Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

ACTA treaty is a threat to everyone

2

Comments

  • #32
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,923 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Television and cash are physical objects. If someone takes them away from me, I lose out.

    Music is art which you have created for others to enjoy. It can be replicated without any loss to the original version. The only person losing out is the middle man who distributes the music. Which as I said earlier, is not needed now that we have the internet.

    There is no comparison whatsoever.


  • #33
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    If pirates actually stopped lying through their fucking teeth and admitted that they are just taking stuff because they're greedy and want as much free stuff as they can get, then i'd have less of an issue.

    Fine, i still wouldn't agree with it but at least they'd be honest about it for once.

    But no, it's all bullshit about how "it's not theft anyway" and "i'm stickin' it to the man".

    What a load of shit from people who don't give two shits who it fucks over as long as they don't have to pay for what they want.


  • #34
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    With this treaty, if you data upload/download habits fit the "profile" of a file sharer they could perfectly legally cut you off and seize your equipment for examination. More than legally since it wouldn't need to involve the courts. Or they could just pick your name out of a phone book. Its not being called draconian for dramatic effect.

    I'm not in the phone book, does this make me safe?

    Rapidshare is used for a lot of things, not only music, games and films. What if I download 10 gigs a week of files from rapidshare? How are they able to tell that the information I have downloaded is illegal? They cannot possibly target everyone that downloads and take their PC's from them. If microsoft, music/film/game companies weren't taking the piss and charging us stupid prices, this wouldn't have gotten so bad. It will always be around, they can never ever stop this. They have tried going after people, websites and ISPs, yet people are still downloading. They are not addressing the problem correctly.
    o1s1n wrote: »
    Television and cash are physical objects. If someone takes them away from me, I lose out.

    Music is art which you have created for others to enjoy. It can be replicated without any loss to the original version. The only person losing out is the middle man who distributes the music. Which as I said earlier, is not needed now that we have the internet.

    There is no comparison whatsoever.

    This is the exact point my mate made about it a few weeks ago. Would you buy half of the stuff you download? Doubtful, very doubtful. I mean, they're too expensive. Any DVD's I have are bought in sales or deals. Some of the games I bought were a complete and utter waste of money. You buy a game for 50 or 60 euro and the next day you have completed it. That's not value for money at all. The companies are just taking the piss.
    hooradiation wrote: »
    If pirates actually stopped lying through their fucking teeth and admitted that they are just taking stuff because they're greedy and want as much free stuff as they can get, then i'd have less of an issue.

    Fine, i still wouldn't agree with it but at least they'd be honest about it for once.

    But no, it's all bullshit about how "it's not theft anyway" and "i'm stickin' it to the man".

    What a load of shit from people who don't give two shits who it fucks over as long as they don't have to pay for what they want.

    Not the best of arguments. If that was the case, people would be downloading terrabytes of illegal data every month, but that's not happening. The average joe isn't doing that. It's still theft, but it's not the same as stealing physical objects. It's data, that's cloned over and over and over again. It's still theft, but different ;)

    Protect the game/music/film industry? Fcuk that, what about the consumer they are taking for a ride? These tosspots get paid too much as it is, sort that shítstorm out first.


  • #35
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Indeed, copyright was originally intended to give a limited monopoly on a creative work to artists so that they could profit from it, before being returned to the public domain for the enjoyment and advantage of wider society and culture (such as the creation of derivative works), I think it was 20 years originally.

    It was actually seven


  • #36
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Allen Chubby Juror wrote: »
    Rapidshare is used for a lot of things, not only music, games and films. What if I download 10 gigs a week of files from rapidshare? How are they able to tell that the information I have downloaded is illegal?
    You're missing the point. What ACTA does is make it so they don't need proof, or even a preponderance of evidence. Something similar is in action in the US right now with DMCA takedown notices - if someone sees something they think they might own on youtube, all they need to do is send a notice and youtube must and does take it down. ACTA is the global version, on steroids - this is why negotiations are taking place in secret.

