|
If there were a magical cloning device that could clone sandwiches, and people would clone sandwiches and distribute them free in the streets, then you are NOT PAYING THE SANDWICH MAN TO MAKE SANDWICHES
piracy = not paying the sandwich man
at least, this is true in the year 2008. And it must change. It has to change. But for now, please pay the sandwich man?
If there were a magical cloning device that could clone sandwiches, wouldn't the highest imperative to massively reduce our society's needs for agricultural land and end hunger?
Make another analogy, this one is horrible for holding up what you're trying to hold up; the world doesn't need a sandwich man if the reality of the situation has made obsolete his function. Maybe you could be a sandwich improver guy, with after-clone additions, like olives, cheese, etc. Maybe you could be a sandwich eating table renter. Maybe you could do a bunch of shit that didn't involve trying to sell a product which just isn't going to sell like it did in the pre-clone days.
|
On October 05 2008 01:55 Lenwe wrote:
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for the product. If you don't like Hollywood movies then that's allright. Don't go to the movie theater to see them or don't get the DVD. However, if you download them then you are stealing them and it doesn't matter wether you like them or not. Buy the DVD, watch it and if you don't like it go back to the store and trade it for a diffirent movie.
And it's great that the indepent movie studio sold one more copy to you after you stole their movie from some torrent site. Too bad your indepent movie company has a hard time selling more copy's cause everyone else that downloaded that torrent isn't going to the store. Yes, there's is always the risk that you go to a movie theather and don't like the movie, or that you buy a game and don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to steal them.
I think this sums up the stupidity of some of these arguments nicely.
You don't like something, great. Don't buy it.
So why are you downloading it?
"oh because the evil movie companies make mediocre shit!"
SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU WATCHING IT!?
"because it hurts the companies!"
???
Dumb logic. Seriously.
|
Game developers make shit games with their shitty formulas for a smash hit. This is how the movie industry operates, and has been operating for a long time upon discovering. So that works, they make some bucks. I am totally for advertisements in games, that makes sense from a business perspective.
Heres my argument, first off I may or may not pirate games, why would I? I'm a veteran. I make good money. I have some moral principles left. So why?
Because demo's have become increasingly simplistic and like a trailer for a movie only showcasing what they did right in the very smallest of forms. Good business but a consumer that has options isn't going to accept that nonsense. Why don't I pirate the game for free, play it, decide if its worth buying after I've enjoyed, am in the middle of enjoying the game? It doesn't feel like stealing, in fact I don't lose an inch of sleep at night thinking of the hard working morons in the game industry. (Don't take that as an insult I have a personal relationship with the game industry and I know it sucks for the trench digger, welcome to the shit rolls down hill club.)
I did this for BioShock, around the middle of the game I decided to buy it via a direct download (Direct2Drive) digital purchaser (more on this later because its a good idea). Other examples, I got my hands on Sin of Solar Empire, played it, played it... oh wait theres nothing else to this game, not worth $59. GLAD I DIDN'T BUY IT. Can you argue against that?
Realistically there are only 3-4 companies I buy games from nowadays, everyone else goes through my rigorous trial period before I buy. Blizzard is on my list of auto-buy because they release QUALITY and I have come to expect that from them. THQ because they also release quality games that don't always adhere to the archtype model for business. Sid-Meyer's company (whichever one he is at-at the time) because I've always loved Civ games and they're all the same. And I can never think of the rest.
All in all over the last few years I have got my hands on more pirated games than bought games because they didn't live up to the hype and wasn't worth $60. Case in point was Crysis, now they blamed every pirater in the known universe for their inability to sell this game. What didn't sell this game to me? Its multiplayer was a fucking joke and I beat the single player in a matter of hours. How the hell is that worth 60 dollars? It may take me 4-6 hours to work that much money for that game and I beat it and never play it again.
Other reasons to pirate; STALKER- Clear Sky, this game is so broken I can't play it for a solid 8 hours before I get crashed, either to desktop or some bug error. You couldn't convince me pirating this game before buying it was wrong. And more on that subject, if the companies are sucking, the industry is the problem. The entertainment industry is a weird environment to work in especially for games. These people put 80-100 hours into making a video game for little or no compensation REGARDLESS of piracy.
