The Filesharing Conspiracy

page: 2
91
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
You bring forward an interesting perspective, however there are so many different ones to be taken into account, for different situations within this entire entertainment industry, that one viewpoint can never encompass it all.

I don't know anyone who hasn't copied something at some stage. This goes for cousins under 9 years old, grandmothers over 70 and many others. The extent to which people do it however is varying. For example many people I know will download movies or albums that they don't think are particularly good and are often inferior quality, if they like them they will purchase them or more importantly support the local act - as this is where they get their money. I do agree this leads to a culture of overconsumption, depending on where your perspective is set. I am guilty of it myself, however I believe you can never have enough information but don't live your life only in the pursuit of infinity.

Movie companies of late have been moaning about less sales. Has anyone noticed the prevailence of cheaper camera technology (not much film nowadays), and thus vastly cheaper budgets for mainstream big cinema films, recycled and predictable plots, poor camera work and acting. Many are realising the far and few between nature of good movies in todays' world. Movies and movie theatres are not cheap either - I mostly hire nowadays.
Profiteering has become norm for large corporations. The amount of money it costs for me to get in specialised books via borders is ridiculous, as is the amount of time. It's far easier to go online and buy in many cases through another source, however you have no gurantee without insurance. Sometimes you can't find them, and downloading is the only way, however many older ebooks I come across are released for free.

I have been a musician, band member, lighting company owner, visual jockey (VJ, think DJ with videos) and professional cameraman amongst other things in the vast entertainment industry.
My intellectual property for VJing is never released mainstream, you wanna see it, come to a show. Lighting and laser show, well yeah.. not much point in watching a video of one but they are distributed free of charge. Music, come to the shows, most people know there is hardly any money at all in 3rd party record company distribution. Online sales with donation or small fee per track has been reported to be rather successful by some of my friends in the industry (itunes anyone?), guess it's just if you have it or not - by 'it' I mean the sound, feel, webpage, look and overall strategy.
My videos produced for various corporates is paid for then released, free of charge online via youtube or other free online hosting distributors. This model of distribution is taking over and I believe it's a case of adapt or be forever washed into obscurity.

An argument I have against CDs, DVD, Blu-ray and any other physical disc media is that of jitter. In pursuit of high fidelity, a floppy, reflective mostly plastic disk being rotated is never flat, thus causing jitter and innacuracy. I would happily pay for extremely high quality, better than CD quality audio or video downloads, the quality used in recording studios. These are far and few between online for audio but are slowly being established as the market grows. I wouldn't be suprised to see TV switched over to completely online in the next 10-15 years.

Legally, it can be very hard to provide proof of claim for who has downloaded something. Hearsay is not proof, a computer can't beyond doubt tell who is using it, neither can a wireless router. There's no statute law or common law which requires you to secure your internet connection, as unlawful access is already covered under common law - you are causing loss by using someones paid data. So if you really get into the nitty gritty side of the law there are plenty of traps for the claimant, as everyone is equal before the law and 'Fictio cedit veritati' - a fiction yields to the truth.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




But it wouldnt be bad to be able to make a living from music, would it?
I hate seeing talented people driving cabs and working as waiters.


I don't particularly like seeing untalented people driving cabs and working as waiters either.

And it's unneccesary.

Society could function with no cab drivers and no waiters. We simply live in a society that is accustomed to people filling these roles.

Look at the software industry. It could be done away with completely right now if people would simply stop using and paying for software produced by large corporations. There is no need for paid software. It's a self-perpetuating industry that nobody really needs. There's an open source alternative to pretty much anything you or anyone else wants to do.

But there's a system. A convention of paying for software. So people do it. But it's an arbitrary convention, and it doesn't particularly serve us a a society.

Waitressing is similar. We have a convention that people serve us meals. Why?

Imagine a world where there were no restaurants. People prepared their own food. If people wanted company to eat, they visit friends, invite people over, or simply fire up a BBQ on their front lawn and invite neighbors over.

Poof! Entire restaurant industry gone, and nobody works as a waiter anymore.

Would that be so terrible?

An awful lot of our society is simply arbitrary, self-perpetuating customs that require people to work menial jobs they hate to make money to pay for other people to do menial jobs that they also hate on their behalf.

Do away with it all. We'll be happier for it.

----------

So, no. I don't want to see artists "paid" for their work. I don't want them to work at all. I want them to simply produce art because they enjoy it, and for people to appreciate it because they like it.

No money needs to change hands for this to happen.






[edit on 27-6-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I use limewire but not often because it always gives me trouble! I use limewire mostly for school programs I can't afford or get an extra loan for. I also used it to rebuild my music collection after about 10 years of music was stolen from me. I could never afford to go buy those again


I am not really against filesharing because for some it has helped although I get your point.

