TBH, No not really it isn't ok it creates a loss of profits but..... I duno to be honest, but as Linux once quoted....
I say that if Artist get all together and sell on internet their musics in a low price, i believe most of music lovers wouldnt mind to pay that price, and artist will earn more cash from the sells, infortunately when someone buy a cd at stores pays a lot of persons (manager+producer+factories+stores). i know that we need to create jobs or else... but in some countries cd's are very very expensive, and thats why there's piracy. Those who should pay high are those who earn cash from or using those cd's/musics (discoteques, bars, restaurants, stores, gyms, hotels, etc etc)
haha yeah it was, I couldn't remember it xD
That is not the same, I would direct you to my picture on the OP, that is what I see as stealing and what I see as piracy. You see how the original is gone, that is stealing, so running away from paying my lunch would be stealing.
It is not really the reality you only point out one side of piracy, which is the record companies and artist losing theoretical dollars, but not the side of the hard workers who buy the albums and get ripped off for having not so good music.
Also you have to take into consideration that some bands have been caught not being the original artist. (e.g. lip syncing someone elses written and sung music under the bands name.) This has happened.
In a sense it is and isn't. I agree that in the music industry it souldn't be. If you want to make money go somewhere else. Music is an art not a moneymaking industry. Yes you should pay to go to shows and buy their merchandise because they are tangable items. You shouldn't be able to copyright sound like you shouldn't be able to copyright the human genome. You didn't design them or make them you just put then togeather or found them. But you should pay for what it cost to make the cd or host the download. The software business is different. You did make it, you should be able to copyright it but you shouldn't sell it for much more than the cd costs to make. There is no reason to charge 100, 200 or even 30 dollars for software. You dont need to make a lot of money from each copy just enough to cover the cost of making the software medium and have a little bit extra. There are clearly some things that you should be able to copyright but not others so the real thing here is what can you patient or copyright and what should you not.
The folks that pirate music, movies, software, etc. will use any excuse they can think of in an attempt to justify their actions - to themselves as well as others.
To say, "I pay to go to concerts, so I don't need to pay for an artist's recordings" is my favorite. I'm sure that these guys have paid to hear every one of their downloaded songs live at least once (yeah, right).
These guys who feel that there is nothing wrong with piracy, are simply unable to grasp a very simple concept: Taking something that does not belong to you, without the owner's permission, is called "STEALING".
I'm done with this thread. There is nothing you or I can say that will help these guys learn to discriminate right and wrong. The inane justifications, repeated over and over, tell me that we're just wasting our time here, talking to a wall.
OHhhhhhh! I totally get your point now! I should have seen it before. So, next time I take my family out to dinner, and say, oh I don't know, the lettuce on my salad just wasn't quite as green as I'd hoped for, I should just complain to the manager until he or she comps my meal, and if they don't well, I'll just walk out. That's dense.
Artists rarely sit down and say "Hmmmm.....I wonder what my fans will enjoy listening to." Their labels do however tell the artists what kind of sound they want for this particular album. Most of the artists that I listen to, write what they write for a reason, most of it has some personal meaning to it. Evanescence has spent 3 albums (if you count Origin) singing about a traumatic and abusive relationship. She doesn't give a damn if you enjoy what she writes, she writes to vent, and maybe on some level to warn others to be weary. Amy Harzler (formerly Lee) has already said she's "Not doing this forever."
Further, one of my favourite artists, AFI (A Fire Inside), are a self-owned label. Which means they don't use a giant label with thousands of employees. They own their copyrights, they own their music, they own their sound, they own their name. But their albums are just as pricey as any other album.
You are rarely going to find a album where every single song "moves" you or inspires you or where you just plain like every song. Now we have things like iTunes where you can listen to a preview before you purchase a song. If you can't get a good idea as whether you like a song in 30 seconds, well you're probably tone deaf, or dense.
There is no argument that could even begin to justify stealing music. You said yourself stealing software is different, but how? The same number of people work on a piece of software as it takes to put together a standard album. It generally take about a year, maybe two to write an album, which is about the same amount of time to write the average piece of proprietary software. So how is music different from proprietary software? I'm sure you'll manage to twist something out though.
Now back to the whole concert thing, I remember back in 1999 I could go to Mr. Smalls out in Pittsburgh and see AFI or MSI playing for less than $50. Now, neither ban will even play there because the venue is far too small for them to even make enough money to make it worth their time. Now they only play at the Melon Arena which seats thousands, if not hundred-thousands, and the worst seats in the arena are over $200! Granted inflation has contributed some to this increase, but take a closer look and you will see that illegal music downloads are hurting the music industry badly enough to where I can't even afford to go see my favourite bands live anymore because tours proceeds are now going to help cover the cost of production.
This debate will go on for ages and years and years to come. Eventually though, a solution will at long last come to stop ignorant people people from stealing from the people who inspire us through music and sound. How shallow does someone have to be to actually say "Oh, I should have just stole this album since track 4, 9, and 11 completely sucked."
People have got to cool off, this is a discussion. However, I do not agree with how phazzedout twisted my words. I said I justify piracy as long as it does not hurt the developers in any way; as long as if I could buy it I would. It is completely irrelevant whether or not you like the product. If they put a price to use it, then it should be respected.
If you are hurting the developers in anyway, taking any potential profit that they might have and have the right to have, then don't try to justify it.
LOL relax all of you. I actually do not agree with what I am saying but I love playing my arguer so I can argue better. See how I simply twisted everything you guys said to me and used it in my favor. I am trying to see how I could defend my self from it but yet all you guys do is get mad. Hmm. Depressing. Back to arguing though. I dislike your ad hominem joejv4, so basically just because I can argue about it that makes me a "wall". Seriously, from one ad hominem to another, grow up. I enjoy arguing whether the subject is important or not I enjoy arguing, especially intelligently. So when you say things like "talking to a wall." it makes me think that you can not take argument that is not on your side, so if anyone defends the argument it is invalid. So just food for thought, I am not trying to flame you but this is a forum thread for deep discussion, which means you can argue your whole like and not make any accomplishment. You get what I mean. So that is to your argument.
Your disagreeing with capitolism :eek4: