Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal

page: 3
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
I have a band and we do music and in the near future will start playing shows. If we are ever famous and I find out my music is being illegally downloaded without us getting profit, I'll hold that thought and when the times comes I would sue the snip out of every download provider.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


You shouldn't play music then, its an inevitability. And if you do that, think of how your 'popularity' will fall, much like metallicas did after the napster fiasco.
You lose fans when you decide to sue how they get their music. They may not have spend the 20 dollars on your CD, but they sure as hell would have paid to see your shows. I do, I go to shows all the time for music i have downloaded, because thats where they make most of their money.
And if you make hundreds of thousands a year and are complaining about people downloading music, then please assess your life.

Not to be insulting, but people who download music do not make over 50,000 dollars a year for the most part. If i could afford to buy music, i would, i do for some bands that i really like and want to support, otherwise no.




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Also, the money -not- being spend on music is spent elsewhere in the economy. Because music offers nothing to the economy other than money for the RIAA and the other people associated with it. It doesnt make jobs, so why spend all the money there.

If we were payed a decent wage and lived a comfortable life with extra money to buy music and movies, then we would wouldn't we?

And to be honest, there are far more important issues than downloading and piracy. like the squandering of billions/trillions of dollars. And the wage slave situation. And the war situation and poverty and deforestation and the raping of the earth.

Complaining about losing a few thousands dollars when you make multiple thousands or even millions of dollars for it anyways just makes people look greedy.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Downloading is quickly becoming the most popular way to watch or listen to media.


I disagree. I pay 8 dollars a month for netflix. I find they have most everything I want to watch.

So, even though I find downloading music to not be stealing, I still pay for my movies and tv shows.

Those are the exception and are to me considered a one time performance.

But don't ask me to pay 6 dollars to rent a 20 year old movie either...ahem....Comcast.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky

Originally posted by Jepic
I have a band and we do music and in the near future will start playing shows. If we are ever famous and I find out my music is being illegally downloaded without us getting profit, I'll hold that thought and when the times comes I would sue the snip out of every download provider.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


You shouldn't play music then, its an inevitability. And if you do that, think of how your 'popularity' will fall, much like metallicas did after the napster fiasco.
You lose fans when you decide to sue how they get their music. They may not have spend the 20 dollars on your CD, but they sure as hell would have paid to see your shows. I do, I go to shows all the time for music i have downloaded, because thats where they make most of their money.
And if you make hundreds of thousands a year and are complaining about people downloading music, then please assess your life.

Not to be insulting, but people who download music do not make over 50,000 dollars a year for the most part. If i could afford to buy music, i would, i do for some bands that i really like and want to support, otherwise no.


I don't really mind my popularity. I mind justice. I created the product for you to enjoy for your lifetime, because of that I want to get paid. Unless you lose the song or CD you won't have to pay us again.

I won't lose fans because the music speaks for itself. I'll still sell out gigs if my music is good enough.
What matters is my band's music quality, not my popularity. History will judge us based on our quality of music, not our popularity.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
And by the way, Metallica didn't lose "popularity" because of Napster, they lost "popularity" because after the black album their music quality went balls down dramatically.

If they had made another smokin thrash album, Napster wouldn't have even made a microscopic scratch on Metallica's paintjob.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by eNumbra
You are not entitled to the things you think you are entitled to.


Nor are "musicians". Play your music to get paid. You're the one who wanted to be in a band right?

Not "you" as in eNumbra.......the colective "you" of all the whining "artists".
edit on 17-12-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


Wait a second. Was it you who invested emotions and thought to produce the song's worth?

That's what I thought. If you want the song, you pay me or the record label.


I never said you shouldn't be paid. Maybe your wrath would be better spent in getting a better recording deal?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Originally posted by AzureSky

Originally posted by Jepic
I have a band and we do music and in the near future will start playing shows. If we are ever famous and I find out my music is being illegally downloaded without us getting profit, I'll hold that thought and when the times comes I would sue the snip out of every download provider.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)


You shouldn't play music then, its an inevitability. And if you do that, think of how your 'popularity' will fall, much like metallicas did after the napster fiasco.
You lose fans when you decide to sue how they get their music. They may not have spend the 20 dollars on your CD, but they sure as hell would have paid to see your shows. I do, I go to shows all the time for music i have downloaded, because thats where they make most of their money.
And if you make hundreds of thousands a year and are complaining about people downloading music, then please assess your life.

