Why are the movie and music makers b*tching about piracy?

k.p.h · 20-01-2012 07:37PM

As my buddy one said, "There was music long before there was a music industry, if it all went belly up them them it would only mean the amount of sh|it churned out would reduce and only the quality would remain".

I'l pay for this:

noun
Art

1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

And they can get ****ed if they think I'm paying for this

I could rant on all day about this but the thing that makes me laugh is the fact that these laws and people seem to have no concept what the internet actually is and how it works. The wealth of knowledge and the level of complexity is astounding, by the time some technology is enacted to prevent something happening a work around is found and packaged in a manner anyone can use.

You could only implement something if you completely disengaged a level of functionality, but everyone needs that functionality. Not one government in the world will give a rats about the copyright infringements when he solution to a large amount of daily problems is involved.

Also, you don't piss off the internet... Google don't do it, Microsoft don't do it, nobody dose. If you are connected to a Wide Area Network you operate within an environment where you are venerable and have to play nice, If a certain company did decided to to start actively people who pirate it would instantly make them targets of people who know how to do stuff. They would not be long in finding out how much of their business relies in the internet when the internet dose not work for them.

af_thefragile · 20-01-2012 07:44PM

k.p.h wrote: »

Also, you don't piss off the internet... Google don't do it, Microsoft don't do it, nobody dose. If you are connected to a Wide Area Network you operate within an environment where you are venerable and have to play nice, If a certain company did decided to to start actively people who pirate it would instantly make them targets of people who know how to do stuff. They would not be long in finding out how much of their business relies in the internet when the internet dose not work for them.

Haha, reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVxI6XZAuE

Freddie59 · 20-01-2012 07:49PM

The reality is that something has to be done. It is gone beyond it. Is this the right way? No. And I'm no fan of the Music Industry or Hollywood studios. But it is not now that the issue really is. It is the future. There is an entire younger generation which sees no wrong in downloading stuff for free.

When the older generation is gone (myself included) the ones who are prepared to pay even a little (a la iTunes) will no longer exist. And the music/film industry business model will collapse. It is inevitable.

They did bring it on themselves to some degree. Were it not for the foresight of a certain Mr. Jobs, who dragged the music industry kicking and screaming into the digital age, things would even be worse for them now.

16 billion downloads on iTunes prove this. It really says something that the plonkers in charge could not see the potential of legal downloads. It's happening all over again with Netflix.

A lesson, if ever it were needed, that you need to have young, visionary, and hungry blood at your management table.

Freddie59 · 20-01-2012 07:53PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

What I dont understand is, why dont the movie companies make a megaupload of there own, people are paying for this, I myself have an account with filesonic and I get my TV from that. Why dont these companies make a filesharing program themselves?

Because they are complete and utter morons with no foresight, or recognition of the pace of digital development.

k.p.h · 20-01-2012 08:07PM

Get ****ed ...

“There is something wrong with America if you get 5 years for infringing in Michal Jacksons music and only 4 years for actually killing him.”

