Torrents Bad or good?

[devilof76]

Then you're a thief.

Greed is your excuse, and it's a weak one.

You want what is mine, but somehow your desire to take is morally superior to my desire to keep? Full of **** much?

 

[HODLr]

Yes the sampling effect does HELP a subset of the population in making future purchases. But the overall impact is still mostly negative especially when it comes to the music industry.

Film is slightly different.

The music industry is a tired relic, well past its expiration date. It failed to evolve and that is the biggest reason for their business evaporating. They could of done so much to save it like using Napster as a distribution model, back in the day. What did they do? Sued them out of business and then the dam broke. What was previously a centralized service, that most people used, became a decentralized community, spread out on numerous applications, so they need to look in the mirror if they want some one to blame.

Artists can now self-publish instead of being screwed out of everything they worked for, by the record companies. Record companies are going the way of the dinosaurs and everyone should be proud to have been a crack in their foundation. It's all coming down. Taking little kids, grand mothers, and people with no technical savvy to court and suing them into financial ruin is paying massive karma dividends.

You reap what you sow, karma's a *****, etc, etc, etc.

 

[devilof76]

The dishonesty of music consumers has more to do with the downfall of their business model than anything else.

 

[HODLr]

The dishonesty of music consumers has more to do with the downfall of their business model than anything else.

I say suing your customers into financial ruin is probably worse.


Edit: Yoda vs Caeser 8)

 

[intothevoid]

The music industry is a tired relic, well past its expiration date. It failed to evolve and that is the biggest reason for their business evaporating. They could of done so much to save it like using Napster as a distribution model, back in the day. What did they do? Sued them out of business and then the dam broke. What was previously a centralized service, that most people used, became a decentralized community, spread out on numerous applications, so they need to look in the mirror if they want some one to blame.

Artists can now self-publish instead of being screwed out of everything they worked for, by the record companies. Record companies are going the way of the dinosaurs and everyone should be proud to have been a crack in their foundation. It's all coming down. Taking little kids, grand mothers, and people with no technical savvy to court and suing them into financial ruin is paying massive karma dividends.

You reap what you sow, karma's a *****, etc, etc, etc.

I agree.
They screwed up big time.

 

[crows]

Artists can now self-publish instead of being screwed out of everything they worked for, by the record companies. Record companies are going the way of the dinosaurs and everyone should be proud to have been a crack in their foundation. It's all coming down. Taking little kids, grand mothers, and people with no technical savvy to court and suing them into financial ruin is paying massive karma dividends.

Actually this girl talks about this subject in here.
She got tired of the business and she left the big studios and just started asking people for money online ( her fans) to make more records.
She raised something like over 1 million dollars. Just because people wanted to help so much.

But Even when she was under a studio, People at concerts would tell her that they illegally downloaded her record,
BUT they would give her 20 bucks or so in person because they wanted Her to have that money and not the record company... They rather steal the record, and just pay her the money at the show...

[ame]https://youtu.be/xMj_P_6H69g[/ame]

 

[devilof76]

I say suing your customers into financial ruin is probably worse.


Edit: Yoda vs Caeser 8)

It certainly gave a lot of people a justification for continuing to steal.

I agree that it was a poor business decision, but that doesn't change the nature of the actions their lawsuits were addressing.

 

[HODLr]

Actually this girl talks about this subject in here. She got tired of the business and she left the big studios and just started asking people for money online, her fans, to make other records. She raised something like over 1 million dollars. Just because people wanted to help so much.

Even when she was under a studio, People at concerts would tell her that they illegally downloaded her record,
BUT they would give her 20 bucks or so in person because they wanted Her to have that money and not the record company... They rather steal the record, and just pay her the money at the show...

https://youtu.be/xMj_P_6H69g

This is exactly it! Unless you're a massive star, artists make their money at live shows, not on CD's. There are plenty of Artists that give their music away for free, knowing the good will it generates and that it will make people want to see them live. Rusko comes to mind.

It won't be long before all music is free and that's no pipe dream. It's already starting to happen.

 

[Wulf]

I'm picking on Sweden because they don't have much respect for the concept of property in general. And yes, many Americans have the same problem. I probably wouldn't care what socialists did to themselves if the ideology hadn't infected this country.

You want what is mine, but somehow your desire to take is morally superior to my desire to keep?

What's yours? If I recreate it myself it's not yours. If I come into your house and steal a statue you made now I've stolen something from you.

But if I can recreate it for my personal use and you can still keep the item you originally made then there shouldn't be any drama.

 

[HODLr]

It certainly gave a lot of people a justification for continuing to steal.