Not to be insulting, but people who download music do not make over 50,000 dollars a year for the most part. If i could afford to buy music, i would, i do for some bands that i really like and want to support, otherwise no.


I don't really mind my popularity. I mind justice. I created the product for you to enjoy for your lifetime, because of that I want to get paid. Unless you lose the song or CD you won't have to pay us again.

I won't lose fans because the music speaks for itself. I'll still sell out gigs if my music is good enough.
What matters is my band's music quality, not my popularity. History will judge us based on our quality of music, not our popularity.


And you do get paid for your music one way or another. Thinking ahead here, say you hit it big and you gain popularity and play quality music like a lot of great bands throughout the years.

I may download your album which would cost about 16 dollars where i live. But ill go out and ill buy your Live DVD for 40 bucks, or a poster or two for 10, or some other form of collectible that most bands put out through their lifetime. (see Kiss, Metallica, Slayer, etc). (wallets, action figures, clocks, collectors editions, special edition guitars, etc etc etc)

While i get the whole "I made it, i wanna be paid for it" thing, you have to understand the age we live in, and its going to happen regardless of if you want it to happen or not. Thats just the age we live in.

The amount of merch that you would sell would outweight the amount of money being lost through piracy. And most people download one or two songs. If 200,000 people downloaded your one song, that one song is worth 1 dollar on itunes. so thats 200,000 dollars.

But you performed for 150 cities across the world at 100 dollars a ticket to sold out shows of 15,000 to 200,000 or even more! then well, the argument against piracy is moot. Since you've already made far more than you would have lost through downloading.

Of course, i could be wrong. These are just my thoughts.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic
And by the way, Metallica didn't lose "popularity" because of Napster, they lost "popularity" because after the black album their music quality went balls down dramatically.

If they had made another smokin thrash album, Napster wouldn't have even made a microscopic scratch on Metallica's paintjob.


Haha, i agree.
Their new album is alright actually, much better than their last one.
But yeah, after the black album # started rolling down hill.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by eNumbra
You are not entitled to the things you think you are entitled to.


Nor are "musicians". Play your music to get paid. You're the one who wanted to be in a band right?

Not "you" as in eNumbra.......the colective "you" of all the whining "artists".
edit on 17-12-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


And what of other artists? Writers, designers, programmers, traditional art, graphics artists? Do they all fall into the same collective.

There is nothing wrong with Intellectual Property earning residual income for their creators, piracy in the form it exists in now primarily hurts the corporations who hold license to the art. Your anger at the artists is misplaced and frankly a little disturbing.

I know you weren't specifically calling me out, but as I work on games, I know how much time and effort I put into my work, I know what that is worth.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
And what of other artists? Writers, designers, programmers, traditional art, graphics artists? Do they all fall into the same collective.

There is nothing wrong with Intellectual Property earning residual income for their creators,


You got me thinking. From now on, I am going to charge entry to every building that I have "created". Every roadway I have "envisioned". Every church/cathedral I have inspected/recovered/and refurbished.

Sounds kinda silly right?

So why should someone have to pay an "artist" each time their work is seen, heard or used?

Should the Monet fund get a chunk everytime his painting is seen on my wall by my guests (hypothetical of course as I don't own a Monet).




piracy in the form it exists in now primarily hurts the corporations who hold license to the art. Your anger at the artists is misplaced and frankly a little disturbing.


No. The artists anger at the pirates is what is disturbing as they should be angry at their masters.


I know you weren't specifically calling me out, but as I work on games, I know how much time and effort I put into my work, I know what that is worth.


Then get that back from your master.

You even said it yourself. Your master makes all the money. Shouldn't you be angry at them, not the pirate?
edit on 17-12-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky



And you do get paid for your music one way or another. Thinking ahead here, say you hit it big and you gain popularity and play quality music like a lot of great bands throughout the years.