Here is a summary of recent earnings reports for selected entertainment companies:
Oct. 24: Netflix Inc. reveals it suffered the biggest customer losses in its history. The company ended September with 23.8 million U.S. subscribers, down about 800,000 from June. Management expects to gain U.S. subscribers in the current quarter, although Netflix didn't set a specific target. Netflix had triggered a backlash by raising prices as much as 60 percent in the U.S. and bungling an attempt to spin off its DVD-by-mail rental service.
Oct. 25: DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. says its net income fell by half in the third quarter as its early summer release, "Kung Fu Panda 2," did not haul in as much at the box office as last year's "Shrek Forever After."
Oct. 27: Coinstar Inc. says its third-quarter earnings nearly doubled as its Redbox kiosks for renting DVDs attracted movie lovers irked by recent price increases at Netflix's video subscription service. Redbox also announces it is raising its prices for renting a standard DVD by 20 percent beginning this coming Monday. The new price will be $1.20 per day, instead of the current $1 daily rate.
Nov. 1: Sirius XM Radio Inc. says its quarterly earnings jumped 54 percent. The company's subscriber base grew 7 percent to end the quarter at 21.3 million, as automakers boosted production of new vehicles that included the radios and free trial subscriptions.
Nov. 2: Time Warner Inc. says its third-quarter earnings grew sharply, with help from Harry Potter and some hit network shows. July's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2" has made $1.3 billion in ticket sales worldwide so far. The home video release on Nov. 11 will likely be one of the biggest of the year. Time Warner also produces popular shows such as "Big Bang Theory," ''Mike & Molly" and "Two and a Half Men," along with the new series "2 Broke Girls" and "Person of Interest."
Results at Comcast Corp.'s NBC Universal, which owns TV channels and movie studios, were mixed. Revenue from cable TV networks grew 12 percent to $2.1 billion, and revenue from broadcast grew 3 percent to $1.5 billion despite ratings pressure at the NBC network and lower political advertising at local stations. But the movie division saw revenue decrease 8 percent to $1.1 billion. Revenue from the home release of "Bridesmaids" and the international release of "Fast Five" wasn't enough to offset reduced box office performance compared with last year.
News Corp. saw net income for the latest quarter drop 5 percent from a year ago because of the cost of closing a scandal-wracked tabloid and dropping its takeover bid for British Sky Broadcasting. Revenue grew 7 percent to $7.96 billion, helped by higher fees for pay TV channels like Fox News and the successful movie "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."
Nov. 3: Broadcasting company CBS Corp. says net income rose 7 percent, helped by new online streaming deals for its content as advertising revenue held steady.
Nov. 9: Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. reports a smaller net loss, helped by a gain on the sale of its Maple Pictures business. The studio's revenue declined in a quarter in which it released the disappointing "Conan the Barbarian" and on a tough comparison with last year's quarter, which featured the hit action movie "The Expendables."
Nov. 10: Viacom Inc. turned the success of "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" into a pile of money in its latest quarter, as earnings tripled and revenue grew 22 percent. The Paramount Pictures studio was the star of the quarter, with revenue up 46 percent. Viacom's TV networks saw revenue rise 8 percent, driven by increases in advertising and fees paid by cable and satellite-TV companies.
The Walt Disney Co. says net income in the latest quarter rose 30 percent, thanks to higher spending by theme park visitors and growth at pay TV operations ESPN and Disney Channel. Disney's movie studio profits grew, helped by the theatrical re-release of "The Lion King" in 3-D. The growth occurred despite lower revenue in home entertainment. Consumer products sales and profits grew and the company trimmed losses at its interactive unit.
Nov. 22: TiVo Inc. says its third-quarter loss widened as expenses outstripped increased demand for its TV-recording technology. The company's results were better than what analysts were expecting. Its stock rose 5 percent in extended trading. The company added a net 117,000 subscribers during the quarter, ending October with 2 million. This compares with 2.3 million a year earlier

Press Release: Paramount Pictures Corporation – Mon, Jan 2, 2012 1:17 PM EST

Paramount Pictures Tops All Studios With the Biggest Box Office Gross in 2011, Earning $5.17 Billion Worldwide
Year's Highlights Included Studio's First Billion Dollar Release, Successful Re-launch of Mission Impossible Franchise, the Coen Bros. Biggest Release Ever & Paramount's First Original CGI Animated Film

