Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

UPC victory in piracy case

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Art is not motivated by profit. Its pre-dated the distribution cartels and will live on long after them.

    ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".


  • Options
    #33
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Art is not motivated by profit. Its pre-dated the distribution cartels and will live on long after them.

    Bullshít. Art has always been motivated by profit. The biggest lie of the twentieth century was art as a therapeutic pursuit. Michelangelo didn't make David for the hell of it. Beethoven didn't write his symphonies because he was feeling a bit inspired after aligning his chakra.


  • Options
    #34
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".

    Daddy, not vinyl and chips again!!!


  • Options
    #35
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    ill remember that next time my kid is hungry. ill feed him some of my "art".

    Or you could get a real job and get over the fact that the world doesnt owe you a living. ;)


  • Options
    #36
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Or you could get a real job and get over the fact that the world doesnt owe you a living. ;)

    ahh yes. the typical answer of an ignorant asshole. well done you.

    i have a real job and i work every hour that i possibly can.... but if ****, like yourself, keep trying to destroy our industry it wont last very long.

    but like i said, good for you for being a disgusting thieving prick.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    "Art belong to people." V.Lenin


  • Options
    #38
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    KindOfIrish wrote: »
    "Art belong to people." V.Lenin

    "artists are people." ME.


  • Options
    #39
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    ahh yes. the typical answer of an ignorant asshole. well done you.

    i have a real job and i work every hour that i possibly can.... but if ****, like yourself, keep trying to destroy our industry it wont last very long.

    but like i said, good for you for being a disgusting thieving prick.
    Good riddance to your industry tbh. A free and open internet is far more important than your "right" to make money from selling zero-value copies of your music or whatever. Every case won like this is a step closer to the day we wont have to put up corporate interests attempting to destroy the greatest information advance in mans history.

    Someone should write a song about it. They already did - A great day for freedom :)


  • Options
    #40
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    KindOfIrish wrote: »
    "Art belong to people." V.Lenin

    'There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel' Lenin


  • Options
    #41
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Good riddance to your industry tbh. A free and open internet is far more important than your "right" to make money from selling zero-value copies of your music or whatever. Every case won like this is a step closer to the day we wont have to put up corporate interests attempting to destroy the greatest information advance in mans history.

    Someone should write a song about it. They already did - A great day for freedom :)

    and eventually you'll have no music of any quality left to listen to. it'll be xfactor sheep all the way. idiots like yourself who wouldnt understand good music if it slapped you in the face.

    music is not information, its the hard work of artists looking to make a living in the only way that they know how. no differant to doctors, police, teachers.. whatever. i wont expect you to understand as you've already proven your complete lack of intelligence in this thread.

    if you have an issue with the business model then take it out on the labels and shops that screw everyone over. buy direct from artist websites. cut out the middle man... cause its certainly not the average musician making the money.

    and as an aside, i am personally not in the business of selling music. get your facts straight - if you're gonna come to a gun fight, shooting water pistols probably isnt gonna do you any good.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    The problem is... the music industry expects ISP's and the communications industry to absorb the cost for protecting their products, while the music industry itself does little to address the problem.. In most cases, the ISP's wont do anything unless they are forced via legislation, and why should they?

    If the ISP's are forced to do something, then the cost will be passed to me the consumer.. Why should I pay to ensure an artist doesn't lose income (if I don't illegally download music)?

    I don't agree with piracy.. I don't agree with ignoring people's copyrights.. but if I rolled up to Sony and told them to pay for locks on my doors so people didn't steal my property... they would tell me to f**k off...


  • Options
    #43
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    and eventually you'll have no music of any quality left to listen to. it'll be xfactor sheep all the way. idiots like yourself who wouldnt understand good music if it slapped you in the face.

    music is not information, its the hard work of artists looking to make a living in the only way that they know how. no differant to doctors, police, teachers.. whatever. i wont expect you to understand as you've already proven your complete lack of intelligence in this thread.

    if you have an issue with the business model then take it out on the labels and shops that screw everyone over. buy direct from artist websites. cut out the middle man... cause its certainly not the average musician making the money.

    and as an aside, i am personally not in the business of selling music. get your facts straight - if you're gonna come to a gun fight, shooting water pistols probably isnt gonna do you any good.
    The anger is strong in you. Btw, how do you know anything about my taste in music or how I consume it?