I may download your album which would cost about 16 dollars where i live. But ill go out and ill buy your Live DVD for 40 bucks, or a poster or two for 10, or some other form of collectible that most bands put out through their lifetime. (see Kiss, Metallica, Slayer, etc). (wallets, action figures, clocks, collectors editions, special edition guitars, etc etc etc)

While i get the whole "I made it, i wanna be paid for it" thing, you have to understand the age we live in, and its going to happen regardless of if you want it to happen or not. Thats just the age we live in.

The amount of merch that you would sell would outweight the amount of money being lost through piracy. And most people download one or two songs. If 200,000 people downloaded your one song, that one song is worth 1 dollar on itunes. so thats 200,000 dollars.

But you performed for 150 cities across the world at 100 dollars a ticket to sold out shows of 15,000 to 200,000 or even more! then well, the argument against piracy is moot. Since you've already made far more than you would have lost through downloading.

Of course, i could be wrong. These are just my thoughts.

 


But this isn't about me losing more than I gain. It's about me and the record label wanting to get paid fully.
I do believe piracy can end if there is a big crackdown on it. And I'll fight' till the end to make that happen.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't help out a brother in need of financial help.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by eNumbra
You are not entitled to the things you think you are entitled to.


Nor are "musicians". Play your music to get paid. You're the one who wanted to be in a band right?

Not "you" as in eNumbra.......the colective "you" of all the whining "artists".
edit on 17-12-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


And what of other artists? Writers, designers, programmers, traditional art, graphics artists? Do they all fall into the same collective.

There is nothing wrong with Intellectual Property earning residual income for their creators, piracy in the form it exists in now primarily hurts the corporations who hold license to the art. Your anger at the artists is misplaced and frankly a little disturbing.

I know you weren't specifically calling me out, but as I work on games, I know how much time and effort I put into my work, I know what that is worth.


I totally agree on that. People think art comes out of thin air sometimes. When most of the time it comes out after intense emotional and creative input sometimes even sacrifice.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Jepic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jepic
 


Please tell me the name of your band so I can not ever see you in concert or buy a record from you. As your attitude is not something I want to endorse. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Jepic
 


Please tell me the name of your band so I can not ever see you in concert or buy a record from you. As your attitude is not something I want to endorse. Thanks.



No problem. We are still in the initial stages of finding that name but I will definitely come back to this thread to tell you when we get the name sort out.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Downloading Copyrighted information is stealing no matter how hard you want to defend it. You can justify it all you want, but it is still stealing. It would be a much better world if we were rid of the people that think stealing is ok. I'm sure you will all grow up thinking it ok to steal the extra money people have in their bank accounts that they aren't ever going to spend.

Just one more example of the complete moral void which encompasses the world.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I don't see how it's fair. I really don't. The artists make music or a movie or whatever, and millions are allowed to download it for free? If I was a songwriter and people were getting my stuff for free, I'd be outraged. And all this horsecrap about people downloading albums to "try before they buy" is utter lies. Nobody does that. They download, they keep the download, they save money. Whichever way you dress it up, it's stealing.

When we have no musicians left to make records is when people will finally come to their senses. Greedy bastards.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Troofseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
You dont get these Dvds everywhere in the world. Just think: I live in India. I love Iron Maiden ( Metallica suck btw) and you dont IM Cds in India... So either i buy it online or I just download it.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
in IMO in the future you will not need to buy any more media content... the only thing you will do, is download from an oficial server a good quality content... who will pay the artist, will be the publicity market... why? because every link or download that you do wil be acounted for and it will finance the site.... if a page haves 6 bilion acess of course it will be a very exepensive page in the net market and it will pay the artist

as simple as that...

oscar nomenies will be elected by the number of downloads, etc, etc

it will be a free artist market that will select the trully quality media




posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
WOWWW....Governments are taking all of our fun away! Artists still get rich even with downloading happening!



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
As how it should be, it's not 'Stealing' as you are not taking physical property,

if you contemplate it within a wider space,

Example: a mate walks into a store, buys bread, walks out and hands you a slice, you didn't pay for so it's theft? that happens daily, i believe the terminology is 'Sharing'

THE ABOVE QUOTE ISNT MINE... I STOLE IT FROM DARTH_PRIME. ITS NOT PROPERTY SO ITS OK





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join