so if you guys were to say get a new haircut......would you steal it first to see if you like it?
Want to try a new food? Steal it. If you like it then buy more.
Stealing this music hurts the artist, so you are obviously not fans.
i think that you cant put a price on art because that would be putting a price on the emotion and soul that went into it, so it should be free
I agree with this to an extent. Music isn't made solely for money. The ones who do make money for it are lucky, but Music should be about the passion for the Music, not money. And most Metal bands will tell you anyways, they don't give a fuck if you download or buy, as long as you hear their Music.
Send me some of your free music, bro. I agree partially. My middle son is in a band and he had the whole "it's art" vibe going when he began. I told him in no uncertain terms that at some point his "art" needed a way to pay for itself or it would no longer be enjoyable or affordable to do. Five years later, he whole-heartedly agrees. He still beleives it's art, and it is, but he know has a family, a house, and real life responsibilities. Make no mistake about it, it's a bidness. Always has been, always will be.
Oh, I'm serious about sending me more free GOR music by the way. Kevin is good people. If he likes you, so do I. No questions.
CD's are that expensive to help make up for what was stolen by illegal downloads. People quit stealing and prices will get in line. In today's world, it'll never happen.
Another thing, downloading allows me to hear WAY more Music, which helps bands by making me a new fan and making me want to BUY a ticket to see them live and BUY one of their shirts, which most Metal bands make most of their profit off merch anyways, so if anything, buy their shirts to put food in their stomachs. No way in Hell I'd have over 4,000 songs to listen to and know so many bands without downloading.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
CD's are that expensive to help make up for what was stolen by illegal downloads. People quit stealing and prices will get in line. In today's world, it'll never happen.
That is a lie. Piracy is not what has artificially driven the price up. Last time I checked, Lady Gaga and Eminem are still charging 20 bucks even though they sold a billion copies.
I like NIN and Radiohead's distribution medium. "Free to download, pay what you think is fair" <- worked out great for them. Did you see their numbers?
CD's are that expensive to help make up for what was stolen by illegal downloads. People quit stealing and prices will get in line. In today's world, it'll never happen.
they were that expensive before Napster even existed
Lady Gaga and Eminem have both lost millions to piracy.
NIN had their most profitable album when they did that. Most people are honest at the core, so Trent actually made out alright on that. He completeley cut out the middle man.
Do you work in the music industry? I do.
I like you cuz you ain't afraid to spew forth your opinions but I ain't got to agree with what I KNOW to be false. Until you have earned a living in the music industry you won't really know the "whole story".
Besides, I've only paid above 14 bucks for one CD my whole life. That was "Reload" from Metallica at 18 bucks plus tax the day it dropped. I have regretted losing that 18 bucks ever since.
Downloading something before it's released to me is like spoiling Christmas. I like knowing that something "new" is going to invade my ears and don't like having it spoiled for me by someone who decided to "try it before I buy it". See, I respected you and didn't call it stealing.
Another thing, downloading allows me to hear WAY more Music, which helps bands by making me a new fan and making me want to BUY a ticket to see them live and BUY one of their shirts, which most Metal bands make most of their profit off merch anyways, so if anything, buy their shirts to put food in their stomachs. No way in Hell I'd have over 4,000 songs to listen to and know so many bands without downloading.
So true i wouldn't listen to as many bands as i do if not for downloading.
Another thing, downloading allows me to hear WAY more Music, which helps bands by making me a new fan and making me want to BUY a ticket to see them live and BUY one of their shirts, which most Metal bands make most of their profit off merch anyways, so if anything, buy their shirts to put food in their stomachs. No way in Hell I'd have over 4,000 songs to listen to and know so many bands without downloading.
i agree with Erik on alot of this. I would have never heard alot of the bands that I know want to go see in concert and buy merch from if it wasn't for downloading. It really gets their music heard by way more people than it would have otherwise and even though it's a living for them, they need and want people to just hear them at the end of the day.
It's still stealing. Ask a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. The law is clearly defined. Just because they opt not to prosecute does not give tacit approval to do so. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. Ever. Now I'm done. Go forth and steal til your little heart's content.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
It's still stealing. Ask a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. The law is clearly defined. Just because they opt not to prosecute does not give tacit approval to do so. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. Ever. Now I'm done. Go forth and steal til your little heart's content.
A cop does not have the right to arrest someone over illegal downloading because there has been no quantifiable deprivation. Not even the DMCA gives him the legal authority to act on this activity. A cop may have the opinion that it is but he has no legal authority to act.
On a global scale, several judges have ruled against the recording industry in what constitutes theft of intellectual property. Yes there has been a few high profile cases in the US where the jury tragically found a single mother guilty and tried to force her to pay 22k per song. That is fucking wrong, and a great misjustice of our legal system. Sue for actual damages - 1 dollar per song. Maybe double the penalty... 2 dollars per song.
Really the DMCA is an unconstitutional law and is the backbone to the RIAA's legal claims in the US. Their is a very clear money trail between the RIAA and the politicians who passed this unconstitutional law. Just because there is a bad law on the books, does not mean that the law is right. You can have the opinion that it is, but I can also have the opinion that it isnt. We agreed to disagree.
I'm not trying to change your mind on this, but I am also not going to not voice my disagreement with your comments. Personally I have no problems with you nor do your opinions make me think any less of you. You are entitled to have your own opinion on morality and justice. I actually agree with you that illegally downloading content has some moral issues. I also agree that according to the DMCA it is technically illegal. What I disagree with is that it is not "stealing" and I disagree that it does impact the artists as you claim it does. I personally believe that piracy helps increase the artists popularity and ultimately that popularity results in higher sales then they normally would have received.