    Do you really think someone who sells copies of songs is the same as a doctor or policeman? LOL.

    Ill tell you the difference chief, the two latter fellas there have a viable business model from which to make a living, e.g. there is an actual demand for what they do and it cant be replicated for absolutely zero cost in an instant.


  • Options
    #44
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    CiaranC wrote: »
    The anger is strong in you. Btw, how do you know anything about my taste in music or how I consume it?

    Do you really think someone who sells copies of songs is the same as a doctor or policeman? LOL.

    Ill tell you the difference chief, the two latter fellas there have a viable business model from which to make a living, e.g. there is an actual demand for what they do and it cant be replicated for absolutely zero cost in an instant.

    thats all great. you're still a thieving knacker. jog on asshole ;)


  • Options
    #45
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Android 666 wrote: »
    Bullshít. Art has always been motivated by profit. The biggest lie of the twentieth century was art as a therapeutic pursuit. Michelangelo didn't make David for the hell of it. Beethoven didn't write his symphonies because he was feeling a bit inspired after aligning his chakra.
    So why did he do it? (genuine question, please give a genuine answer).


    Was he planning on mass producing Davids and flogging them to every tom dick and harry?




    Oh and lol at the hypocrisy of the OP's "I download TV and films but people who download music are thieves". No, mate, you arent stealing video and tv, you're just taking something that doesnt belong to you. And not paying for it. :)

    Somehow music is different to films and tv? oh yes, thats right, I forgot you're a musician, thats the obvious difference.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #46
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Welease wrote: »
    The problem is... the music industry expects ISP's and the communications industry to absorb the cost for protecting their products, while the music industry itself does little to address the problem.. In most cases, the ISP's wont do anything unless they are forced via legislation, and why should they?

    If the ISP's are forced to do something, then the cost will be passed to me the consumer.. Why should I pay to ensure an artist doesn't lose income (if I don't illegally download music)?

    I don't agree with piracy.. I don't agree with ignoring people's copyrights.. but if I rolled up to Sony and told them to pay for locks on my doors so people didn't steal my property... they would tell me to f**k off...

    totally agree.

    this is a moral issue and a very high % of people have no morals.

    i personally am glad to see this ruling. im all for people downloading an album. 20 euro is a lot to spend on a **** album! but for gods sake go buy it if you enjoy it. if you didnt enjoy it just hit that delete button.fair is fair.


  • Options
    #47
    Lukker-
    Registered Users Posts: 9,405 ✭✭✭Lukker-


    A victory for common sense.


  • Options
    #48
    Android 666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,577 ✭✭✭Android 666


    DeVore wrote: »
    So why did he do it? (genuine question, please give a genuine answer).

    Because he was paid to. It was a commission that he worked on for 3 years. Seriously it's not that hard to guess…


  • Options
    #49
    ronkmonster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭ronkmonster


    Where are the options to download music at the same quality as CDs?
    As in full uncompressed music. I can pay a premium for getting CDs(which probably has more songs than I want or buy lower quality compressed music online.


  • Options
    #50
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    ronkmonster wrote: »
    Where are the options to download music at the same quality as CDs?
    As in full uncompressed music. I can pay a premium for getting CDs(which probably has more songs than I want or buy lower quality compressed music online.

    you can buy wav files from all music stores online for years now. wav is cd quality.


  • Options
    #51
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »
    If things continue the way they are, it's going to get harder and harder for new acts to emerge. Fact. And the argument that all music should be free and bands can make their money touring is utter nonsense.

    Here's some facts for you.

    a) People who download music illegally spend more on music than people who don't.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

    b) Before the advent of Napster 97% of the acts on a major label made less than $600 a year from it. "And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow

    The old model is dead, and good riddance to it. I want talented artists to get paid for what they do, but that clearly wasn't happening under the old system. The new system we're moving into will produce less superstars, but is far better suited to supporting far more acts with a living wage. Filesharing has only helped smaller artists develop some recognition without the help of a label's infrastructure or PR budget - the only ones it hurt have been the big established names who are too closely tied into the old static major label model to adapt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Overature
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    Alofthedunnes wrote: »

    I never download music as it's robbing the artists of valuable income.

