_________________
Tanzania¹²

Holy Christ, common sense prevailed. Maybe now some RIAA and MPAA people will recognize that a lot of pirated material is stuff that was not going to be purchased in the first place, and that plenty of people actually purchase some of the stuff they pirate that they'd never have known about or seen/listened to and found that they liked.

Instead, let's count every single downloaded copy of everything as lost revenue. You know, I've illegally downloaded some material literally 7-8 times over the past 15 years. Things I've deleted or lost due to hardware failure and had to grab again, etc. I totally would have purchased those things 7 or 8 times had I not been able to pirate it! I feel so guilty over all the software developers and musicians I've singlehandedly put out of business over the years. The RIAA should just execute me.

Who was the dude that was super morally against downloading music the last time we had this big discussion? You remember?

_________________
Tanzania¹²

My bad, Zeb. My bad.

_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.

I was trying to remember who that was after I read your post, Zeb. I can't recall. He was super-righteous about it, though. I don't suppose whoever it was cares to pipe up in here?

-read this while illegally downloading music-

_________________

Official Tharold Simon Fan Club Member

While revenues are not harmed, there are still people in the world that believe it is wrong to take something that is not yours.

There are also thieves/burglars that justify taking things because the things that are stolen will be replaced by insurance, so where's the harm.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Pleased to pipe up.

It is still wrong to take something that isn't yours, but continue to justify it however you like.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

This is an interesting conundrum. While theft of property is wrong, the greatest bane to an artist's survival is not theft but obscurity, making this quite oxymoronic in nature. What makes this an even more interesting a discussion is Amazon's Prime borrowing program. The reader gets something for free, and the artist still gets paid. In my case, I get paid more for people borrowing my novella than by people buying it. By a considerable margin.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

In human history the 1900s were a bit of an anomaly for music. Before that musicians made music by actually performing it. The really good ones often had patrons, allowing them to focus on it and allowing the patron bragging rights of being the first to hear the music (or in some cases the ONLY person to hear it).

Records, CDs, 8 tracks etc changed that for about a hundred years but I get the sense this is basically now going to be "corrected".. musicians are going to have to accept the fact that information is spread for free, easily.. and what is "theirs" is their actual performance.

I am surpirsed that artists continue to release music first.. I would guess that fairly soon top artists will reverse the pattern now.. a tour of live concerts with new content will be done before studio quality versions of songs are ever released. It would already work.. if top acts announced a tour of exclusive content of new songs you cant hear anywhere except their concert..people would go crazy for it.

Later recordings can be sold, with the inevitable copying.

Im not even sure if "theft" is quite the word. There should be a new word.. as they say "imagine if someone stole your car..but..you still had your car".

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

You know how virtually any other product in the world can be returned within 10 days or 30 days for a full refund for any reason? Maybe if people could do that, they'd feel more secure in purchasing music. There is no "meh, I don't like this new album by X artist despite liking their previous 3 albums, *clicks get refund*"; the excuse given is that it allows the purchaser to copy the music, then return the product, thereby obtaining it for free illegally. It's the most ridiculous excuse I can think of, my freaking grandma can figure out how to pirate music by asking how on Google. Perhaps some sort of backing of the product in any way, shape, or form after purchase might make people more likely to purchase.


...Naw, that can't be true. It must be me trying to justify my pirating of music, since I'm such an evil thief.

I agree with that prognosis. It's bound to happen, as the industry will be forced to adapt if it wants to survive.

The car analogy is sorta apt, but not really. It decreases (possibly - as that's the key to this whole discussion) the ability to sell your car to potential buyers.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Yeah, but how much of an impact that truly has is pretty debatable. It's like arguing against mass transit because it hurts car sales.

I always check out(pirate) music before I buy it, if it's good, I have no issue going to iTunes and buying it. Or a cd.... which I still do once or twice a year! If it's not good, I don't buy.

No way in the world I'd buy music without being 100% sure I want it.

_________________
You're the new Oakland Raiders; class-less and dirty (with trash-talking players, and an unapologetic head coach), no respect for the game, with a stadium filled with obnoxious/rude fans dressed up in corny Halloween costumes/flare. -49er fan

That's probably one of the better analogies I've heard.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

So, does this carry over to piracy of software, or anything that can be copied?

_________________
That's weak sauce!

So, technology gives me a very nice copier/printer. In fact it copies everything precisely to the finest detail.

I "copy" one of your $20 bills and return the original to you.

No harm, no foul, right?

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Not as long as you don't circulate it into the economy.

But good luck finding the right paper to print copies if that twenty onto if you did intend to spend it.

_________________
Legal Notice: Any references made by the online entity know as SacHawk 2.0 or "Sac" in regards to "Currystopstheruns" being a pre-op tranny with an anal tampon fetish are entirely accurate.

And why can't I circulate it?

Oh, because it devalues everyone else's $20 bill.

So, a copy of a copy, of a copy of a song doesn't devalue the original?

_________________
That's weak sauce!