Oh and piracy? Has it not always existed? Hasn't there always been some form of stealing something, a friend? A LAN center? The internet made it mainstream I guess--I GUESS--but its not like there wasn't stealing before. Burned CDs, DVDs, black markets, etc. The argument against piracy is an argument against capitalism, morality and how society works/operates. Good luck with that shit and trying to convince anyone because it all just comes back to money.
This post did make myself ask myself (?) why I still pirate music online. I don't have a good reason so I guess I am a thief now in that regard. I still buy movies and games but I havn't bought a CD (I have my reasons) in years. Mostly because I don't enjoy all the songs on a CD and I can just download the individual ones that I do enjoy.
|
United States12235 Posts
It seems like a lot of people aren't reading the entire thread before responding. Six people have quoted the same single fragment from my initial reply without seeing my clarification on the second page. Rather than repeat myself I'm going to have to edit my initial post. Read the whole thread before responding, you silly lurkers!
|
Oh and as far as the movie, I'm going to watch it after I get off work if I can.
|
I, too, choose to pirate movies before I invest money into purchasing them. I, too, only buy the movies I truly enjoy.
Since practicing this, I have discovered that I don't truly enjoy any movies =[
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
I'm sick of saying "A is B" and having other people say "CDEFGHIJK"
I weep tears of black because no one seems to have addressed the fact that: I used the sandwich man example to illustrate that without copyright, creatives have no way to be compensated for their efforts, so they will be unable to further create. This damages everyone.
Copyright also enables records companies (which do have a function), archiving/restoring, and marketing/advertising.
People who pirate are not thinking of the consequences to those who they pirate off of. The only arguments in this sorry thread are self-centered: I pirate because it benefits ME thusly...
I am hearing the following arguments:
"Copyright is why Uwe Boll is rich and gets to make shitty movies."
No, Uwe Boll is rich and gets to make shitty movies BECAUSE A LOT OF SORRY PEOPLE PAY TO SEE THEM.
"Copyrighted shit usually sucks"
Copyright is not a matter of taste. As I said before, Copyright allows YOU the buyer to decide with your money what products are good and what products are shitty. It is the democratization of patronage. Otherwise you'd have the rich people of the world sponsoring artists and setting the standards of taste for everyone else.
Furthermore, copyright and IP protection is just as important for those poor indie starving artists as it is for Evil Mega Media Companies.
Read my post and tell me why I am wrong. Like Mynock. Thank you Mynock.
Mynock, the purpose of the sandwich shop was to show what happens with the creator is not properly compensated for his/her efforts. However, as you point out, a movie is not a sandwich.
But a movie, or a finished song, or a game, is more of a finished product than it is an idea. The way piracy is now, people aren't just taking the idea, they are taking the entire product and distributing it for free. It's not like people are just taking the idea of a movie and then making their own movie.
a "super-professional" sandwich doesn't just mean the big screen with super sound, or the pretty cover, or the nice looking box. It means a lot of things that are already in the movie. "super-professional" means the professional acting, professional lighting, professional camerawork, professional storytelling... "super-professional" means tens of thousands of hours of labor for hundreds of trained professionals.
If you want, you can take the basic plot of Die Hard and try to film it yourself with your own means, with your own camera, with your cousin as John McClaine and a bum down the street as Hans Gruber. But would you watch it? See, you get "movie quality" by compensating movie makers... and some of that compensation gets lost in piracy.
Anybody who has a job will understand. Movies just don't magically appear out of Hollywood. People like me spend blood sweat and tears to make a movie. It is LABOR. Any other form of labor is guaranteed by law to be compensated. Compensate mine too!