    Simple as that.
    Allen Chubby Juror wrote: »
    They cannot possibly target everyone that downloads and take their PC's from them.
    That didn't stop the RIAA from suing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the US over the last few years, including old ladies, little children, and on one memorable occasion a dead person. Suing isn't the correct term of course, they used the civil system to bypass that, which is pretty much what is being attempted here. Except they are bypassing the civil system as well.

    They will, without a doubt, given half the opportunity. They might not seize computers on a grand scale but they will get people's internet connections cut left right and centre, by forcing ISPs to become judge and jury (which is itself insane, are phone companies liable for criminals that use their networks to plan crimes?). A few well publicised seizures and the feeling is that copyright infringement will dry right up.

    Who knows, they may even be right. But that does not give them the right to bypass the judiciary and the systems of legal government to serve their own ends, and this is why ACTA is dangerous.
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    It was actually seven
    I'd be in favour of strong protections for twelve years, then public domain, myself. Its doable too within the Berne convention, just limit damages after that period to a statutory one cent regardless of the number of infringements. This might lead to people reselling movies and so on after that period, but who would buy since they are public domain anyway?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Just further steps toward idiots owning the internet. Anyone who can't see that is an idiot. Couple years from now you'll be buying your internet back off some other idiot
    Save yourself the trouble and don't give it away in the first place. Laws like this are optics, vested interest wants your web!


  • #38
    Lone Stone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Lone Stone


    A few weeks ago i wanted to buy a game for my pc, I went into town and went around every game store and they have all cut down there pc game stock and i couldnt find the game in any of the store's. I have no credit card to buy it online somewhere. But i could easily download it if i wanted but i thought no il buy it and ended up wondering around town for a few hour's to no avail. Now i have the dilema of do i steal this game of the internet that i know some group of people have spent months and month's if not years working on and not pay a penny :confused:


  • #39
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Nicked it from the games forum ;)

    but it's interesting and very correct. Skip to 3:30.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0hg


  • #40
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Xavier beat me to it.

    What keeps me buying CDs is the sound quality vs MP3s but that can always change with bandwidth and the habits of pirates. Currently none bother to Seed the real audiphile sound qualities, so it drove me back above ground.

    I have little sympathy for "Big Content" they make a healthy overhead and are going nowhere soon. But as for Gabe Newells thoughts, the man has a plan about not fighting your consumer. iTunes was a step in the right direction. They need to keep up with those kind of innovations; and make it as easy to get legitimately (or easier) than it is illegally.

    But at the end of the day? 10 years ago they killed napster. We thought it was the end of an era... lol.


  • #41
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Overheal wrote: »
    Xavier beat me to it.

    What keeps me buying CDs is the sound quality vs MP3s but that can always change with bandwidth and the habits of pirates. Currently none bother to Seed the real audiphile sound qualities, so it drove me back above ground.

    I have little sympathy for "Big Content" they make a healthy overhead and are going nowhere soon. But as for Gabe Newells thoughts, the man has a plan about not fighting your consumer. iTunes was a step in the right direction. They need to keep up with those kind of innovations; and make it as easy to get legitimately (or easier) than it is illegally.

    But at the end of the day? 10 years ago they killed napster. We thought it was the end of an era... lol.

    Oh sorry about that dude ;)

    Yea I was thinking back to the days of Kazaa and the likes, every few years they bring out a law or something and people think "this is the end", but here we still are. They simply cannot afford to do what they want to do. They cannot police everybody. It's impossible. Most game companies are going the wrong way, by punishing the paying customer. Take a look at Modern Warfare 2. I mean, they tried telling us that the new server system is better than the old system. How? It's better because they got rid of the pirated servers, but instead of helping their company grow, they didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the face. I know lots that didn't buy that game because of the new disguised anti pirating server system thing they implemented. I won't buy another game from them either. The system is a load of balls.