HOLLYWOOD, Calif. , Jan. 2, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Paramount Pictures announced today it ended 2011 in the No. 1 position among all studios, having achieved the highest total combined gross of any studio for the year, earning a record $5.17 billion worldwide. The studio, which released a total of 16 new releases domestically this year, placed first in the North American market share with $1.96 billion , while also amassing record grosses at the international box office with $3.21 billion .
"This achievement reflects the combined efforts of our entire team across the globe and the careful process by which we select the projects and partners we believe in," said Paramount Pictures Chairman & CEO Brad Grey . "We produce pictures that aspire to entertain audiences around the world, while at the same time we have sought to find innovative ways to reach movie-goers in this changing entertainment environment.
"This year our studio reached some key milestones, including the release of three vibrant Paramount franchise pictures and our first original CGI animated film. Our studio had its first ever $1 billion worldwide grossing film in Michael Bay's hit 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'; we successfully re-launched our 'Mission Impossible' franchise with Tom Cruise , JJ Abrams and Brad Bird ; our latest installment in the 'Paranormal Activity' franchise had another $100 million dollar success; our first original animated film 'Rango,' from director Gore Verbinski, earned rave reviews and more than $100 million at the domestic box office; and we released global phenomenon 'Super 8,' directed by JJ Abrams, who will now direct the newest 'Star Trek' for 2013. We also benefited from our distribution partnerships with DreamWorks Animation and Marvel and I want to thank them both.
"Film President Adam Goodman and his team in production and development, and Vice Chairman Rob Moore and his team in marketing and distribution, did outstanding work and truly delivered. "As we prepare to celebrate Paramount's 100th year in 2012, we are all grateful to be part of this wonderful institution as it continues to prosper," added Grey.
In 2012, Paramount's release slate highlights include "World War Z," a zombie thriller starring Brad Pitt and directed by Marc Forster , "G.I. Joe: Retaliation," the next installment in the global franchise starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Channing Tatum , a new chapter in the "Paranormal Activity" franchise, and "The Dictator," starring Sacha Baron Cohen and directed by Larry Charles , the team behind "Borat."
The 2011 box office results seen from the studio were built on a wide reaching range of titles, including the following (with current domestic grosses): "True Grit" ( $85 mil this year, $171.2 million total), Ivan Reitman 's "No Strings Attached" ( $70.7 mil ), Jon Chu 's " Justin Bieber : Never Say Never" ( $73 mil ), Gore Verbinski's "Rango" ( $123.5 mil ), Marvel Studio's "Thor" ( $181 mil ), DreamWorks Animation's " Kung Fu Panda 2" ( $165.2 mil ), JJ Abrams "Super 8" ( $127 mil ), Michael Bay 's "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" ( $352.4 mil ), Marvel Studio's "Captain America: The First Avenger" ( $176.7 mil ), Craig Brewer 's "Footloose" ( $51.7 mil ), the third installment in the hit "Paranormal Activity" franchise ( $104 mil ), DreamWorks Animation's "Puss In Boots" ( $145.8 mil ), Sundance prize-winner "Like Crazy" ( $3.4 mil ), Martin Scorsese and GK Films' "Hugo" ( $50.2 mil ), Jason Reitman 's "Young Adult" ( $12.8 mil ), Brad Bird 's "Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol" ( $142.8 mil ) and Steven Spielberg 's "Tintin" ( $51.4 mil ).
About Paramount Pictures Corporation
Paramount Pictures Corporation (PPC), a global producer and distributor of filmed entertainment, is a unit of Viacom (NASDAQ: VIA, VIAB), a leading content company with prominent and respected film, television and digital entertainment brands. Paramount controls a collection of some of the most powerful brands in filmed entertainment, including Paramount Pictures, Paramount Animation, Paramount Vantage, Paramount Classics, Insurge Pictures, MTV Films, and Nickelodeon Movies. PPC operations also include Paramount Famous Productions, Paramount Home Media Distribution, Paramount Pictures International, Paramount Licensing Inc., and Paramount Studio

Callipo · 20-01-2012 08:21PM

af_thefragile wrote: »

Its not like they've all become bankrupt and homeless because of megaupload and youtube!

The film makers are still making millions and billions in some cases through ticket sales at cinemas. Avatar grossed $2.7 billion, the awful 3rd Transformers movie grossed over $1 billion. Music artists are still making millions through ticket sales and concerts and licence fees paid by TV, radio channels etc. and its not like people have stopped buying films and music because we can get it all for free now. People are still buying DVDs and CDs of the films and albums they like. If you just take a walk into HMV this becomes very apparent.

Then why the hell do these people want to pass stupid legislations which has worldwide implications on the internet and then later go on MTV and show off their huge opulent homes and cars they own while bitching about how online file sharing is making them bankrupt.

This is completely retarded and just another aspect of USA trying to control the internet which is a global network, not a local american network.

Sorry if this topic is being beaten to death right now but this really makes no sense! We cannot let the film and music industry get away with this nonsense!

So what?

