- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why is it ok to steal media?
Posted on 11/26/12 at 2:06 pm to Baloo
Posted on 11/26/12 at 2:06 pm to Baloo
quote:
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
Playing live is where they can make it up. The situation with movies and TV is more interesting, as there is no way to make it up other than to charge for the recorded product.
0
Posted on 11/26/12 at 3:43 pm to Baloo
quote:
While I do agree with that Oatmeal (if you don't offer your content legally, people will steal it -- "you can't stop the signal"), I do think there is a real troubling problem with consumers. We've been trained by IT companies like Google and Apple that content is supposed to be free, or close to it. For companies that will sue the ever-living shite out of anyone who encroached on their IP, they have no problem with encouraging consumers to steal the IP of "content producers", or as I like to call them, "the people who actually write this shite."
The IT companies have destroyed musicians. It is now almost literally impossible to make a living at being a musician in our current economic structure. Spotify nets musicians next to nothing. iTunes is slightly better, but the streaming sites get around standard usage rates. As much as the record companies screwed over artists over the years, it is nothing compared to what IT companies have done t them. People pretty much don't expect artists to get paid for their creations.
It's wrong. Everyone gets rich but the person who actually makes the stuff. Eventually, this means they'll stop making this stuff. We are trying to morally justify not paying people who actually create things.
Two questions:
1) But who decides cost? It's a core business principal that is thrown into chaos because of both the internet and the idea of "media" in the first place. Cost is negotiated between the consumer and producer (in most non-subsidized instances).
I don't think it's Google, Apple, and IT folks devaluing media products. I think it's the market deciding that bubble gum pop is now worth as much as bubble gum. Whether that's a good thing or not, I think you and I agree on, isn't the question at hand.
The better question is: How do we bring value to media products. That's exactly what the 3D movement is about, bringing more value. That's not the answer, seemingly, so what is?
2) Then, isn't up to the producer to figure out how to make money in such a market? I know telling Trent Reznor and Radiohead that is easy, not so much for The Thrills, The Spinto Band or Bear vs. Shark.
The problem is that "media" is generally tied to the arbitrary realm of emotion. There's a reason that a Nissan Sentra and a BMW have a cost difference. We can't say the same about Dr. Dog and Justin Bieber.
We are trying to price and value esoteric ideas of worth, that's a problem I admit. And now it's impossible to regulate.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 11/26/12 at 4:38 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
How do we bring value to media products
I don't think bringing more value is the answer, people want a cost reduction. They want the studios to take a risk and cut the cord from the guaranteed money and bundling they get from cable companies and go direct to the consumers, or at least use cheaper middlemen like NetFlix.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 4:54 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
1) But who decides cost? It's a core business principal that is thrown into chaos because of both the internet and the idea of "media" in the first place. Cost is negotiated between the consumer and producer (in most non-subsidized instances).
The market does. But the biggest error artists ever made was giving things away for free on the internet in its early days. We have, essentially, a free internet including virtually all content. You can't put the genie back in the bottle and try and charge people for it. It's free ice cream.
Hey, that's what happens. But the moral arguments for it just make me sick: we liked getting free shite and now we don't want to pay for it, even armed with the knowledge artists are getting paid virtually nothing. We don't care. We, as consumers, have no moral values other than the lowest cost point. I think that's sad. That's how capitalism works, so I wouldn't advocate any kind of interference in the market, but let's not try and dress this up as anything what it is: we expect musicians and writers to give us their work for free.
quote:
2) Then, isn't up to the producer to figure out how to make money in such a market?
Yes, it is. And they do. but we also don't need to keep stacking the deck against them like recalculating how we pay royalties on streaming media to further screw them. Or coming up with arbitrary and bizarre IP laws which protect media conglomerates like Disney but not artists like, for example, Jack Kirby. I'm not saying Kirby deserves all of Marvel's profits or anything, but the fact he has no control over his creations, and made virtually no money on it, is pretty sad. Stan Lee should cut him a million dollar check every year out of guilt.