    You cannot build our own maps, the games are small. Not 32 people anymore. The server is now whoever has the best PC, which means they have the best ping so no lag. It's a complete joke. Typical of capatalists.

    Instead, why not improve what they provide? Why not give the customer a reason to buy games.

    People obviously are willing to buy a game if they spend 1K on a computer system, but they are not prepared to spend 50 quid on some crap game that will only last 6 hours. Why would anybody do that?

    I cannot tell the difference between MP3 and disc quality. Sorry. :(


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I cannot tell the difference between MP3 and disc quality. Sorry.

    When you have a nice sound system, you will. you will.

    But i mean hey, if iTunes let me buy CDs that came along with full quality downloadable tracks? I would never pirate again. Assuming the price was left reasonable. But even iTunes is kinda DRM ish and as of yet i havent jumped on board.


  • #43
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Overheal wrote: »
    When you have a nice sound system, you will. you will.

    But i mean hey, if iTunes let me buy CDs that came along with full quality downloadable tracks? I would never pirate again. Assuming the price was left reasonable. But even iTunes is kinda DRM ish and as of yet i havent jumped on board.

    Lol :P

    I was always told that my sound system (logitech 2.1) is amazing. Cost only 160 or there abouts.

    Same with my car, sony (I think) cd player that I paid about 200 euro for almost 4 years ago :P Still cannot hear the difference :P

    I haven't bought an ipod yet so no need for itunes just now. I haven't bought new music in a while, but I just copy CD's from my mates. Still illegal, but I can't see myself going to court over it.


  • #44
    wayne040576
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,503 ✭✭✭wayne040576


    Lone Stone wrote: »
    A few weeks ago i wanted to buy a game for my pc, I went into town and went around every game store and they have all cut down there pc game stock and i couldnt find the game in any of the store's. I have no credit card to buy it online somewhere. But i could easily download it if i wanted but i thought no il buy it and ended up wondering around town for a few hour's to no avail. Now i have the dilema of do i steal this game of the internet that i know some group of people have spent months and month's if not years working on and not pay a penny :confused:

    Buy a 3v card and you'll be able to buy the game online. You can get them in a lot of shops:

    https://www.3v.ie/

    There's always a way if you look hard enough.

    Back on topic. I think the original post was probably badly worded and just seemed like it was someone complaining because they can't pirate anymoe.

    There's more to it than that. The potential for abuse is quite big as has been pointed out by others on the thread.


  • #45
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    wayne040576 wrote: »
    There's more to it than that. The potential for abuse is quite big as has been pointed out by others on the thread.
    Indeed, unless people are comfortable with the idea of a work placement at eircom having more power over their lives than the supreme court. Remember folks, in future be very, very polite when you talk to tech support!


  • #46
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Allen Chubby Juror wrote: »
    They simply cannot afford to do what they want to do. They cannot police everybody. It's impossible.
    You still aren't getting it.

    They are not doing the policing in this treaty, the likes of Eircom and BT are forced to. They could set up an automated script to tag possible infringers and cut them off.     If you have a problem with that send in your computer for analysis, but oh yes, we have a two year backlog so you might be a while getting it back. Meantime we've added your name to an infringers blacklist so you don't go taking your business to a competitor. Have a nice day!

    Its not only possible, its all but done. At this time only the European Parliament stands in its way.

    Is this making sense yet?


  • #47
    Hrududu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,712 ✭✭✭Hrududu


    o1s1n wrote: »
    If someone is a true musician they will be flattered that someone listens to and enjoys their music, whether they pay for it or not.
    Yes I'm sure their children will enjoy dining on flattery rather than food.


