, then the real evolution will happen.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:40 AM
Sorry guys Im still only on page 3 of reading this thread. Lots of fascinating info here.


Originally posted by thetruthplease

Congress recently passed a law that allows providers to stop the transfer of files from one computer to another.

I assume that it will someday lead to no one being allowed to send files to another unless the files have been scrutinized and given a permission from the government.

Very perceptive of you.


posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
IMHO, there is nothing wrong with road testing something. If you buy a car, you get to drive it first, if you buy a house, you get to walk through it, if you buy a television, you can watch it in the store and compare it against competing brands. Try before you buy is cool with me. Just so long as you use it for those purposes.

You can also road test music at the store and sometimes you can listen to sample clips online. Also a lot of artists have their channels on youtube where they upload their whole albums for listening. You can't preview a car or a house online.

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:28 AM

Originally posted by SaturnFX

in the 3d example...a person bought a computer, expensive software, and tons of time to create his thing (musician bought his guitar or whatnot, spent tons of time working on songs, recording studio charges...).

My guitar, Gibson Les Paul Custom USA built = £1500
My Amp, Hi-Watt Classic 100w dual-valve = Virtually priceless, as no longer in production and high quality of build.
FX Devices, various = ~£700 worth in total.

At the end of the day, I would have had these items, whether I sell my music or not. I am a musician, the instruments come as part of that. Not to make money from them, but because I enjoy playing them.

In the modern world, recording costs are null, as I can get the exact same quality on my home PC, a top of the range sound card and software, such as Cakewalk or Cubase.

Again..anyone whom is for piracy...please list all the things you give away for free instead of working to make rent.

Every song I have ever recorded. I give my music away for free online, as do many of my peers in the music profession. It encourages more people to listen, therefore I can get more of a fan base, which means more people come to my gigs, which means I make more money from the ticket sales and merchandise. I also offer the option to purchase a CD version of my 2 albums for those who wish to have a solid hardware copy, although that is their chioce.

I gig because I love to entertain. If I manage to make a few quid in the process, that's nothing more than an added bonus!

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:11 AM
There is one aspect of the whole piracy debate that gets ignored quite often.
2TB Harddrives?
Flatrate xDSL?

A lot of money is spent on these things, and people wouldnt spend it anymore on that if Piracy went away.
That, of course would make it a whole lot harder to finance communications infrastructure.

When Pirate bay was raided the time before last time, AIX recorded a 30% drop in european internet traffic.
That was just one torrent site! Just think about that for a few minutes and imagine the impact on the Telecom & IT industry. (And i much rather have them around than publishers, if I have to choose)

Edit to add, since i just saw this question:

Again..anyone whom is for piracy...please list all the things you give away for free instead of working to make rent.

Technically, you have to count seeding. I let others use my upload for free.
Unfortunately, I also produce open source software, and am struggling at the moment if I should ask for donations (Dont want to, but I have been approached several times, and turning those guys away somehow feels wrong too)

[edit on 28-6-2010 by debunky]

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:14 AM
Very interesting post Skyfloating

You make a good point that it almost seems like the music industry never really tried for fight piracy because of their consistently “doomed to fail” efforts. I think the easier explanation is just that the music industry was very very far out of touch and did not realize that consumers were their assets, not just marketing hype and market share.

Another reason for increased piracy and hatred of big record companies is their abuse of copyright law. Often they would market things to the point where they would become ingrained in society / common use. I’m talking about things like companies owning Christmas carols etc.

In copyright law, something can become genericized and therefore public domain by marketing it into common use. See examples of this (for trademarks) at There seems to be an unfortunately low amount of this misused IP becoming public domain, even when the companies clearly market their work as though it was used every day prior to it’s creation.

I think everyone would love to see a more diverse range of top level artists out there and for profits to go directly or mostly to the artist. I do think we will see this in future as independent artists become more savvy.

I also believe the movie industry will have to shed a lot of fat and return to lower budget and less “super star” actors to return to a profitable industry. They keep telling us we only want to see big name stars in big budget films but I and most people I know get more enjoyment out of smaller budget flicks that are more relevant to our interests.

The next thing to replace Hollywood will be the games industry, as it steadily moves to fewer popular titles and bigger budgets. Can’t wait to see what happens to them.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in