Things costs what they cost. And yes, it is up to producers to find a way to make a living. but it is undeniable it is growing increasingly difficult, especially in music, and a big part of it is the diminunization of artists into content producers.
I pay for more my media because I want the artist to get paid, and make more of it. I wish more people felt that way, but they clearly do not.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 5:11 pm to northshorebamaman
First, I want to say great thread. Although this has been touched upon on this board before, this time it seems to have been fleshed out better.
My stance: Downloading is stealing if you are avoiding seeing a movie to save money. e.g. getting a cam version of a movie out in the theaters. It's not stealing if you want to watch the movie that you've already seen in the theaters. I guess I'm from the stance of I watch with intent to buy. If I download a film I keep it if it's good enough. If I watch it again, or feel like I could watch it again I will buy it. I buy it because it's physical it's there and I show my appreciation for it.
I don't think any poster here downloads music or movies and doesn't buy the product of that artist if they really like them. They'd go to the concerts, they'd buy the merch or the disks or DVDs.
I think this all comes down to your personal views as the courts don't see anything wrong.
My stance: Downloading is stealing if you are avoiding seeing a movie to save money. e.g. getting a cam version of a movie out in the theaters. It's not stealing if you want to watch the movie that you've already seen in the theaters. I guess I'm from the stance of I watch with intent to buy. If I download a film I keep it if it's good enough. If I watch it again, or feel like I could watch it again I will buy it. I buy it because it's physical it's there and I show my appreciation for it.
I don't think any poster here downloads music or movies and doesn't buy the product of that artist if they really like them. They'd go to the concerts, they'd buy the merch or the disks or DVDs.
I think this all comes down to your personal views as the courts don't see anything wrong.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 5:14 pm to Pectus
quote:You're a glass half full guy aren't you?
I don't think any poster here downloads music or movies and doesn't buy the product of that artist if they really like them.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 5:33 pm to Baloo
quote:
The market does. But the biggest error artists ever made was giving things away for free on the internet in its early days. We have, essentially, a free internet including virtually all content. You can't put the genie back in the bottle and try and charge people for it. It's free ice cream.
Hey, that's what happens. But the moral arguments for it just make me sick: we liked getting free shite and now we don't want to pay for it, even armed with the knowledge artists are getting paid virtually nothing. We don't care. We, as consumers, have no moral values other than the lowest cost point. I think that's sad. That's how capitalism works, so I wouldn't advocate any kind of interference in the market, but let's not try and dress this up as anything what it is: we expect musicians and writers to give us their work for free.
Personally, my morals shift for that very reason. Probably not a good perspective to have but I feel I would miss out on so much if I didn't download/pirate at least a little.
I can almost say that my entire current taste in music was driven, at least in part, by being able to find anything as soon as I heard about it and listen to it in full.
Now, when I say shift, I almost have no moral issue downloading the Beatles. But I wouldn't download Dr. Dog (unless it's a concert rip). That goes for any modern mid-level or below act. Maybe that's wrong of me. Morally speaking, it's the same, but it's hard to care when there's only one person left who gets the money anyways. And does he even need it?
Movies are probably a different thing. Same goes for books.
quote:
Yes, it is. And they do. but we also don't need to keep stacking the deck against them like recalculating how we pay royalties on streaming media to further screw them. Or coming up with arbitrary and bizarre IP laws which protect media conglomerates like Disney but not artists like, for example, Jack Kirby. I'm not saying Kirby deserves all of Marvel's profits or anything, but the fact he has no control over his creations, and made virtually no money on it, is pretty sad. Stan Lee should cut him a million dollar check every year out of guilt.
Agree completely. So what should the consumer do? How can they hurt the giant companies the most?
quote:
Things costs what they cost. And yes, it is up to producers to find a way to make a living. but it is undeniable it is growing increasingly difficult, especially in music, and a big part of it is the diminunization of artists into content producers.