  • #48
    ricman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭ricman


    I dont understand people pirating games, i buy games preowned maybe 35euro max.
    When i,m finished i swap em for credit,or give them to a friend.
    NO ONE forces you to pay 50 euro for a game, you wait 3 months and the price will go down.
    I buy games in sales ,or preowned, or like buy one get another half price.
    ON pc,s you can join steam and get games on sale, or reduced price.
    I simply DO not see any justification for pirating games.
    IF you buy a game 4 50euros, finish it in a day ,bring it back to the shop, if its a new release ,you,ll get 40 euro for it.
    I,M sure theres people who download 1000s, of mp3s.
    WHATS the point , you,ll never have time to listen to em.
    EVEN if you wanted to most people can only afford to buy x amount of cd,s.
    MOST pc games are avaidable on legal digital download, direct to drive etc.
    IF you are a pc gamer, you will have broadband installed.
    THATS why companys are just releasing games on the 360/ps3 at least they will get paid 4 em.

    BACK in the old days, the 80s people used to copy tape to tape.OR tape
    off the radio, there was always piracy.
    IN ten years time people will, be saying , gosh dad, you mean you went to a shop and bought a piece of plastic with music on it.HOW quaint.Could you not download it.
    In ten years time everyone will have a phone with 50gb sdram on it.
    theres prbly kids growing up now that have never seen a vinyl record.
    AS shown on the bbc panaroma program last week, if the isps ,clamp down on pirates,
    pirates can just switch over to more sophisticated ways of downloading which are untraceable
    ,and hide your ip adress .
    IF i like music or a game i,d prefer to pay for it,and have my own cd collection.
    There will always be slackers who will pay for nothing.
    Record companys are losing out, cos now you can just buy the 2 good tracks on a cd,instead of 12 tracks for 12euro.


  • #49
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    ricman wrote: »
    AS shown on the bbc panaroma program last week, if the isps ,clamp down on pirates,
    pirates can just switch over to more sophisticated ways of downloading which are untraceable
    ,and hide your ip adress .
    Again this just isn't getting through - if you are uploading or downloading too much data, in a manner that fits an "infringer's profile" such as a steady stream at certain bitrates or on a certain port, your internet connection can and probably will be cut under ACTA. You can hide your IP address all you like (although how you'd do that from the company that actually assigns it to you I'm not sure), you can encrypt the information, you can bury it at any level of the OSI layer map, it doesn't make a difference.

    They wouldn't need proof.


  • #50
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    o1s1n wrote: »
    +1 to infinity. The internet has forever changed the music industry. The quicker people realize this and stop trying to cling on to the older ways of music production the better off they'll be.

    Before the internet these labels were needed to distribute the music. It's just not needed any more.

    But labels are still needed to get exposure for musicians. They invest in the musicians to get them out there. It's not a coincidence that bands are still signing up to labels and that the bands who make it big are generally signed to labels. Without a label (or else something working in a very simmilar manner), bands would find it very hard to reach their potential. I'm not trying to defend the current behaviour of the labels, just pointing out how they themselves are an inevitable consequence of the society we live in, a society which allows songwriters to develop their talents to levels they never would have otherwise.
    Music shouldn't be about making mega money. It should be about making music and sharing it with others. If someone is a true musician they will be flattered that someone listens to and enjoys their music, whether they pay for it or not.

    That's a bullshit argument, i don't see why it should apply to music more than any other career. I'm not saying music is purely about money, but people also value financial security, especially when they're getting older or have a family to raise. To really become good at songwriting takes years of total dedication and the prospect of financial rewards helps enable this work. If there wasn't money to be made people would be far less likely to take the risk, they'd probably get an office job or something...sure they might write songs as a hobby, but they'd never put in as much time and effort as they do now.

    If you got rid of the money from music what you'd be left with is a bunch of mediocre twats with self-important notions of being an intellectual and an artist (and who would never develop their talents beyond mediocrity) with maybe the odd bum who uses "I'm a musician" to justify their claiming of the dole.
    o1s1n wrote: »
    Television and cash are physical objects. If someone takes them away from me, I lose out.

    Music is art which you have created for others to enjoy. It can be replicated without any loss to the original version. The only person losing out is the middle man who distributes the music. Which as I said earlier, is not needed now that we have the internet.