    I wonder just how much of the cash actually goes to the artist, the majority goes to the record companys. and i dont see a difference between downloading tv shows and music, its both stealing. i download both


  • Options
    #53
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    Here's some facts for you.

    a) People who download music illegally spend more on music than people who don't.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

    b) Before the advent of Napster 97% of the acts on a major label made less than $600 a year from it. "And these were the lucky lotto winners, the tiny fraction of 1% who made it to a record deal."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/05/free-online-content-cory-doctorow

    The old model is dead, and good riddance to it. I want talented artists to get paid for what they do, but that clearly wasn't happening under the old system. The new system we're moving into will produce less superstars, but is far better suited to supporting far more acts with a living wage. Filesharing has only helped smaller artists develop some recognition without the help of a label's infrastructure or PR budget - the only ones it hurt have been the big established names who are too closely tied into the old static major label model to adapt.

    agree 100%

    not many people here are arguing against downloading. the problems arise with the idiots who download all day and never buy music.

    if you buy your music then you can download all day long as far as im concerned. there are very few people, even within the industry, that will support the major labels and their bullying tactics. most of us just want to be able to feed ourselves and our family from the work we put in.


  • Options
    #54
    ronkmonster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭ronkmonster


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    you can buy wav files from all music stores online for years now. wav is cd quality.
    I can't see that option for Itunes, the biggest online music store


  • Options
    #55
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Overature wrote: »
    I wonder just how much of the cash actually goes to the artist,

    very little unfortunatly. exactly why its best to buy direct from artist websites if at all possible.


  • Options
    #56
    zenno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭zenno


    that judge needs a good patt on the back a good victory to internet users.


  • Options
    #57
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    ronkmonster wrote: »
    I can't see that option for Itunes, the biggest online music store

    stop using itunes. they offer crap quality and the artist receives next to nothing.

    there's much better online stores out there that offer a variety of differant formats.


  • Options
    #58
    Jakob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 111 ✭✭Jakob


    I use this site, not sure how legal or illegal it is ( it's called legalsounds ) but it is excellent value at 99 cents an album (roughly)

    http://www.legalsounds.com/


  • Options
    #59
    Trevor451
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Trevor451


    Fair play to UPC for not giving in :). Face it nobody buys music anymore because it is a complete rip off. A very litte percentage of the money on the album sold goes to the artist anyway :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #60
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    very little unfortunatly. exactly why its best to buy direct from artist websites if at all possible.

    Indeed.

    Apologies for using the example I'm most familiar with, but the best solution to this problem that I've heard of was how Arcade Fire dealt with it. They're a fairly recent band, they've grown up taking filesharing for granted, and they're quite happy to acknowledge that they've gained more than they've lost from it.

    For The Suburbs release, rather than trying to penalize people for downloading leaks or guilt them out of doing it, they offered them an incentive to buy direct from them:

    http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2010/08/arcade-fire-rethinks-album-format-tells-no-one.html

    Basically, the version that comes through their website - and only that version - comes with a built-in slideshow featuring the song lyrics, photos, artwork, youtubes and wiki links chosen and occasionally updated by the band themselves. It leads you on a huge easter egg hunt all over the internet and offers a lot of background on the thought processes going on underneath, without over explaining anything. It's cheap and easy to implement, fun to do, it genuinely adds to the experience of the album and it offers the artist a new channel to communicate with the listener.

    Most importantly, it encourages people to buy right from the source, without looking like jerks - carrot rather than stick. I don't know why nobody thought of it sooner, but I hope many more follow suit in future. Filesharing is not going anywhere, and the sooner labels and artists stop trying to bail out a sinking ship with a bucket and get in the rescue helicopters, the better.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    this thread outlines the issues I think - yes music is art (i make a lot of it myself and make no money, nor want to make money from) but for those who wish to be able to do it full time, they need to earn a crust from it.

    the internet is brilliant and downloading is here, pure and simple - it cant be stopped and theres no point in trying to sue people etc over it. there has to be new ways of doing things that arent all about downloading everything and contributing nothing.

    I agree though that the major labels have cornered the market for far too long making far too much money, but that doesnt justify free for all downloads. there has to be some form of compromise or new market model (which probably includes giving away free stuff)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement