The Filesharing Conspiracy

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?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

 

Ive also found that it it feels very different to go purchase stuff and does do something for ones self-worth and maybe even the appreciation of the product. Some interesting psychological phenomena going on there.

Shopaholics crave the self-esteem boost they get from interaction with retail staff far more than the actual goods they buy, new research shows. Psychiatrists believe the findings will lead to a new course of therapy, rather than the usual treatment of prescribing antidepressants, Deutsche Welle reports. The disorder affects up to 10% of Western consumers, researchers say, and can destroy lives.

www.newser.com...

Remind yourself daily that money or a lack of it doesn't determine who you are. Your worth as a person has nothing to do with how much money you have. Once you truly believe this, and money is no longer connected to your sense of self-worth, you open up the psychological barriers that were keeping you from wisely handling the money you do have and limiting your ability to make more.

Right now, your unconscious limiting beliefs may be keeping you from being financially successful, but as you begin to build up your feelings of self-worth and develop a positive attitude about yourself and about money, you'll attract positive things into your life. As you do so, you'll feel less of a need to generate positive feelings by purchasing things, and you'll find it easier to stop buying items you don't really need.

financialplan.about.com...


Does that about cover the 'interesting psychological' stuff happening there?

I am left wondering tho, what was the point you wanted to make about buying things and self-worth being connected?

reply to post by SaturnFX

Linux and youtube...thats the best you can do.

...no...I gave you a bunch of links, including one that, like I said, lists "thousands of free, opensource projects."

For you to pick out the two you don't like is intellectually dishonest. I might as well point out a couple failed commercial projects and try to use that to propose that capitalism doesn't work. It's a silly argument.

The fact is that non-commercial, private groups and individuals can and do produce good and useful material. And if we were to move further in that direction as a society, the quantity and quality of that material would very likely improve. It took time for the entertainment industry to adapt from stage to video, and it will take time for non-commercial content producers to take over from commercial ones. You shouldn't expect "a couple youtube vloggers" to be the sum total end product of where non-commercial entertainment can go any more than you should look at the first couple black and white movies ever made and claim that's the best that hollywood is capable of producing.

We live in a society now where content is produced commecially, and we live in a society where content is produced non-commercially. We have one foot in each world right now. If we were to pick up one foot and move it to the other side, the world would not fall apart.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by LordBucket]

For a change I would like to put my insignificant opinion out there

This whole download thing is what will make music fun again. Instead fantasies of writing music for money going on tours and music videos on TV, the artists could focus on the process of making the music. Most people cant even get on radio with what they write so why not make it be something done for fun and upload your songs on-line for folks to hear.

How about folk music, they didn't have record companies back then and no Internet so songs were passed mouth to mouth(that means hearing someone sing and singing it yourself )

reply to post by Skyfloating


In theory you are right, but look at my point of view. I sometimes download movies, games. I prefer radio or just to buy songs the from itunes.

Consider this if I were to go to the cinema and also get popcorn and a coke, I could in theory afford to see 20 movies a month, that's with not eating, smoking, paying rent etc. Many movies are just bad of are not shown at the cinemas in my city.

Also I usually choose TV series over movies, I have no ethical problem downloading them as they payed for themselves with advertising etc.

When it comes to games, an average game is 40-50$ and most are crap now, don't get me wrong some of them are ok, but a game play time of 14 hours for 50$ isn't really worth it. I used to play old hames for days to weeks until I was able to complete them, now if I'm not careful and look away for a second ... game completed. I usually buy a game after I play it and I actually like it.

Even in the days of CDs and cassettes I was one of the few people I know that actually bought them, piracy existed then, it just took longer.

Poor 50 cent(insert name of any modern singer), because of people like me now he can only afford 2 houses and 10 luxury cars instead of double. Well at this this way he can still sing about being poor, so I've saved him.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Thirdly - doesnt anyone want to reward those book-writers,
movie-makers and musicians for their work?

No.

Look at the music and movie industries. Now like at the open source software industry. Both are viable. Both produce material that people use and like. Content will still be produced even if artists are not paid for their work.

Why is it better for money be to changing hands?

So ... the artists, writers, engineers should not be rewarded for their work!? And you really think that the content will magically appear anyay? And just who do you think will produce the content for free?

It is perfectly reasonable to expect to get paid for any work One does. In this society is would seem that it is okay to consume without paying the producers for their work. My question is; How are the producers supposed to llive? Nobody gives us the basic neccessities just because we ask for them. Artists, writers, and others who produce the content you want have to earn out daily bread too, and if we don't get it worm the work we love, then we have to do something else, and that may not leave us with the time or energy to product the content you want.

Thoughts?

There is no need for copyright to exist in our society.