I pay for more my media because I want the artist to get paid, and make more of it. I wish more people felt that way, but they clearly do not.
Does that go for all mediums? What about the difference between ad-supported tv and music, that's a huge gap in problems there.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 5:43 pm to Freauxzen
honestly what they need to do is just start making all TV shows on networks available online free for the consumer, with ads (like what networks do now with recent episodes of shows)
For instance, I hadn't been able to watch Modern Family so far this season until last week. Since the older episodes were unavailable on ABC.com I streamed them from a 3rd party site until I got to episodes that were on ABC.com and I watched them there.
Usually the feeds from the network websites are better quality and faster load times, it's worth having to watch a 30 second commercial every 15 mins IMO...
Honestly if networks made all their shows, old or new episodes, available on their website I'd watch all my TV online that way, even with the ads
For instance, I hadn't been able to watch Modern Family so far this season until last week. Since the older episodes were unavailable on ABC.com I streamed them from a 3rd party site until I got to episodes that were on ABC.com and I watched them there.
Usually the feeds from the network websites are better quality and faster load times, it's worth having to watch a 30 second commercial every 15 mins IMO...
Honestly if networks made all their shows, old or new episodes, available on their website I'd watch all my TV online that way, even with the ads
Posted on 11/26/12 at 7:26 pm to Tiger1242
quote:You wouldn't buy the DVDs.
Honestly if networks made all their shows, old or new episodes, available on their website
Posted on 11/26/12 at 7:40 pm to alajones
quote:
You wouldn't buy the DVDs.
I don't buy the DVD's now...
That's my point, why would I buy a DVD when I can watch anything I want on my computer? Why not instead stream them all on your websites and charge companies to advertise?
Posted on 11/26/12 at 8:01 pm to alajones
Ecactly! It took three pages before someone raised one of the most important issues! I pay for all my downloads and require my kids to do the same (at least that is what I have taught them!). Of course, it is an unfortuante aspect of human nature that we can rationalize most anything if it is in our own best interest.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 8:12 pm to islandtiger
what constitutes stealing in your mind?
torrents?
making tapes from songs playing on the radio?
ripping your DVD or CD to your PC so you can enjoy the convenience of not having to go dig through your DVD every time you want to watch it?
how about that gigantic shoe box of cassette tapes and 8-tracks you own in the attic? are you justified in downloading a FLAC of the japanese limited edition DARK SIDE OF THE MOON because you own an old LP or 8track of it?
downloading the walking dead episode torrent from sunday night because of fricking rain fade and DISH didn't record it to your DVR or Obama was on tv and so your recording failed to properly grab the tv show you've already paid for?
what about checking out a DVD from the public library and watching it without paying for it? is that stealing?
'stealing media' is a bullshite argument made by the RIAA and MPAA to instill some puritian sense of guilt about doing something that is really not a crime except in the minds of greedy industry lawyers.
please rebut any of my points.
torrents?
making tapes from songs playing on the radio?
ripping your DVD or CD to your PC so you can enjoy the convenience of not having to go dig through your DVD every time you want to watch it?
how about that gigantic shoe box of cassette tapes and 8-tracks you own in the attic? are you justified in downloading a FLAC of the japanese limited edition DARK SIDE OF THE MOON because you own an old LP or 8track of it?
downloading the walking dead episode torrent from sunday night because of fricking rain fade and DISH didn't record it to your DVR or Obama was on tv and so your recording failed to properly grab the tv show you've already paid for?
what about checking out a DVD from the public library and watching it without paying for it? is that stealing?
'stealing media' is a bullshite argument made by the RIAA and MPAA to instill some puritian sense of guilt about doing something that is really not a crime except in the minds of greedy industry lawyers.
please rebut any of my points.