I agree that it was a poor business decision, but that doesn't change the nature of the actions their lawsuits were addressing.

Personally this isn't an issue of morality. It's the consequence of failing to evolve. This is business Darwinism and the music industry doesn't have the strength to survive.

If we were to get into the morality of the lawsuits, how can anyone justify being able to get around $107,000 in damages, per song, like the RIAA did in their lawsuits. In one of their lawsuits they tried to sue for more money than is present on this rock we call Earth.

 

[devilof76]

I suspect the point of the exorbitant claims was intimidation.

And how is usurping a company's distribution rights not a moral issue?

Competition is one thing. Stealing a product and then replacing the owner as the provider isn't competition.

But if I can recreate it for my personal use and you can still keep the item you originally made then there shouldn't be any drama.

Try it, and see how little drama there is.

 

[HODLr]

What's yours? If I recreate it myself it's not yours. If I come into your house and steal a statue you made now I've stolen something from you.

But if I can recreate it for my personal use and you can still keep the item you originally made then there shouldn't be any drama.

It won't be long until we have mobile 3D HD printers. People will then be able to have figure parties and 'burn' exact duplicates of their friend's figures/statues. This might sound absurd now, but 10 years ago would of thought we'd printing tools, skin, etc. in current times?

Innovation and evolution is awesome!

 

[crows]

This is exactly it! Unless you're a massive star, artists make their money at live shows, not on CD's. There are plenty of Artists that give their music away for free, knowing the good will it generates and that it will make people want to see them live. Rusko comes to mind.

It won't be long before all music is free and that's no pipe dream. It's already starting to happen.

well, It wasn't completely free. Her fans just rather give her money to herself than have some company take that money and give her a small percentage.

And her fans together gave her a million dollars. I guess the point she was making was that, people will support the artists but they will not support the record companies.
Because even though they stole the music, they still wanted her to be successful and profit from her work.

lol she even lets her fans paint on her body while she is naked after the shows sometimes she really loves her fans, and the fans love her as well.

 

[HODLr]

I suspect the point of the exorbitant claims was intimidation.

And how is usurping a company's distribution rights not a moral issue?

Competition is one thing. Stealing a product and then replacing the owner as the provider isn't competition.



Try it, and see how little drama there is.

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Semantics aside, I'll never understand how people carry the torch for an industry that made its money ripping off the people who create the art and the people who buy it.

 

[Wulf]

It won't be long until we have mobile 3D HD printers. People will then be able to have figure parties and 'burn' exact duplicates of their friend's figures/statues. This might sound absurd now, but 10 years ago would of thought we'd printing tools, skin, etc. in current times?

Innovation and evolution is awesome!

Indeed it is. It will be interesting to see how the industry adapts to that technology, it might reshape the whole society as we know it. Unless like I said earlier, they see the potential loss of profit and danger in printing weapons they'll ban 3D printers altogether... or take monopoly on it, you must go to a special place and pay to have something printed.

 

[devilof76]

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Semantics aside, I'll never understand how people carry the torch for an industry that made its money ripping off the people who create the art and the people who buy it.

I'm defending intellectual property. Copyright infringement is theft. That's not semantics (although semantics may be employed to evade the connection).

I'll never understand people allowing their grievances against the music industry to permit the subversion of a legal principle so critical to civilization.

 

[crows]

Indeed it is. It will be interesting to see how the industry adapts to that technology, it might reshape the whole society as we know it. Unless like I said earlier, they see the potential loss of profit and danger in printing weapons they'll ban 3D printers altogether... or take monopoly on it, you must go to a special place and pay to have something printed.

I think this might happen. I think they might try to ban 3D printers all together.

It pretty much has to happen

 

[Lejuan]

The Chinese have an interesting take on the respective value and prestige of the artist/designer of an object and the engineer that produces it. In most cases, it is the engineer that is lauded for having created an accurate mold, die, tool etc. The work of the artist/designer is secondary.

I think this attitude or philosophy has a lot to do with their culture of copying and counterfeiting; the rationale is that if a design can be reproduced, then the work of real value is perceived to be in the accurate recreation of the design rather than in the initial art of its creation.

 

[devilof76]

Parasites of the world unite...

 

[Wulf]

I think this might happen. I think they might try to ban 3D printers all together.

It pretty much has to happen

Yeah and even if it was decided that people could have 3D printers and buy products on the internet and have it printed out via the 3D printer, say you buy one mug and it can only print out the one mug you bought, some people would be able to go around this and hack it to be able to print out the mug how many times they wanted or share it as a torrent so others could too. Selling most physical items would be a risky business with 3D printers around.

Oh and the 3D scanners of course:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huGaU-fGEio[/ame]