You are wrong, copyrights are at present, a neccessary evil. It is these laws that protect my intellectual property and work. It is these laws that allow me to make some kind of living doing that which I love to do.

You need to understand that the artists, writers, etc are prople too, with the same needs that everyone else has. When just living is free, then you can have our art for free too.

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 understand the conflict, however not all movies are available for rent or purchase, for example. Many big box stores, at least in my city will not carry copies of "28 days later" or '28 weeks later' or titles deemed 'sensitive' to corporate or political interests. This is where file sharing comes in. The same goes for books.

Some games are so bad they are not worth the price (or even the download).

The last software I brought was kaspersky antivirus which product key didn't even work. That turned me off purchasing software.

I scanned an 1980 edition of 'The NRA guide to firearms assembly', a 110mb version, and a 405mb 'monster size' version, and put it up on piratebay.

As a musician with a pretty loyal fanbase, I originally gave my music away. My first EP was a free download-only album, and lots of people downloaded it. I simply wanted to just get my name out there initially. It was a win-win really, because if they liked it they would come back and (in theory) buy a later album if it wasn't free, and if they DIDN'T like it, it was no harm to them and they could move on and there was no investment attached.

I am selling my first full-length album and all those loyal fans are willing to buy it, and have bought it. I don't make as much as travelling rock bands or people who play out, since my genre is classical/meditation music. I only make what I sell in my album sales, and as I keep making music slowly but surely my fanbase will grow and (in theory, again) perhaps my income level will rise.


What will royally SUCK, however, is if I get popular enough to where no one bothers to buy it, and just download it from somewhere else. At that point, my popularity will hit a ceiling, and I'll go back to meager profits. Personally, if I really like an independent artist I WILL buy their album, because were in this together.. the problem is that the average consumer doesnt think that way. =(

i understand what you are saying but i simply cant agree with you.

if you took more time to consider what filesharing and informationsharing did to peoples minds and world you will see great difference and positive effect.

i see that writing books and sharing knowledge now isnt profitable as before internet, but when you value everything, that simply cant be good. if you cant give information without taking anything back, you acctually dont give anything but take away from someone. if giving information is not profitable, you will simply not give it to any.

that leads to closed circle in witch who has money has wealth, information, knowledge, life. i cant explain good what im thinking, im bad at english. lets try this way.

if you ask for something when giving, that is not giving but taking.

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

I've made mods for games for free, and I couldn't care less what happens to them. I've offered my translation services for free. Hell, one photograph I took was used free of rights by an American newspaper.
There's a large community out there who makes high quality content available to anyone. Check stock.XCHNG, Amie Street, or various sites offering mods for video games.

If it is illegal to download for free any type of media, then the platforms erected that enable one to download said material is just as illegal. Accomplice, accessory...whatever.
The prositute AND the the owner of the brothel would both be guilty of prostitution, would they not? The owner allowed his building to be used for illegal activity.
So what about Limewire? Where was the attack against them when Napster got nailed? Why, all these years later, can Limewire still offer free downloads? Double standards, y'all.
Before MP3s and such, there were cassettes, 8track, reel to reel. Nothing has changed when it comes to sharing media. Borrow some vinyl from a friend, and copy it to your 8track or cassette. Isn't that the same damn thing? Where was the outcry then? Oh, that'ts right. No way to keep tabs on such a thing. But wasn't copying music then just as wrong as it is now?
And another thing. So what if a site does things the "right" way and charges a fee? Do you mean to tell me the artists still makes the money he/she would have had the consumer bought the CD? A percentage maybe, but not the whole bore.
Everybody could be said to be at fault here. Those who design the technology and those who abuse it.
The problem for the industry/artisis here is, no forethought or safeguards where put in place with the advent of the MP3 media technology. It should have been foreseen that such events would occur, if MP3's were put on line. The makers of the CD/DVD burners...what the hell were they thinking? Please, by all means, go and copy music, and we'll enjoy the millions and millions of dollars people pay us for our burners. And those manufacturers of piracy equipment are free from guilt!
If I were an artist, I would treat my work like an investment, since I would expect money to come rolling in. If I know that there is a risk of my work going out for free and never make anything off of it, I should be the one who would be responsible for protecting my investment, and making sure I did what I could to keep people from ripping me off.
Leaving your investment to someone else to look after is inviting trouble.
Before trying to make this a "moral" issue of right and wrong, all sides should be looked at, before merely blaming the consumer.
I argued this way back during the Napster days. Nothing has changed.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by DHSreallybugsme]

reply to post by LordBucket


Why do you believe they shouldn't?

If someone chooses to give something away at no cost, that is their choice. If they choose to be paid for it, that is also their choice.

People put time and resources into their work. If they have to buy equipment and materials, that costs money and why shouldn't they be at least compensated for that cost.
People depend on the income that their work provides.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by BadgerJoe]

reply to post by BadgerJoe

Why do you believe they shouldn't?

You made a statement. I asked you to justify it. You can't justify your statement by asking me to justify not-your statement.

It would be like you killing someone, and me asking you why you did it...and then you responding with, "well, why didn't you?"

If they choose to be paid for it, that is also their choice.

That doesn't quite work. It does no good for me to stand on a street corner screaming, and "choose to be paid" for it. You can choose what you do, but you can't choose what others do.

I think what you really mean by "choose to be paid" is preventing others from having access to something. This is the premise of copyright. You thought of something, therefore nobody else can do or have what you thought of.

For example, if you were the first person to bang two rocks together to make fire, according to the concept of copyright it would be well and proper and good for nobody else to be "allowed" to bang two rocks together to make fire unless you gave them permission to.

That sounds silly, but that's basically what copyright is.

reply to post by DHSreallybugsme


It's not a double standard, it's because Napster was based out of the US, which when they made digitial media copyright laws it became illegal to not only sell downloaded music, but also to download or upload it.

Most websites for torrents and programs like LimeWire are set up in different countries who do not have these laws, therefore are still able to operate.

~Keeper

CHINESE PROVERB : "Always do for others as you would like others to do for you". Downloading copyright material for free is all very well so long as you're willing to allow others to do the same with regard to your own copyright material as well. So with the new technology there comes a realization that we are a COMMUNITY in which we are responsible for caring about one another.

If the artist [copyright owner] is not going to be financially supported by his fan base, then he will need to be supported by the national treasury of the state instead. So it gets to be that you the consumer end up paying in your taxes. It all requires that we accept the necessity of being SOCIALISM. But since you expect the artist to labour free of chargely [slave labour] then it gets to be that you the consumer also ends up having to work free of chargely [slave labour].

Already we are seeing this change coming over everyone. The newly elected "Conservative Liberal Alliance" government in the British Isles would love to introduce reforms such that we all have to go to work free of chargely. There have always been those who enjoy the PRIVILEGE of being in receipt of materials and products for free. The Capitalist class were able to get to be the wealthy that they are by that very mechanism.

Communist revolution seeks not to redistribute that privilege, but rather to simply steal it from the capitalists, and then exploit it for themselves. That is the ethic of Hitler and Stalin and ... and ... and by being a "free downloader" you are adding your name to the list of despotic oppressors that have existed down the corridors of history. It is a matter of CONSCIENCE and morality. In a world where money is required then money is required. However, we do not nor need not use money as a weapon where by with which to oppress and murder.

In the utopia, that some imagine to be possible, persons would still suffer poverty, because they would be exploited as slaves ? As a "free downloader" you're simply exploiting slave labour, thus imposing deprivation and poverty. Thus we need to support the artist [copyright owner] through a system of Social Security Benefits. Obviously such benefits would be on a means tested basis, such that if the artist [copyright owner] gets to be in receipt of adequate payments from sales, then that would replace his benefits payments. State patronage is the way artists are being funded now. It is a beggers existance.

I am one such artist "DEEPBLUESKY" with an album of seven tracks, which easilly burns to a CD disc that you then play on your usual CD player system. It is being distributed via the iTUNES STORE. The iTunes system is such that only artists and bands that are of high enough quality actually get a license to distribute through the iTunes store. If you would like to obtain a license for your own material then I advise that you contact > SENTRIC < and see if they can get a license from iTunes for you. Competition is very strong. I know hundreds who were rejected. They just cannot believe it that I got a license but they were not getting a license. Another important link for the artists is > PPL <

Saint Francis of Assissi said "Giving is better than receiving. To love is better than to be loved. To forgive is better than to be forgiven". If I gain on the roundabout then I know that I will lose on the swings. Life is a balance of giving and taking. If you buy my album then I hope that it will always bring you pleasure. However, if you cannot afford it, then there are plenty of other of my items for you on the other links that are for every body free of charge.

As regard to various solo artists and bands who are working in an employment and thus doing the music [copyright material] as a secondary employment, this is called "moonlighting" or "burning the candle at both ends". It is far from ideal. Ultimately such "moonlighters" will realise that they cannot keep it up. They will drop out of the music business. Music is only a fun thing when you're sitting comfortably and relaxed in the audience. As soon as it becomes ones employment, it starts to be work. Very exhausting and tiresome work. Hard labour. The audience never realize this fact and thus arises the problem of the mindless "free downloader" and the unlawful distribution in the form of illegal uploading [copyright theft] being debated in this thread.