And this affects every one else, because as I keep pointing out, if you will not compensate me for my labor, I will stop laboring. And if you do not compensate an entire industry for their efforts, they will cease to make effort. Then no more good movies for you.
|
4492 Posts
I do understand the basic idea HT, but I can't agree about it being true for the movie industry in particular. The movie industry is still HUGELY profitable, even with mediocre products. And it's really not because the movies are so great, more because the movie in and on itself is a social "thing", with the big screen and super sound and your girlfriend at your arm serving as a "setting" you wouldn't get otherwise (unless you have a $1000 7.1 mahogany DTS set with a projector at home, that is  ). Still, the extremely bad movies manage to fail and become unprofitable, but that's a very good thing IMHO. It deters the makers from producing REALLY bad stuff (tho it still happens, alas).
And for example, I thought spending $80 on a LotR collection of 12 DVDs was a good investment, but then again what I got for it was a) no hassle with DLing the movie, b) excellent quality, c) super extended edition, d) tons of stuff like the staff comments and documentaries, e) eye-candy boxes that look extremely nicely on my shelf And that's the stuff I'm talking about. Put in some more effort than your basic downloadable version and everyone benefits. The viewer will know he gets something he can't get elsewhere, the makers still profit the same (or more), it encourages the makers to put in extra effort, it encourages the viewer to support them.
Anyway, I'd write more, but I have to run now, so maybe later.
Oh and HT, people probably didn't read you post since it was loooooong. You probably could have gotten used to it in General by now tho
|
On October 05 2008 02:20 damenmofa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2008 01:55 Lenwe wrote:
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for the product. If you don't like Hollywood movies then that's allright. Don't go to the movie theater to see them or don't get the DVD. However, if you download them then you are stealing them and it doesn't matter wether you like them or not. Buy the DVD, watch it and if you don't like it go back to the store and trade it for a diffirent movie.
And it's great that the indepent movie studio sold one more copy to you after you stole their movie from some torrent site. Too bad your indepent movie company has a hard time selling more copy's cause everyone else that downloaded that torrent isn't going to the store. Yes, there's is always the risk that you go to a movie theather and don't like the movie, or that you buy a game and don't like it. That doesn't give you the right to steal them. Dont you think its a lil ignorant to keep on going about pirating is "stealing" in all cases when this topic is all about discussing this? Just because something is deemed "stealing" by law doesnt mean everybody has to agree with it. It is the very essence of this discussion which u conveniently ignore by just throwing around the term "stealing" as often as you can to make sure you get ur standpoint across. btw newsflash: i also dont go to movie theaters, as you could have imagined with somebody who doesnt even own a TV. Just because many people abuse piracy also is no argument that its bad in itself. Also I dont know how its in the Netherlands but in Germany u cant just go and buy a DVD, rip open the sealed container and watch it, then bring it back and claim your money back. This is what I consider far more immoral than pirating, forcing people to buy something they cant legally fully test before they buy it, and even doing deceiving "trailers" which basically make every shitty movie make seem funny or intelligent or whatever agenda they are trying to push. Especially since there is not much reuse value in a movie. If u buy a Sandwich (thx honesttea) u pay the shop once and then u can decide whether u want sandwich from that particular restaurant/diner again. U can't deny that you most likely will more often need to eat something (or even sandwich if u love it that much) than u will watch the same film over and over again.
HEY BLOCKBUSTER! Ever heard of renting movies? It's exactly the same as what you just suggested with the sandwich shop. You can watch it fully, and legally, several times through if you'd like. Then you could decide whether or not you'd like to purchase that movie to keep for good. Wow, what a concept.
On October 05 2008 04:08 Mynock wrote:
HonestTea, that sandwich argument is inherently flawed.
If you wanted to make a comparison, you should say the sandwich man made up a sandwich (which he is unable to produce by himself, btw), then tells other people (managers) how to make it, who in turn hire people to produce it, sell it, and he gets tons of money (th managers as well, while the people physically preparing it get payed significantly less). For the one-time work of making up a new form of sandwich a "sandwich artist" gets payed a lot. Nobody else is allowed to make that same sandwich, because he owns it. Whenever you decide you want to make such a sandwich, you have to pay the sandwich guy, else you are stealing. Even though you buy and pay for all the ingredients (lettuce, tomato, CD, whatever) and do all the physical work (prepare the sandwich, download the movie, burn the CD) you are still stealing, because that type of sandwich (music, movie) is copyrighted. And if you dare make the same sandwich at home you risk the police bursting in and seizing you for "stealing". Doesn't that sound a bit off to you?