People are taking something that is not theirs and not paying for it when they have to. Not whether they should..... but have to.

I for one can't defend the indefensible. It would be like filling my car with petrol and not paying.

In saying that I have no doubt there are a generation of young people who don't know any other way than downloading "free" stuff off the internetz.

k.p.h · 20-01-2012 08:39PM

Callipo wrote: »

It would be like filling my car with petrol and not paying.

Would it ..? Really ..? What's the intrinsic value you give to a movie or a piece of music..? Who defines the value of it ..?Have you ever compared it to something that was not in essence an abstract concept..?

e.g A loaf of bread, an apple, a piece of wood.

BlueSmoker · 20-01-2012 08:40PM

Mickjg wrote: »

As a film student, I am well aware of the amount of work and stress that goes into making a film. 10-15 hours days are common. Making a short film can take several months from pre-production to the end of post-production. On feature films this can be anywhere from 1-2 years.

A lot of people put a lot of work into these films. The only ones making the big money are the leading actors, director and producers. The rest of the crew make much smaller incomes. Also, these people tend to go from job to job rather than being employed by a company on a normal basis like in other industries.

These people put in tremendous amounts of work and deserve their money. I know I'm not going to be wealthy from the work I do but I do deserve to be paid fairly for the work that I do just like anyone posting on here. If I or anyone I know comes by a way of making a lot of money fairly then why shouldn't they be entitled to it? This sounds like typical Irish begrudgery, being angry with people who have made money. Film makers aren't the same as bankers who may have made money through means that have brought the country and world to it's knees. They are ordinary people who had a dream, reached for it and were fortunate enough to make it.

Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it should be free. If you enjoy having a few pints on a Saturday night do you think they should be free just because you enjoy them? No. The bar tender needs to be paid. The person who delivers the beer from the factory needs to be paid. The people working on the factory floor, in the offices and other areas of the production process need to be paid. Thinking otherwise is ridiculous.

I'm also a film director, editor and producer, and I agree with you on all points you have made , I should be paid for the work I do.

But I don't think that is what the point being made here.

Basically the record labels (5 of the biggest companies in the world who also own the film companies) are using bully boy tactics to keep their market share, the only thing they have now a days that these guys have is themselves as a marketing tool, the internet is now starting to challenge that, hence why they are throwing a hissy fit

At the moment, with technology anyone can produce a great musical piece/film/publish a book within their home. For it to be successful all it needs is talent and marketing. Before in the past the record labels had the manufacturing power too as well as distributions rights, now all they have is the distributions rights and as I pointed out the internet is taking that away from them

As a film maker I realise how important it is for me how important it is for my work to be seen, if priacy (it has always being part of the marketing plan of every business, hence the saying "imitation is the biggest form of respect") is stopped or these bills go through I might as well do just family videos for myself and my Ma. I produce films so that they can be seen not to make a profit, like most artists I know, they produce their art to be shared. The new bills SOPA and PIPA will kill that, basically if they pass you are asking the "Money Men" to tell you what you like

Callipo · 20-01-2012 08:45PM

k.p.h wrote: »

Would it ..? Really ..? What's the intrinsic value you give to a movie or a piece of music..? Who defines the value of it ..?Have you ever compared it to something that was not in essence an abstract concept..?

e.g A loaf of bread, an apple, a piece of wood.

Sorry?

I don't go around giving "intrinsic" value to things.

I normally just pay for stuff.

I do try and get stuff cheaper than priced? My mot thinks I am a knacker for doing so. You know a Diesel top is 32 quid and I offer 30 etc.

I am not sure how I would ever fit "intrinsic value" into that though

davet82 · 20-01-2012 08:46PM

Callipo wrote: »

So what?

People are taking something that is not theirs and not paying for it when they have to. Not whether they should..... but have to.

I for one can't defend the indefensible. It would be like filling my car with petrol and not paying.

In saying that I have no doubt there are a generation of young people who don't know any other way than downloading "free" stuff off the internetz.

Its definately not like stealing petrol. When a whole generation of kids will grow up downloading stuff off the net, maybe they'll have the brains to change things that suits everybody cause its not working now.