I too LOVE bookstoresl esp used bookstores. I love the smell too
Most people I know think it's weird I feel that way but there is just something about a book you don't get through a PDF file or book reader. I am AGAINST book readers and everytime they try to shove that thing in my face at Barnes and Noble I get annoyed and ask them if they like their jobs..They say yes and then I tell them 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. They all looked at me and said, "I never thought of it that way."

One of the things I like about getting an older used book are the writings to loved ones on the front page. I like how books have a history and with some you can feel it in a way when you read it. I usually only feel this way with the books I have that are 100yrs old and older usually. It's amazing and people think I am nuts but they don't get it
One day I will have a library in my home! I have enough books for one lol

I think most of the companies out there are just being greedy with these file sharing sites. I mean the amount they say they are losing is insane! It's a crock imo and they know it. I don't feel sorry when I download a program they jacked up in price so they can make more money. I barely get enough to cover tuition but having to apply for a 10k loan for computer programs was a bit much for me. I bought some I found deals on but the others I used limewire. I think it's INSANE to charge 4 thousand dollars for one computer program (autodcad).

I think for most in the world filesharing is quick easy and free and it seems that is how most want things.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I believe that file sharing should be legal. I don't do it because it is illegal and can be real concequences. I see no real reason why people who have bought copies legally can't share their files if they want.
A lot of those mp3s come from cds. I know there is pirating as well. I am for it as long as it does not harm anyone.
Another reason I do not do a lot file sharing is some programs have spyware. I will download a program if the internet if it is directly from the company putting it out.
I would still buy cds, dvds and software.
I feel there should be internet TV that is free. Cable is so expensive and I have been literally waiting for almost a year for a good special. I think this is the way TV should go it would just be built in with your internet subscription and you would get standard cable channels. If you want more you pay a few dollars extra through your internet. It is so easy to hook up a laptop or computer to a TV and the quality is almost the same as Cable TV.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
There is no need for copyright to exist in our society.


I was hoping one of the hardcore anti-copyrighters show up here.

Taken to the end you are saying that everybody owns everything regardless of its origin, is that correct?

And: As long as copyright-laws exist, should they be respected?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
Which is simply an ominous way of saying "a lot of people haven't been brainwashed to be scared into accepting a totally arbitrary convention of no real consequence."

Jaywalkers are "criminals" too.


Im not the one calling them criminals, but by societies definition, they ARE, regardless of what we think.
And in the conspiracy-theory proposed, there may be a deliberate plan behind that.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




Taken to the end you are saying that everybody
owns everything regardless of its origin, is that correct?


...no.

But I would say that "ownership" is not an especially useful concept with dealing with things to which scarcity does not apply. For example, you don't often see people arguing over who owns air. "This quart of air is mine. You can't have it." Why? Because air is abundant. Material that can be copied at the press of a button is similarly abdundant. Arguing over who "owns" it is silly.

The concept of copyright is essentially an attempt to apply the concept of ownership to infinitely reproducible material as an artificial means of creating scarcity.



As long as copyright-laws exist, should they be respected?


Define "should."

That word might not mean what you think it means.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
many people I know will download movies or albums that they don't think are particularly good and are often inferior quality, if they like them they will purchase them


I always read that "downloading them illegally eventually leads to them purchasing it" but I have not seen one single instance where this has happened. Not one.



I believe you can never have enough information but don't live your life only in the pursuit of infinity.


Nice





Has anyone noticed the prevailence of cheaper camera technology (not much film nowadays),


Wow, never thought of that. Making movies is cheaper nowadays. Much cheaper.



I wouldn't be suprised to see TV switched over to completely online in the next 10-15 years.


Yeah, most certainly.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Interesting points raised here.

One of them I see being raised is that corporations etc ... are producing inferior products which results in downloading. I find this difficult to believe not just because our film work for example is getting much more advanced, but also because if you don't like it why pay for it/download it in the first place?

More people quit the media industry because of the lack of money involved and the difficulty in getting a paying audience than actually stay in it. Audiences have huge expectations of even indie films these days.

I think the validity of persons excuses for downloading are in the eye of their own beholder so to speak. Persons know if their reasons are legitimate or just excuses.

In one way I feel its a magical time because no movie, TV series, or show should ever be left behind. We are living during some of the best documented years of forever, and its being documented by the people - not some faceless corporation.

On the downside of this despite ideas the contrary it's harder than artists than ever to get credit for their work.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Its an interesting thought.

It does away with being a musician, writer, software-developer, movie-maker as a profession or source of income.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

For the other question: In order to further your philosophy, would you recommend ignoring copyright-laws even today?

edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

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?



If I understand you correctly, you think e-readers are better than having people work a mindless, useless job? Have you ever worked in a bookstore? I have and it's not mindless or useless. Until you have a lady practically kiss you because you helped her find and old book where she only knew the cover then you just won't get it. The jobs are not mindless or useless, they help people live and survive. It's a job, every job has a purpose. I love technology but I hate what it's doing to the job market. Working at the bookstore was one of my favorite jobs ever and I did it just to help out during the holidays and because I was always there so they told me to apply and at least get paid for helping out.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver

I think most of the companies out there are just being greedy with these file sharing sites. I mean the amount they say they are losing is insane! It's a crock imo and they know it. I



I dont think they are lying about that. I once saw how the film "Avatar" was Downloaded 30 000 times - and that was only ONE site.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Have you actually considered making music? Just curious.