    Nope, the artist loses out. Record companies are dropping bands quicker than they did before, cutting short what could have blossomed into a amazing career (and depriving us all of the resultant music). Not only that but record companies are more reluctant to sign bands than they were before (and i'd guess they're not investing as much into the bands they do sign). Finally, they've started muscleing their way into other aspects of the musician's career, such as live performances.


  • #51
    NothingMan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,178 ✭✭✭✭NothingMan


    I download a bit and make no apologies about it. I will download a song or album that I would never have dreamed of buying. If I like it then I will buy the next album or go see them in concert spending a lot more money than if I had never listened to them at all.

    It has been shown on many surveys that people who download spend almost twice legitimately on music than those that don't. People here have said it already, the record companies need to apadt their thinking and their strategies. There is obviously still money to be made but you can't expect people to hang back to the old ways just because it's a system they know.

    I own about 80 (built up over 10 years) cd's and I legally download maybe 3 or 4 albums a year and buy about the same in shops. I also go to about 12/15 concerts or gigs a year. I buy the odd t-shirt, band dvd and even subscribe to a fan club for my favorite band. I am definitely spending more money on acts that I would never have gotten into if I hadn't of had free access to their music before hand.

    I do admit it is stealing as the law stands now and it is open to a tonne of abuse but before mp3's we were buying double tape decks to copy tapes and recording from the radio to tape and from the TV to VHS. This is nothing new, just the media has changed.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    I'm not trying to defend the current behaviour of the major labels, just pointing out how they're an inevitable consequence of the society we live in, a society that allows songwriters to develop their talents to levels they never would have otherwise.
    So they really supply marketing more than anything else -can artists not provide that for themselves these days given the ubiquitous reach of the internet?

    I'd be delighted to see a few sites where musicians of all stripes could showcase their work, fans could connect with each other, and reviewers could review. You could do a lot with a site like that, have a powerful "people who liked this band also liked" section to enhance genres, almost entirely user generated content, concert organisers, special effects groups and so on in a ready directory, it could be massive. The big benefit would be that artists get to keep all the earnings after expenses.

    You'd need a goliath like Google on board to make it well known though. Not Apple, if at all possible.

    So I don't think the record companies are needed at all to be honest.


  • #53
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    So they really supply marketing more than anything else -can artists not provide that for themselves these days given the ubiquitous reach of the internet?

    I'd be delighted to see a few sites where musicians of all stripes could showcase their work, fans could connect with each other, and reviewers could review. You could do a lot with a site like that, have a powerful "people who liked this band also liked" section to enhance genres, almost entirely user generated content, concert organisers, special effects groups and so on in a ready directory, it could be massive. The big benefit would be that artists get to keep all the earnings after expenses.

    You'd need a goliath like Google on board to make it well known though. Not Apple, if at all possible.

    So I don't think the record companies are needed at all to be honest.


    Well afaik labels also help put you in contact with people who will help your career. Also, having a good producer can make a huge difference in how the finished product sounds compared to how it would have sounded as a diy project. Without a label how easy would it be for a new band to get such a producer to work with them?

    Besides, for music most people still rely on the traditional media, and those that don't are probably relying on sites that rely on the traditional media and the connections built up by the traditional media, if only because there is so much **** out there that the traditional media help cut through all this ****.

    I don't think your idea is bad, it would definitely be a help to bands and probably make things a lot fairer (basically simmilar to myspace, but totally music orientated and more proffessional than casual). But i'd see the site ending up as another way of labels spotting bands rather than a way of defeating labels. I don't think the average person would venture much into the site (except for to look at musicians they already know of from outside) for fear of having to wade through tonnes of **** to find anything good.
    Most that do go browsing would probably stay in the highest level (for the above reason) which would be dominated by bands who have already made it outside of the site.