They use to say the same about recordable audio cassettes that it was the end of music... and its still here.

k.p.h · 20-01-2012 08:50PM

An open letter to Washington from Artists and Creators

We, the undersigned, are musicians, actors, directors, authors, and producers. We make our livelihoods with the artistic works we create. We are also Internet users.

We are writing to express our serious concerns regarding the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).

As creative professionals, we experience copyright infringement on a very personal level. Commercial piracy is deeply unfair and pervasive leaks of unreleased films and music regularly interfere with the integrity of our creations. We are grateful for the measures policymakers have enacted to protect our works.

We, along with the rest of society, have benefited immensely from a free and open Internet. It allows us to connect with our fans and reach new audiences. Using social media services like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, we can communicate directly with millions of fans and interact with them in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.

We fear that the broad new enforcement powers provided under SOPA and PIPA could be easily abused against legitimate services like those upon which we depend. These bills would allow entire websites to be blocked without due process, causing collateral damage to the legitimate users of the same services — artists and creators like us who would be censored as a result.

We are deeply concerned that PIPA and SOPA’s impact on piracy will be negligible compared to the potential damage that would be caused to legitimate Internet services. Online piracy is harmful and it needs to be addressed, but not at the expense of censoring creativity, stifling innovation or preventing the creation of new, lawful digital distribution methods.

We urge Congress to exercise extreme caution and ensure that the free and open Internet, upon which so many artists rely to promote and distribute their work, does not become collateral damage in the process.

Respectfully,

Aziz Ansari
Kevin Devine, Musician
Barry Eisler, Author
Neil Gaiman, Author
Lloyd Kaufman, Filmmaker
Zoë Keating, Musician
The Lonely Island
Daniel Lorca, Musician (Nada Surf)
Erin McKeown, Musician
MGMT
Samantha Murphy, Musician
OK Go
Amanda Palmer, Musician (The Dresden Dolls)
Quiet Company
Trent Reznor
Adam Savage, Special Effects Artist (MythBusters)
Hank Shocklee, Music Producer (Public Enemy, The Bomb Squad)
Johnny Stimson, Musician

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDzL_WU3mmE

Standman · 20-01-2012 08:51PM

hooradiation wrote: »

...

Yes, that's lovely.
Has it occurred to you that having to go "look for" great films and TVs is a really suboptimal way to do things?

No it hasn't occurred to me and I don't know why you would think swallowing any old tired shite that has been marketed in a shiny package is an optimal way to do things, as opposed to actually researching and reading about different content that for whatever reason is not being marketed as well if at all.

Temptamperu · 20-01-2012 08:53PM

Callipo wrote: »

So what?

People are taking something that is not theirs and not paying for it when they have to. Not whether they should..... but have to.

I for one can't defend the indefensible. It would be like filling my car with petrol and not paying.

In saying that I have no doubt there are a generation of young people who don't know any other way than downloading "free" stuff off the internetz.

Hey, Although technically I steal, I pay for it monthly with my subscription. If these companies didnt have their heads stuck in the last century they could possibly get that subscription but instead they continue down the same road they have travelled while the rest of the world moved on.

Callipo · 20-01-2012 09:01PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Hey, Although technically I steal, I pay for it monthly with my subscription. If these companies didnt have their heads stuck in the last century they could possibly get that subscription but instead they continue down the same road they have travelled while the rest of the world moved on.

I agree with companies having to change their ways. That does not make your admission to stealing right.

davet82 wrote: »

Its definately not like stealing petrol. When a whole generation of kids will grow up downloading stuff off the net, maybe they'll have the brains to change things that suits everybody cause its not working now.

They use to say the same about recordable audio cassettes that it was the end of music... and its still here.

How is it not like stealing petrol? Petrol should be available for everyone? It comes from the ground for god's sake!?

I agree with everyone that companies have to change their ways and embrace the future, I really wish they would but as things stand it is stealing.

How is it not?