So no, you can't do it with sandwiches, then why can you do it with movies and CDs? If you want a super-professionally done sandwich with little hassle, super ingredients, and right then and there, you pay extra for that (as opposed to making it yourself, at home). If you want to see a movie on big screen with super sound, you pay extra for it (as opposed to watching it on 14" screen, with laptop sound, at home). If you want a pretty cover, a complimentary poster, a nice looking box on your shelf, you pay extra (as opposed to just a plain old CD written on by a magic marker, and nothing else to go with it).
This is the reason people are still (as was customary throughout ages past as well) spending time on "art", since it's a good way to become very rich with very little effort. Sure, it's difficult to get everything right, but once you do, you can become disproportionally wealthy.
So if you want to, pay the sandwich man, but don't get carried away with it - he doesn't "own" the idea of the sandwich. If you want HIM (the master) to make the sandwich, and wrap it in gift-wrap and eat it at his fancy sandwich restaurant, pay him extra. If you make the sandwich at home, just mentally thank the sandwich man for the nice idea, that's it.
I'm sure people would very gladly allow you to put a band together and reproduce the music at home to listen to it. But that's not what you're doing, is it? That's what you're suggesting in the sandwich idea, but it's not what you're doing with the music.
If you want to argue pricing, no one will disagree (unless they're disgustingly rich). Things are way over priced. Maybe game producers should give a 24 hour trial of the game they make, so you can go through more than one level. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the system needs reform, but just taking something you have no right to take is not the answer to the problem.
|
HonestTea, I noticed every single one of your arguments, every single one of them, are all derive from the same flawed logical axiom. Which is also the same assumption that build the base of most official anti-piracy arguments such as those from articles in the MPAA website and IP law sites. Which is: you make the assumption that without copyright there is no way any artist could make any money at all.
If this was true, then all your line of thought would fit. And I would have no option to agree with everything you're saying, it's very simple:
- piracy -> artists can't make no money at all no matter what -> zero incentives for new artists / existing artists starve to death -> bad for creativity, for economics, society, artists, non-artists, custumers, everyone! -> everyone who is in favor of piracy are only dumb and selfish!
This would all make sense, perfect logic, I would agree with you. But you take off the small detail where artists can't make a living, and all your arguments go down the drain with it.
Then you also assume that I agree with that unfounded postulate myself. When I have actually been preaching the contrary in since the start!!! Do you think I'm trying to say that artists should live off sunlight?
Which makes me wonder: You seem like a smart and educated person. You already acknowledge that artists always existed and lived well and got paid (ex patronized musicians) even before copyright laws even existed! You also agree that intellectual property will be extinct in the (near?) future. So before I show you dozens of today's example of successful art outside of copyright, answer me this: Why do you think there are will be no financial alternatives to copyright? When the time comes that copyright doesn't exist anymore, do you think all human creativity will cease to exist? There will be no more artists in the planet because they'll all starve to death? Patrons paid Mozart hundreds of years ago but no one will be willing to patronize artists in the future (besides many people on this thread saying they love to support some artist/company)? Humanity, who has been creating art since over 10k years ago will just never find a solution only because this one law that puts a monopoly on art will disappear?? Are you really that superficial?
Do I really have to show you great artists and software without IP today? Even without the gigantic support (actually marginalized by) from main stream media and consequent gigantic money that comes with it? What do you think will be mainstream when record companies bankrupt? Art is all over the fucking internet, Google is there to help you find it all. http://www.gnu.org/ or http://www.free-culture.cc/ are also great places to start learning about the world that is beyond 1 foot far from your eyes, so you can stop spilling this kind of ignorance:On October 04 2008 22:44 HonestTea wrote:
Piracy hurts that very few amount of the population who: 1) CREATE THE STUFF FOR THE REST OF THE POPULATION Please never say this again. Not even 0.0001% of those who "create stuff for the rest of the population" have copyrighted material, I really hope you weren't serious when you wrote this ><
|
Why do you think there are will be no financial alternatives to copyright?