  • #54
    Fnz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭Fnz


    Joey the lips wrote: »
    This is way to heavy and one major waffle built in. The jist is from what I gather is the op is unhappy with the music industry trying to stop people pirate their music.

    Tuff. Its the law. I buy all my CD's and down load legal music. I also pay for good virus software to protect me.

    Why

    Cause its the law.

    A lot of glib comments here.

    The, less restrictive, DMCA as it stands is already being used in ways unintended by the legislators. The International Olympic Committee used the act to suppress videos of the recent, unfortunate but news-worthy, opening day fatal luge crash. [Link]

    ISPs should not be held responsible for the content that goes through their 'pipes', no more than the postal service should be responsible for whatever passes through its system.
    Min wrote: »
    I don't see the problem, I'm not going around stealing from others.

    Technically, you're not depriving anyone else of their music so it's, only (in the eyes of the law), 'copyright infringement' if you download copyrighted material using peer-to-peer services and the like. It's the same thing you can be charged with for transferring legally purchased music from CD to your computer in some jurisdictions.


  • #55
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Well afaik labels also help put you in contact with people who will help your career.
    The internet is good at nothing if not helping people to communicate, put everyone on the same site or sites and contacts won't be long being made. Besides, unless they can actually sell more music for you, what good are they?
    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Also, having a good producer can make a huge difference in how the finished product sounds compared to how it would have sounded as a diy project. Without a label how easy would it be for a new band to get such a producer to work with them?
    Pretty easy actually. What you'd end up with is contractor-producers, who would work with and compete in the market for bands abd musicians, reducing costs for the artists and increasing the level of control they have over their work. The major costs are marketing, and as pointed out, that can be sidestepped entirely. Also artists could advertise concerts and so on for free on their own section of the site. Dip your hand into your pocket for a few slick graphics from a designer, a few more bobs for a producer/sound studio, and away you go. Not too bad, all things considered!
    vinylmesh wrote: »
    Besides, for music most people still rely on the traditional media
    Were that the case they wouldn't need this ACTA monstrosity.
    vinylmesh wrote: »
    if only because there is so much **** out there that the traditional media help cut through all this ****.
    This is where your reviewer system comes in. Take for example books, I don't get them because of adverts or whatever, I have a read over a few reviews online and decide if its worth buying then. Ideally I'd leaf through it as well just to make sure I wasn't being hoodwinked, but peer review is by far the best method, so clangers can't be disguised by slick marketing *cough*The Hulk*cough*.
    vinylmesh wrote: »
    But i'd see the site ending up as another way of labels spotting bands rather than a way of defeating labels. I don't think the average person would venture much into the site (except for to look at musicians they already know of from outside) for fear of having to wade through tonnes of **** to find anything good.
    Display by highest reviewer score, genre "Blues", release 2009-2010? Doesn't seem that hard to me, easy user interfaces are well trodden ground.

    You're taking the short to mid term view here I think, in the mid to long term view the web scenario outlined above isn't just likely, its basically inevitable, and thats a good thing. I mean the artists get paid more (and on that note I am in favour of strong copyright protections for twelve years or so, but not beyond), the fans get to pay for what they want not what they are fed, society as a whole benefits because people can explore new artistic directions outside the accepted formulas for success forced by marketing executives, small local groups can make a huge global splash purely by dint of being very, very creative, the hits just keep coming to be honest.


  • #56
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,923 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Hrududu wrote: »
    Yes I'm sure their children will enjoy dining on flattery rather than food.

    If a band is touring, I will gladly give them money to see them live. That is them doing a job for me in person..which I will pay them for. (And quite handsomely too)

    If they aren't touring and are sitting around on their arse after making an album hoping to live on royalties, **** that. Go get a job and feed your children you waster. (By 'you' I am referring to musicians, not you!) If you need money go out and tour, busk, I don't care, just do something.
    Hrududu wrote: »
    That's a bullshit argument, i don't see why it should apply to music more than any other career. I'm not saying music is purely about money, but people also value financial security, especially when they're getting older or have a family to raise. To really become good at songwriting takes years of total dedication and the prospect of financial rewards helps enable this work. If there wasn't money to be made people would be far less likely to take the risk, they'd probably get an office job or something...sure they might write songs as a hobby, but they'd never put in as much time and effort as they do now.