Sacred_git · 20-01-2012 09:03PM

well i haven't read the whole thread but one comment i seen i true, the movie industry are going on safe/at least they think bets as are the music industry, which limits film makers and musicians in particular getting signed - ya know the ones trying to be innovative, its all well and good making millions from concerts etc, what about the unsigned bands, its really difficult to land a deal these days and making a record is worth fcuk all to the bands these days!

davet82 · 20-01-2012 09:06PM

Callipo wrote: »

I agree with companies having to change their ways. That does not make your admission to stealing right.

How is it not like stealing petrol? Petrol should be available for everyone? It comes from the ground for god's sake!?

I agree with everyone that companies have to change their ways and embrace the future, I really wish they would but as things stand it is stealing.

How is it not?

Because things change, the majority cant be wrong (imo), in 50 years time when you are telling people you had to pay for music years ago it may sound very strange to them... stranger things have happened

ressem · 20-01-2012 09:07PM

k.p.h wrote: »

Would it ..? Really ..? What's the intrinsic value you give to a movie or a piece of music..? Who defines the value of it ..?Have you ever compared it to something that was not in essence an abstract concept..?

e.g A loaf of bread, an apple, a piece of wood.

Just to check, you are aware that music (regardless of whether it's stored in a digital or physical form) isn't an abstract concept? It's information which has been implemented, designed, worked upon, edited.

Pretty much like most posts on boards, even the ones that you regard as having no merit.
Each has a variable value to each person that encounters it.

And just because some people are generous enough to donate time and effort towards researching a problem using their experience and gifting some knowledge for free, it does not make their entire field of expertise worthless. The information transferred in an email can be of greater value than all the physical infrastructure that it travels through.

And you know this. Presumably you are willing to pay an ISP for the connection to this information.

davet82 · 20-01-2012 09:08PM

Sacred_git wrote: »

well i haven't read the whole thread but one comment i seen i true, the movie industry are going on safe/at least they think bets as are the music industry, which limits film makers and musicians in particular getting signed - ya know the ones trying to be innovative, its all well and good making millions from concerts etc, what about the unsigned bands, its really difficult to land a deal these days and making a record is worth fcuk all to the bands these days!

well the unsigned bands are unsigned for a reason, maybe because they're crap or not enough of people like they're music?

Sacred_git · 20-01-2012 09:15PM

no man, you don't get it! Musicians gotta get paid too ya know, of course you should pay for the music, same with films, its a business plain and simple! Wil people in 50 years time laugh about paying for having to pay for food in Tesco, no because they will still have to! Because of the internet, people are getting stuff for free, all well and good, if an artist lets the music go for free, fine, away ya go, if they want cash - pay for it! same as software, same as any business. Simple fact!!

Callipo · 20-01-2012 09:15PM

davet82 wrote: »

Because things change, the majority cant be wrong (imo), in 50 years time when you are telling people you had to pay for music years ago it may sound very strange to them... stranger things have happened

One day you invent something.

You have sweated blood to make it happen.

Then it is uploaded onto the net so everyone else can get it for free.

You are OK with that?

OR maybe that essay you studied real hard for?

What would you not like distributed for "free"

It is different if it is not "you"

davet82 · 20-01-2012 09:20PM

davet82 wrote: »

They need to re-think how to charge for their talents, imo music should be free...

Why not setup website and let their music be downloaded for free, viewing advertisments as you wait for it download. Free music would chart well on the downlaod charts. Most real fans want hard copys that could be ordered from the website aswel as official mechandise. You have concerts and gigs... endorements if you make it big. No fees for music distubtion companies. The internet for music is the way its going. I think bands starting out would benefit equally, somethin has to change cause file sharing wont.

It was recordable tapes, then cd burners and now file shares music goes on

as for films, personnally if i wanted to see a film i go the cinema regardless if it was free online but thats just me

i posted that earlier, now it might not work out, it maybe stupid but what i'm saying is of course there should be finacial reward, i dont think anyone is disputing that but the way they go about is dated, they gotta keep up with the times as they are fighting a loosing battle at the moment.

Callipo · 20-01-2012 09:22PM

davet82 wrote: »

i posted that earlier, now it might not work out, it maybe stupid but what i'm saying is of course there should be finacial reward, i dont think anyone is disputing that but the way they go about is dated, they gotta keep up with the times as they are fighting a loosing battle at the moment.

Agreed.