This post was edited on 11/26/12 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 11/26/12 at 8:23 pm to CAD703X
it is also dishonest to assume that downloaded media would have been paid for in the 1st place.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 9:00 pm to CAD703X
quote:
how about that gigantic shoe box of cassette tapes and 8-tracks you own in the attic? are you justified in downloading a FLAC of the japanese limited edition DARK SIDE OF THE MOON because you own an old LP or 8track of it?
Seriously?
quote:
downloading the walking dead episode torrent from sunday night because of fricking rain fade and DISH didn't record it to your DVR or Obama was on tv and so your recording failed to properly grab the tv show you've already paid for?
Unfortunately, your personal inconvenience doesn't override the law in this case.
quote:
what about checking out a DVD from the public library and watching it without paying for it? is that stealing?
Libraries abide by the law, and everything they lend to patrons has been properly licensed.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 9:06 pm to Spock's Eyebrow
i don't think we are talking about the law, we are talking about the morality around it
Posted on 11/26/12 at 9:28 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
i don't think we are talking about the law, we are talking about the morality around it
In that case, I'd only change my second answer.
Posted on 11/26/12 at 9:29 pm to Spock's Eyebrow
quote:
Unfortunately, your personal inconvenience doesn't override the law in this case.
Of course, but really is it morally reprehensible to steal something you pay for but missed because of draconian access issues?
Posted on 11/27/12 at 9:09 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Of course, but really is it morally reprehensible to steal something you pay for but missed because of draconian access issues?
DING DING DING
the lines are so blurred here its ridiculous.
you've hit the nail on the head. 'draconian access issues' is simply a new way to describe planned obselescene..album to 8track to cassette to CD to crippled 128k iTune songs....its all the same fricking game to get you to pay over and over and over for the same fricking song you've now bought 10x.
i literally have 3 albums, 3 cassette tapes, 3 CDs..and a '3 CD collectible' of the same 3 disks as we speak. WTF i was a stupid a-hole
and now i should feel bad because i'm torrenting files someone else with a much better PC and ripping tools took the time to rip those same songs in a FLAC format with GORGEOUS hi-res rips of the artwork and detailed metadata?
frick YOU RIAA
who's the crook again?
all we're talking about is *QUALITY*. spotify gives you access to any song any time for free more or less..but if i want a copy in the format of MY choosing..that's wrong.
SO AS LONG AS I HAVE A GOOD DATA CONNECTION OR LIVE IN A BIG CITY I CAN ENJOY MUSIC BUT IF I LIVE IN A RURAL AREA WITH SPOTTY DATA I CAN'T??? WTF BIZARO WORLD IS THIS?
same goes for DISH/Direct/Comcast TV's shitty DVR product. they promise the ability to record your favorite shows..yet due to a combination of rain fade or incorrect guides or football games that run long, many times you fail to get the product YOU HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
why is it wrong to grab a copy of a tv show you've already paid for from somewhere on the web and watch it?
if the whole DRM shite wasn't such..well..shite..then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
frick ITUNES. transcopymanager lets me drag mp3s on and off my kids' ipods without any DRM bullshite interference.
again, you fix your fricking product..let me move files around on my damn mp3 player or phone like i should be able to without jumping through hoops that either degrade the sound quality or flat out frick my PC up having to install your BLOATWARE and i'll be legal.
btw, i fricking pay for dish, cellphone data, comcast internet, netflix and lots of redbox movies so its not like hollywood doesn't have their fricking claws into me already...so they're going to make me feel like a crimminal because AMC and DISH are having a pissy party and they've yanked the channel from me so i went somewhere else to get the BREAKING BAD EPISODES i already paid for???
who's the crook here?
This post was edited on 11/27/12 at 9:47 am
Posted on 11/27/12 at 9:57 am to CAD703X
quote:
CAD703X
excellent rant!
Posted on 11/27/12 at 10:07 am to CAD703X
you are a cad
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News