> SHIMONO <
> CAELENIUM 01 <
[url=http://vampirefreaks.com/Caelenium]> CAELENIUM 02

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by BadgerJoe

 

Why do you believe they shouldn't?

You made a statement. I asked you to justify it. You can't justify your statement by asking me to justify not-your statement.

It would be like you killing someone, and me asking you why you did it...and then you responding with, "well, why didn't you?"

If they choose to be paid for it, that is also their choice.

That doesn't quite work. It does no good for me to stand on a street corner screaming, and "choose to be paid" for it. You can choose what you do, but you can't choose what others do.

I think what you really mean by "choose to be paid" is preventing others from having access to something. This is the premise of copyright. You thought of something, therefore nobody else can do or have what you thought of.

For example, if you were the first person to bang two rocks together to make fire, according to the concept of copyright it would be well and proper and good for nobody else to be "allowed" to bang two rocks together to make fire unless you gave them permission to.

That sounds silly, but that's basically what copyright is.

Wow, weakest argument ever. Banging 2 rocks together or just simplifying it down to thought is equal to someone spending months or years toiling away at what they consider to be art or literature? Jesus you don't have a leg to stand on with that one. Why don't you and this new generation of geniuses make power, shelter and food free then you might have people agreeing with your deluded ideals. Because frankly what you are suggesting is a free ride on the backs of the creative, you aren't changing society, you're screwing over people who have spent their lives working toward a goal only to have it stolen.

PS you didn't answer my question even after I did yours.

I have a friend who works part time doing his music. His band streams their music from their facebook page and have a link to their tracks available on iTunes for downloading. You can purchase their CD at one of their venues when they play live. They have no other distribution. If you look for their music online for pirated download it is not available. They are so small no one bothers but they make money from everything they do even if it is not much. That is the way it is now days if you love music and love to play it for others.

They are not even looking for a label. They make enough money to offset the cost of doing what they love to do. They have day jobs and are fine with that. Not that they do not have fantasies of being a big act some day.

Only in modern history have music players and actors made fortunes from their work. For all of the rest of human history actors and mistrals managed to make a living if they were lucky and some wealthy backer financed their work. It will soon return to this historic norm given the current trends.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by BadgerJoe

 

Why do you believe they shouldn't?

You made a statement. I asked you to justify it. You can't justify your statement by asking me to justify not-your statement.

It would be like you killing someone, and me asking you why you did it...and then you responding with, "well, why didn't you?"

If they choose to be paid for it, that is also their choice.

That doesn't quite work. It does no good for me to stand on a street corner screaming, and "choose to be paid" for it. You can choose what you do, but you can't choose what others do.

I think what you really mean by "choose to be paid" is preventing others from having access to something. This is the premise of copyright. You thought of something, therefore nobody else can do or have what you thought of.

For example, if you were the first person to bang two rocks together to make fire, according to the concept of copyright it would be well and proper and good for nobody else to be "allowed" to bang two rocks together to make fire unless you gave them permission to.

That sounds silly, but that's basically what copyright is.

Copyright exists to protect people's work, to prevent someone else from profiting from the original person's work or denying that person compensation for that work.

Some can and want to give their work away, and that's fine. It's their choice to do so.
Others choose not to do this, this is how they make a living.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
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.

As usual, you apply your own context to a reply to make some douche-baggy comment. No wonder I don't post here regularly.

I was replying to a single point from the OP, pertaining to what would would happen when books, movies, and recorded music are no longer commercially viable. I do hope that that's what happens should that point be reached. Do I hope that we come to that? No.

I'd like to see the people who create music, film, books, etc. make a decent living from doing so. I think creativity should be rewarded. I think people should pay for their entertainment, within reason.

However, as we're rapidly reaching the point where any creative entertainment is promptly pirated and distributed for free by third parties, I think looking ahead to the logical alternative isn't a bad idea.

To respond directly to what you wrote, no, I don't hope we have no more good movies to watch, although an argument could easily be made that we're already there judging from the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days. The same can be said about the music business, too.

I've also seen some very entertaining and creative puppet theater in my day. I was, however, referring to real theater, you know, actors on a stage performing what are known as "plays"? I'm sorry if you're not culturally advanced enough to understand such things, but that is where movies evolved from.

Just because you can't enjoy such things from the comfort of your couch, scratching yourself in your underwear, doesn't make them any less viable a source of entertainment. Perhaps the fact that you can't buy them and add them to your collection of stuff you like to show off to your friends offends your materialistic sensibilities, I don't know. I do know that if we reach a point where live entertainment is the only kind available due to mass produced media being no longer commercially viable, I'll gladly shell out my money to experience it.

Live music is, after all, better.