Why do you think there will...
Name me one viable alternative, show me it work, and THEN we can replace the idea of copyright.
HonestTea's argument is the only sane post (and mynock's) I've read thus far. Yes his logic is a little flawed because a sandwich is an excludable good, whereas movies, games and music are not (ie if eat my sandwich, no-one else can, whereas if i play my CD, I can give it to someone else to listen to at no extra cost).
The real reason piracy has become such a huge problem is because its become possible to do it cheaply and effectively recently, whereas previously it was not (you couldn't copy a vinyl for example). The industries have been slow to react and have had difficult adjusting, this is undeniable. The suggestion that the way copyright is being enforced needs to change is undeniable, because when I purchase a song off itunes for $1 I get the same product (worse actually, fuck off DRM) as on bittorrent for free, whereas previously a pirated product would have been inferior (as a generalisation).
But this is not the argument that is being put forward here, the rather ludicrous argument that is being suggested is that copyright and IP should be abolished entirely, with the justification that its better for you not to have to pay. Look at the big picture. If you don't pay, no-one gets paid and there is no incentive.
This is how patents began, if there is no way to make money by inventing stuff because once you have invented it, everyone else immediatly has the same design, why bother trying to invent its better to wait for the other guys to do it. THE FREE RIDER PRINCIPLE - OMFG - ECONOMICS!
Very clever people have thought about this ALOT, and they came up with the method of patent protection that exists today, and look at that, it works. Maybe it isn't adapting well with music/games/movies and the current digital age. Fine. Doesn't mean we should stop paying everyone because you want free stuff.
Yes, the GNU project is an exception, but its just that an exception. There is a crapload of great free software available, some of it much better than commercial offerings. But it is the exception. Those products are only made available by talented hobbyists who devote their leisure time to do it because, SHOCK HORROR, they get something out of doing so - enjoyment. Its a different payment, but it is still one. No rational person will create something if they are not rewarded in some way, and whilst a few individuals do happily work for enjoyment, the vast majority of us can't afford to devote our lives to producing free software because surprisingly we need to eat.
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
To add:
1. Copyright and Piracy are not the same issue, as gussy explains above.
2. I thought we were talking about piracy, but apparantly I'm at the wrong party. I guess we're talking about copyright now. Might as well dance while I'm here, enjoy the open bar.
Free Culture was written by a Mr. Lawrence Lessig. Based on his philosophy about information and ownership, he has founded the Creative Commons
Let's do something I like to call, reading!
How does a Creative Commons license operate?
A Creative Commons license is based on copyright. So they apply to all works that are protected by copyright law. The kinds of works that are protected by copyright law are books, websites, blogs, photographs, films, videos, songs and other audio & visual recordings, for example. Software programs are also protected by copyright but, as explained below, we do not recommend that you apply a Creative Commons license to software code.
source: Creative Commons official webpage: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ
See, even Lessig awknowledges the right of ownership to a creation.
Vib, all I'm asking is that you properly read and understand the concepts you are throwing around here. Even if we disagree, if you at least know what you're talking about than you can make me think. I'm an easy guy. But when you bring a gun to a fight, make sure the barrel isn't pointing at your face.
Lessig is arguing that the concept of copyright has become distorted by big companies in a way that protect the interest of the companies over the interests of the individual creators. He makes many very good points.
You are arguing... well I'm not sure what you're arguing. But it's not what Lessig or the Free Culture movement is arguing. And it's wrong.