My wife wrote a book fairly recently (no way I could do what she did). Anyways she pledged that 100% of all "profits" she made off the book with be donated to Tourette's Syndrome Association. She did this for two reasons.... 1. we support that organization and 2. donate all money would hopefully increase popularity and then when she wrote the 2/3 books she would keep the profits made on the book. It didnt really work out for her but the idea was sound. Piracy is the same shit. There are so many bands out there, that piracy only increases your popularity which will only result in higher sales. I'm convinced that if piracy didnt exist, I wouldn't like 1/2 of the bands I do.
It's still stealing. Ask a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. The law is clearly defined. Just because they opt not to prosecute does not give tacit approval to do so. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. Ever. Now I'm done. Go forth and steal til your little heart's content.
It's still stealing. Ask a judge, lawyer, cop, etc. The law is clearly defined. Just because they opt not to prosecute does not give tacit approval to do so. Nobody will ever change my mind on that. Ever. Now I'm done. Go forth and steal til your little heart's content.
A cop does not have the right to arrest someone over illegal downloading because there has been no quantifiable deprivation. Not even the DMCA gives him the legal authority to act on this activity. A cop may have the opinion that it is but he has no legal authority to act.
On a global scale, several judges have ruled against the recording industry in what constitutes theft of intellectual property. Yes there has been a few high profile cases in the US where the jury tragically found a single mother guilty and tried to force her to pay 22k per song. That is fucking wrong, and a great misjustice of our legal system. Sue for actual damages - 1 dollar per song. Maybe double the penalty... 2 dollars per song.
Really the DMCA is an unconstitutional law and is the backbone to the RIAA's legal claims in the US. Their is a very clear money trail between the RIAA and the politicians who passed this unconstitutional law. Just because there is a bad law on the books, does not mean that the law is right. You can have the opinion that it is, but I can also have the opinion that it isnt. We agreed to disagree.
I'm not trying to change your mind on this, but I am also not going to not voice my disagreement with your comments. Personally I have no problems with you nor do your opinions make me think any less of you. You are entitled to have your own opinion on morality and justice. I actually agree with you that illegally downloading content has some moral issues. I also agree that according to the DMCA it is technically illegal. What I disagree with is that it is not "stealing" and I disagree that it does impact the artists as you claim it does. I personally believe that piracy helps increase the artists popularity and ultimately that popularity results in higher sales then they normally would have received.
My wife wrote a book fairly recently (no way I could do what she did). Anyways she pledged that 100% of all "profits" she made off the book with be donated to Tourette's Syndrome Association. She did this for two reasons.... 1. we support that organization and 2. donate all money would hopefully increase popularity and then when she wrote the 2/3 books she would keep the profits made on the book. It didnt really work out for her but the idea was sound. Piracy is the same shit. There are so many bands out there, that piracy only increases your popularity which will only result in higher sales. I'm convinced that if piracy didnt exist, I wouldn't like 1/2 of the bands I do.
Comments
Oh, I'm serious about sending me more free GOR music by the way. Kevin is good people. If he likes you, so do I. No questions.
I like NIN and Radiohead's distribution medium. "Free to download, pay what you think is fair" <- worked out great for them. Did you see their numbers?
NIN had their most profitable album when they did that. Most people are honest at the core, so Trent actually made out alright on that. He completeley cut out the middle man.
Do you work in the music industry? I do.
I like you cuz you ain't afraid to spew forth your opinions but I ain't got to agree with what I KNOW to be false. Until you have earned a living in the music industry you won't really know the "whole story".
Downloading something before it's released to me is like spoiling Christmas. I like knowing that something "new" is going to invade my ears and don't like having it spoiled for me by someone who decided to "try it before I buy it". See, I respected you and didn't call it stealing.
On a global scale, several judges have ruled against the recording industry in what constitutes theft of intellectual property. Yes there has been a few high profile cases in the US where the jury tragically found a single mother guilty and tried to force her to pay 22k per song. That is fucking wrong, and a great misjustice of our legal system. Sue for actual damages - 1 dollar per song. Maybe double the penalty... 2 dollars per song.
Really the DMCA is an unconstitutional law and is the backbone to the RIAA's legal claims in the US. Their is a very clear money trail between the RIAA and the politicians who passed this unconstitutional law. Just because there is a bad law on the books, does not mean that the law is right. You can have the opinion that it is, but I can also have the opinion that it isnt. We agreed to disagree.
I'm not trying to change your mind on this, but I am also not going to not voice my disagreement with your comments. Personally I have no problems with you nor do your opinions make me think any less of you. You are entitled to have your own opinion on morality and justice. I actually agree with you that illegally downloading content has some moral issues. I also agree that according to the DMCA it is technically illegal. What I disagree with is that it is not "stealing" and I disagree that it does impact the artists as you claim it does. I personally believe that piracy helps increase the artists popularity and ultimately that popularity results in higher sales then they normally would have received.
My wife wrote a book fairly recently (no way I could do what she did). Anyways she pledged that 100% of all "profits" she made off the book with be donated to Tourette's Syndrome Association. She did this for two reasons.... 1. we support that organization and 2. donate all money would hopefully increase popularity and then when she wrote the 2/3 books she would keep the profits made on the book. It didnt really work out for her but the idea was sound. Piracy is the same shit. There are so many bands out there, that piracy only increases your popularity which will only result in higher sales. I'm convinced that if piracy didnt exist, I wouldn't like 1/2 of the bands I do.
TL;DR - I disagree. :-D
i actually like this wake guy