Yes, for quite a few years Sky. Every so often, I actually finish one, with digital backing tracks of instruments I don't play. I'm not so impressed with them so far; it's more an outlet for my angst
.... sort of a musical heavy-bag -- I wouldn't buy them.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Interesting ideas concerning your conspiracy idea.

It's crazy how society tells us :

'' Always pay for music that you want ; but here's a radio and some cassette tapes/ CD's in case you want to record them ''

Isn't that stealing ? Is recording a song on the radio a form of copyright infrigement, as i haven't paid for it ?

'' It's illegal to download movies and films, but here's a Television and some VHS tapes/DVD's in case you might want to re-watch them ''

Isn't that stealing ? I didn't buy the film, yet I have it on tape in case i want to re-watch it. Is that wrong ?

Peace !




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


IMHO
I believe that artists should earn a living
if their art inspires people to pay them.

I don't mind working for a living myself, it feeds my art too.
Making awesome sounding music and or video can be done for no expense, after the cost of the instruments and cameras and a computer,
and the learning curve time.
That's the bottom line at present.

If A person were to record and make money from warez then a person is expected to buy the software.

When people are buying me beers its because they want the event to continue,so likewise if an artist wants the software he makes his bread and butter with to continue, then when he can afford to, he is expected to fork it over.

If the quality of the work suffers from compression then people will have to pay a reasonable amount for the High quality or someone will make that easily downloadable too.
If a person wants better then tape they have to buy the DVD and play it on an appropriate system

this allows artists to have an open field NOT CONTROLLED BY the MSM
otherwise they would never make the hard copy that is necessary or gain the skills to do so.
Software that survives this tumult gets an unsurpassed endorsement and promotion
Techies gain the skills to use this stuff

artists get exposure too

So a bunch of typewriter repair people are going to be out of work,
This is a good excuse to slide more rights removals on the peeps and to deflect people from the cause of the situation- a deliberately created overall lack of prosperity and security



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




would you recommend ignoring copyright-laws even today?


I recommend that people make their own decisions rather than allowing others to decide for them.

If you believe it is proper to honor copyright laws, why should I expect you to ignore them? But that works both ways: If you believe that copyright laws are counterproductive to a positive society, why should anyone expect you to obey them?



It does away with being a musician, writer, software-developer, movie-maker as a profession
or source of income.


I'm ok with that. And while we're at it, let's do away with waitressing, gas station attendants, cashiers, and the vast majority of other "professions or sources of income." Society could function perfectly well without a very large portion of them.

Without the need to "work a job" I think there'd be many more artists willing to produce art without the need to be paid for it.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
However: What will ultimately become of my beloved music, movies and books?

If/when it becomes impossible to make any money from mass-produced "art", the only recourse will be to go back to the roots-live performances.

Many of the popular "artists" today, and even more in the future if things continue as they are, probably can't do it live. No copy/paste, no 57 takes to get it right, no creative editing to turn a turd into something marketable.

The people who can get up in front of people and create/entertain will be in demand.
Live music, live theater, even story tellers will make a comeback, because no-one will want to waste their time recording, filming, or writing books when there's no money to be made.

At least, that's what I hope will happen...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
This topic is gay.

Content creators stop creating content when they get no reward for sharing their best works.

A perfect micro-example of this is a virtual world called secondlife where tons of 3d artists created these brilliant things and sold them for like a few bucks a copy...making a decent living and creating more and more content...

Then some idiots made a pirate app that stole the creations and gave em away for free or cheaper...guess what happened...the good content creators simply stopped building and left...then the mediocre ones, etc...

You can say that an artist should do it because it makes them feel mushy and soft to share their crap...put it in perspective.
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...).

I think anyone in favor of P2P file sharing needs to first go out, buy out of pocket all materials to build a home, buy some property...build a nice home, and then let absolutely anyone claim it for free...do this over and over because you should build stuff not for profit, but for the love of sweating your arse off and spending tons of money for random unappreciative people.

the argument is dumb...there is absolutely no ground to stand on..plenty of people create free music for getting known...and good for them, but they wont be doing it forever...just until they can sell their music...sample music bits.

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

Communism is great until it effects your stuff, aye?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

At least, that's what I hope will happen...




So you hope that we no longer have good movies to watch due to piracy and we eventually have to deal with some youtube crap vids and perhaps puppet theater on the corner.

You know...you can get this already in parts of the world where they also have no running water and electricity...total caveman coolness...I recommend checking out some deep jungles in south america.





new topics
top topics
 
91
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join