|
On October 06 2008 15:28 VIB wrote:HonestTea, I noticed every single one of your arguments, every single one of them, are all derive from the same flawed logical axiom. Which is also the same assumption that build the base of most official anti-piracy arguments such as those from articles in the MPAA website and IP law sites. Which is: you make the assumption that without copyright there is no way any artist could make any money at all. If this was true, then all your line of thought would fit. And I would have no option to agree with everything you're saying, it's very simple: - piracy -> artists can't make no money at all no matter what -> zero incentives for new artists / existing artists starve to death -> bad for creativity, for economics, society, artists, non-artists, custumers, everyone! -> everyone who is in favor of piracy are only dumb and selfish! This would all make sense, perfect logic, I would agree with you. But you take off the small detail where artists can't make a living, and all your arguments go down the drain with it. Then you also assume that I agree with that unfounded postulate myself. When I have actually been preaching the contrary in since the start!!! Do you think I'm trying to say that artists should live off sunlight? Which makes me wonder: You seem like a smart and educated person. You already acknowledge that artists always existed and lived well and got paid (ex patronized musicians) even before copyright laws even existed! You also agree that intellectual property will be extinct in the (near?) future. So before I show you dozens of today's example of successful art outside of copyright, answer me this: Why do you think there are will be no financial alternatives to copyright? When the time comes that copyright doesn't exist anymore, do you think all human creativity will cease to exist? There will be no more artists in the planet because they'll all starve to death? Patrons paid Mozart hundreds of years ago but no one will be willing to patronize artists in the future (besides many people on this thread saying they love to support some artist/company)? Humanity, who has been creating art since over 10k years ago will just never find a solution only because this one law that puts a monopoly on art will disappear?? Are you really that superficial? Do I really have to show you great artists and software without IP today? Even without the gigantic support (actually marginalized by) from main stream media and consequent gigantic money that comes with it? What do you think will be mainstream when record companies bankrupt? Art is all over the fucking internet, Google is there to help you find it all. http://www.gnu.org/ or http://www.free-culture.cc/ are also great places to start learning about the world that is beyond 1 foot far from your eyes, so you can stop spilling this kind of ignorance: Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 22:44 HonestTea wrote:
Piracy hurts that very few amount of the population who: 1) CREATE THE STUFF FOR THE REST OF THE POPULATION Please never say this again. Not even 0.0001% of those who "create stuff for the rest of the population" have copyrighted material, I really hope you weren't serious when you wrote this ><
These industries are still profitable because not everyone thinks they deserve to have something for free. Obviously, if everyone pirated all of these industries would die instantly. But for now, it's okay if you're a leech because there are enough people still purchasing to make up for oyu.
|
are there any researches done to see how the revenue of the entertainment industry has been impacted by piracy?
i think a powerful argument can be made that piracy and the internet helped bring culture to the masses who otherwise would not have enjoyed or paid for that culture and that probably counteracted the negatives of piracy, if not overwhelmed them. the pay the sandwich man example doesn't really fit because i think the sandwich man might be very rich right now.
or maybe the industry really is dying, hopefully somebody knows. but from just my everyday knowledge (or assumptions), the industry is doing better than ever? there are so many movies, musicians nowadays that it's hard to imagine that the industry really is in danger.
|
Why do people not take responsibility for their actions? I see this in all facets of life. People ought to know the difference between right and wrong, and if they still go ahead and do the wrong things, then at the very least admit it.
I know piracy is wrong but I still do it. I will be one of the few to admit this. The reason I do it is because I don't have a lot of money and yes, like everyone, I also like to have something for nothing. For those who are using the code of law to show that piracy is wrong should ask themselves if they've ever committed a crime, even a trivial one, and see if they can still talk.
I actually believe 'piracy' does a lot of good in addition to the bad stuff like taking money away from the people who created the original. Piracy allows alot of people who wouldn't have the resources to afford this stuff to actually enjoy some of these things. I think it helps to even out the playing field just a little bit. Some people abuse the system and others take advantage of it, there's a difference. But as of right now, i completely condone piracy.
|
On October 04 2008 10:17 DrainX wrote:
Before it was possible to record music onto an album there were still musicians. The purpose of the recording and distributing music is not to make money for the record companies or the artist its purpose is to distribute music. The reason the laws are the way they are and it costs so much is because earlier the only way to distribute music was to have a strong central organization such as a radio station or a record company. Plus production and transportation also costs. Today you dont need a big central organization to distribute music. You don't need to pay anything for production and transportation of physical records. There is no cost in copying a file other than the cost of electricity and computer power. Artists can get along fine without record companies just like they did before they existed.
The diversity and the access is much better today than it was before the internet. Since people can listen to any amount of music for free they aren't limited to experiencing what they have heard at their friends house or on the radio. You don't need to pay big bucks to explore new kinds of music and diversify your music taste. Many artists thrive from file sharing releasing many if not all songs online and thereby getting more fans who buy their merchandise and pay to come to their concerts which is anyway where artist earn most of their money today.
You can't even remotelly back this up. Give me 10 examples of artists that have succeded doing this without being backed up and promoted by some kind of label first.
|
On October 06 2008 20:30 Starparty wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2008 10:17 DrainX wrote:
Before it was possible to record music onto an album there were still musicians. The purpose of the recording and distributing music is not to make money for the record companies or the artist its purpose is to distribute music. The reason the laws are the way they are and it costs so much is because earlier the only way to distribute music was to have a strong central organization such as a radio station or a record company. Plus production and transportation also costs. Today you dont need a big central organization to distribute music. You don't need to pay anything for production and transportation of physical records. There is no cost in copying a file other than the cost of electricity and computer power. Artists can get along fine without record companies just like they did before they existed.
The diversity and the access is much better today than it was before the internet. Since people can listen to any amount of music for free they aren't limited to experiencing what they have heard at their friends house or on the radio. You don't need to pay big bucks to explore new kinds of music and diversify your music taste. Many artists thrive from file sharing releasing many if not all songs online and thereby getting more fans who buy their merchandise and pay to come to their concerts which is anyway where artist earn most of their money today. You can't even remotelly back this up. Give me 10 examples of artists that have succeded doing this without being backed up and promoted by some kind of label first. it's true, a lot of indie artists depend on people hearing their sound since they don't have the backing of a huge label with huge advertising. you're not gonna hear any answers like "the beatles", but i don't see how you think this is impossible? did you not see the latest nine inch nails sales method, and how radiohead followed suit because of how popular it was? hell, that's like the #1 way to do it if you don't have a label
i guess if you measure "success" by platinum-selling albums or endorsement deals, then yeah maybe it's uncommon?? otherwise i don't understand how you can't even begin to fathom musicians becoming popular using free distribution of their media. look at fucking youtube man, how do you think ronald jenkees or derrick comedy ever got popular?
edit: like seriously are you trolling right now? or have you time traveled from the past when the internet didn't exist? ...or what because seriously it's absurd that you can't believe this
editedit: i can't believe that you can't believe this
editeditedit: like lmfao you can't even remotely back this up?? like to you there's not even a fucking speck of evidence that MAYBE someone became popular by filesharing their music? LOL????
editediteditedit: i mean no offense but did you not know that the internet is like the #1 marketing method for music? do you um... do you know what the internet is have you ever been on the internet
editediteditedtitedti: i've decided you're just a troll
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead got to do it because they are late into their careers, after having reached millions of fans because of the record label system.
But if Yubee and the Quartertones tried to do this tomorrow, they would not be self-sufficient.
I'm not saying it won't work, but NIN and Radiohead are really bad examples.
|
On October 06 2008 21:11 HonestTea wrote:
Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead got to do it because they are late into their careers, after having reached millions of fans because of the record label system.
But if Yubee and the Quartertones tried to do this tomorrow, they would not be self-sufficient.
I'm not saying it won't work, but NIN and Radiohead are really bad examples. ok sure but yubee and the quartertones would gain a lot of popularity through filesharing, much more than if they did not fileshare... and did nothing. i mean what band IS self-sufficient when it first starts?
|
And ive decided that youre just a complete moron. All examples you managed to produce was NiN and Radiohead (and a bunch of unnamed bands collectivelly named as "indy stuff", which not even you seem to have heard of), 2 bands which is already known worldwide since before, just as i expected. Absolutelly not saying that it didnt happen, but the point is as my quoted post said - there is so much diversity. And without a company pushing for you, getting enough fans to make your music succesful by yourself is basically impossible unless your name is basshunter and alot of 14yo kids has weird taste.
Just because some random dude listened to a song doesnt mean the artist makes enough money to buy food for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