    Tour and you will make money. I spend a fortune on going to concerts.

    As a comparison, I graduated college with a fine art degree. I currently work on art while also holding down an office job. It's not hard to do.

    If I paint something and someone buys that, that is me making work for them. They will pay me. Similarly, if a band are playing live for me I will pay them.

    If someone wants a copy of a piece of work I have made, or just wants to enjoy it on display in a gallery - they can do so for free. It's not taking anything away from me. This is where I have an issue with musicians calling everyone who downloads a thief. They're enjoying your music ffs. Take some pleasure out of that fact.
    Hrududu wrote: »
    If you got rid of the money from music what you'd be left with is a bunch of mediocre twats with self-important notions of being an intellectual and an artist (and who would never develop their talents beyond mediocrity) with maybe the odd bum who uses "I'm a musician" to justify their claiming of the dole.

    To be fair, the music industry is currently full of mediocre self important twats anyway. ;)


  • #57
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Tour and you will make money. I spend a fortune on going to concerts.
    And what are authors to do, book readings? Artisitic endeavours do need protection for the enhancement of the art, it should be entirely possible to make a living from creativity, although I'd be against the current copyright regimes, they last too long and defeat the purpose of the system.


  • #58
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Allen Chubby Juror wrote: »
    Not the best of arguments. If that was the case, people would be downloading terrabytes of illegal data every month, but that's not happening. The average joe isn't doing that. It's still theft, but it's not the same as stealing physical objects. It's data, that's cloned over and over and over again. It's still theft, but different ;)

    Oh please, the amount of piracy that goes on is obscene. Lets not try and pretend it's blown out of proportion, if anything it's downplayed.

    Allen Chubby Juror wrote: »
    Protect the game/music/film industry? Fcuk that, what about the consumer they are taking for a ride? These tosspots get paid too much as it is, sort that shítstorm out first.

    What a load of cock. You have no fucking clue, do you? You've imagined that the games industry is full of people with gold plated cars and obscene amounts of cash, just so you can feel justified about your stealing.

    You know who gets it in the neck when games underperform? It's not these wealthy people you are raging about, they're fine. It's the developers who take the blame. Coders, artists and QA people who fucking work hard to make the game that you decided wasn't worth paying for, but worth stealing instead. They're the ones who get laid off and who aren't even paid that well to begin with.

    God, I fucking hate so called "gamers" with their fucking inflated sense of entitlement. If they had any fucking spine at all they'd actually properly boycott these games that they feel cost too much, but instead they steal them because they want to have their cake and eat it to.


  • #59
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,923 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    And what are authors to do, book readings?

    You have a point there. You do stumble into issues where the artist in question has no other way of making money apart from what's being pirated. So it would indeed be best to avoid pirating books and games.

    As for film and music -

    I spend a fortune on concerts/merchandise and I have a yearly cineworld pass. So I see that as a valid contribution. Many would disagree, but my conscience rests easy.


  • #60
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    o1s1n wrote: »
    I spend a fortune on concerts/merchandise and I have a yearly cineworld pass. So I see that as a valid contribution. Many would disagree, but my conscience rests easy.
    I don't see why some forms of artistic expression should be excluded from protection though, the same logic applies - if properly compensated, artists are able to spend more time and effort on developing their talents and art, to the great betterment of society as a whole. You balance that by limiting the length of copyright, not removing all protections entirely and putting them back into a medieval situation whereby they were dependent on the whims of a wealthy patron to extend their art to its highest level.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    has already been implemented in Canada.

    entered and exited canada 3 times in the last 6 months and theyre most certainly NOT doing that


Advertisement
Advertisement