But for now it is stealing.

That is what others are saying.

BTW I have about 18Tb of stuff but I am not disillusion and defending the indefensible.

BlueSmoker · 20-01-2012 09:48PM

I think the point is being missed here, artists will not win with SOPA and PIPA, and as an artist I know this cause it stops my creativity, as I pointed out earlier I create something to be shared, that is what gives my creation value, I know it's very egotistic, but it is the reason I produce my art, most artists would agree with me on some level.

What is happening here is that the record labels/film companies want to crack down on that "Sharing feeling" they want you to pay for their product , they don't care if there is another better than their's product out there, they want your money in their pocket. As long as they are in charge of what you see and hear they are happy.

And by the way most artists end up bankrupt after getting signed to a major label, Why? cause the company only lends them the money to produce and record their first album. Also as a side note the highest earning artist when CD first came out was David Bowie he earned 50p off every Album the record shops sold for £12.00, so believe me it not about the artists it about controlling distribution rights, it all about business and profit, it's not about the artist or about their art

ressem · 20-01-2012 10:17PM

BlueSmoker wrote: »

I think the point is being missed here, artists will not win with SOPA and PIPA, and as an artist I know this cause it stops my creativity, as I pointed out earlier I create something to be shared, that is what gives my creation value, I know it's very egotistic, but it is the reason I produce my art, most artists would agree with me on some level.

What the internet gives you as an artist is a choice.
You can host your art to the world for the cost of a bus ticket per month.

Some art is more demanding of resources.Some people want to work full time at their art, and either a section of the people that wish the artist well contribute a small amount, or they need the patronage of someone with money, and all the conflicts that this brings as described in your second paragraph.

BlueSmoker wrote: »

And by the way most artists end up bankrupt after getting signed to a major label, Why? cause the company only lends them the money to produce and record their first album. Also as a side note the highest earning artist when CD first came out was David Bowie he earned 50p off every Album the record shops sold for £12.00, so believe me it not about the artists it about controlling distribution rights, it all about business and profit, it's not about the artist or about their art

Yep, songwriters have rights, performers have only the pulling power of their name to trade on.
And silver pens that cost 8 quid to make sell for 60 in the shops.

Megaupload shows that people are willing to pay millions for someone to run servers to provide access to music. And those people don't give a cent to any artist.
You have the option of buying from Magnatune et al who allow easy licensing of music for other artists and split sales 50/50 with the artist.
Why not promote them instead of those Megaupload gits?

BlueSmoker · 20-01-2012 10:39PM

ressem wrote: »

What the internet gives you as an artist is a choice.
You can host your art to the world for the cost of a bus ticket per month.

Some art is more demanding of resources.Some people want to work full time at their art, and either a section of the people that wish the artist well contribute a small amount, or they need the patronage of someone with money, and all the conflicts that this brings as described in your second paragraph.

Yep, songwriters have rights, performers have only the pulling power of their name to trade on.
And silver pens that cost 8 quid to make sell for 60 in the shops.

Megaupload shows that people are willing to pay millions for someone to run servers to provide access to music. And those people don't give a cent to any artist.
You have the option of buying from Magnatune et al who allow easy licensing of music for other artists and split sales 50/50 with the artist.
Why not promote them instead of those Megaupload gits?

I was never even stating once that I would condone anyone not being payed for their art, or trying to pirated it from a site, I basically said that it happens and I would be more worried about these bills going through than anyone raping my art work, Why? cause they are asking for power to shut down every site "they believe to be in copyright infringement" based on an assumption.

So if I filming a documentary about child abuse in Ireland and Lady Gaga is playing in the back ground on the radio, they seem to think they have the right to stop my program being broadcast, which they don't case it's a current affairs item and that is copyright law.

These guys are the ones who made the rules about copyright, and they keep changing the law to suit themselves, no artist well benifit from this, artists are getting fock all from them anyway

biko · 21-01-2012 06:25PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIYwpowb73Y

af_thefragile · 21-01-2012 06:52PM

^She's pretty... :pac:

Anyway:
http://xkcd.com/1005/

Why are the movie and music makers b*tching about piracy?

Comments