re: Why is it ok to steal media?

quote:

---

I'm interested in hearing someone who steals most of their shite online explain how they are better than a common thief

---

did you physically steal the "shite" from the "man" depriving him of his personal property?

i thought theft was defined as taking something.

if having a copy of something is illegal then why does staples sell blank cassette tapes, blank CDs and blank VHS tapes?

how do you define 'possession'? why is making a copy of a CD you checked out from the library so you can watch it later wrong yet Microsoft and Apple prompt you to 'rip' the CD as soon as you put it into the PC?

should they first display a prompt 'did you check this CD out of the library or did you borrow this from your buddy Bob?' and then you can say 'yes' and it will prevent copying?

why is copying tv shows to your DVR's hard drive ok but copying them onto your computer's hard drive not ok?

don't you have a copy of the tv show either way?

quote:

---

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

---

Well, you were stupid to buy something repackaged, but let's take that example of you buying media in three forms. You paid, at most, $15 a pop for each, meaning you've paid $45. If we're going back to albums and cassettes, chances are high you're in your late 30s or early 40s. But let's say you've had these albums for 30 years. That means, you have shelled at $45 for 30 years of an album. You want a perpetual license to the music, transferable across all media for $10. $10 for a lifetime license to do anything you want with the recording, and you think it's unreasonable that RIAA opposes that? If you want a permanent license that you even argue is transferable to other people, you are asking for something more valuable than a $10 one time charge. Even the $45 you have spent comes down to about a $1.50 licensing fee per year, which may be a bit high, but not if you get the freedom to literally do whatever you want with the recording, including give it away for no fee.

Look, the record industry has screwed us for years, so I'm not exactly weeping tears for them. Remember when they drove prices of CD's to $18.99? Yeah, so do I. And they weren't above taking advantage of consumers and their artists, so I don't want to say I think the recording industry is either blameless or saintly. They're pretty rotten as well. But given a chance, consumers have screwed over artists a billion times worse than Warner Brothers ever could have dreamed of.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, i get it. You want both the highest in quality and unlimited rights, yet you don't want to pay for it. It is shocking that media distributors do not agree with your perfectly reasonable position that you get high quality recordings in high quantities, you retain all rights to transfer it to other people and other formats, and you pay next to nothing for it.

Indie bands literally made more money by pressing a record themselves and selling a hard copy by mail to maybe a 1000 people than by having half a million people download their material on the internet.

There is no incentive for bands to put their music online other than A) record companies force them and B) goodwill. Since you don't give them goodwill, artists really should pull all of their material off of iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, hell even CD's at this point. All of it. Just press an old fashioned record and at least you'd be able to make rent. There is no monetary incentive to innovate for artists. And they are beginning to figure that out, which is why some indie acts are pulling their catalogs from these services if they can wrest control from the record companies.

I don't think it's unreasonable that artists ask to get paid for their efforts. And now that they are literally making $20 a month off of half a million plays (split amongst the band!), they actually have an incentive to not put their material online.

musicians and writers are the only two professionals expected to give their work for free, and viewed as unreasonable assholes when A) they want to exert some control over their creation and B) to get paid a reasonable amount.

quote:

---

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.

---

And really, how often does this happen? I use a DVR, record a lot of shows, and I have only failed to get a recording a handful of times. Every DVR I'm aware of has a feature to allow you to record extra time in case of the football game going long. But you use this incredibly flimsy excuse as moral justification to download, for free, every show ever created at the highest possible quality.

And you have the gall to say its the industry's fault? You are just coming up with excuses to not pay for things.

And, look, I do agree that the policy of "embargoing" works is terrible and encourages people to find illegal/unethical ways to get the product. Remember when we didn't have every movie ever made on video or DVD? I grew up in an era of the "Lost Hitchcocks", when there were five films that you simply couldn't see. and not obscure titles, it was The Trouble With Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Rear Window, Rope and Vertigo.

We have more access than we've ever had before, and this is a good thing. The only way to see Apocalypse Now before VCR's was to wait until it was aired on TV.

But in this era of extreme access at remarkably high quality, I don't think it's crazy that people get paid for their work.

quote:

---

There is no incentive for bands to put their music online other than A) record companies force them and B) goodwill. Since you don't give them goodwill, artists really should pull all of their material off of iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, hell even CD's at this point. All of it. Just press an old fashioned record and at least you'd be able to make rent. There is no monetary incentive to innovate for artists. And they are beginning to figure that out, which is why some indie acts are pulling their catalogs from these services if they can wrest control from the record companies.

---

I fully support this. I'm not sure if it makes sense but I agree with both CAD and Baloo.

The game HAS to change, that means someone's got to give, and I really think it's up to the artist to that in this instance. If the cards are stacked against them, if they CAN'T make money making music in this day and age, then they have to find a way to do that.

In the current climate, you can't. It's impossible under the rules.

So the only way out, stop it all. Just stop. What would happen if there were no new music? Reset the system and try again to find a happy medium.



Baloo -

Just a question, does this really hur the indie band all that much. Most of the times solid indie bands were screwed anyway. Their fans are good enough, for the most part, to purchase and see them in concert. Many times they don't rely on record sales anyway. I think this is more about the mid-tiered artist than the complete low level indie or the uber-popular Pop artists.

quote:

---

if they CAN'T make money making music in this day and age

---

when did artists actually "make money" from selling CDs. from what i unstood artists have always made next to nothing from selling an album and make their money from concerts. the only time artists actually made a lot of money was if they were selling in the gold or platinum range and if thats true then they were selling out arenas for concerts

First of all, what CAD and a lot you sound like the Veruca Salts of internet age downloaders. I want it NOW DADDY!

The internet has totally spoiled all of you. In the 80's, you had to go see the movie, or wait six months for it to come out on video and then rent the movie.

You heard good music on the radio, you either sat around listening to the radio with your blank tape, or you found a friend with it, or you just bought the damn thing.

As far as musicians and songwriters not making money, cry me a river. Shreveport is full of musicians, actors, artists, etc. who are never going to be millionaires. Get a real job like everyone else. I get where you are coming from Baloo. I've seen numerous posts of your concerning this subject and I get it. Musicians are the ones really getting screwed in this war. Adapt with the times or GTFO. No one is crying for the horse and buggy makers or VCR repairmen.

As far as the rest of you...it's still illegal. Wah wah, I can't watch Walking Dead anytime I want to and on whatever device I want to. Oh woe is me.

I want an Oompa Loompa NOW DADDY!

quote:

---

Just a question, does this really hur the indie band all that much. Most of the times solid indie bands were screwed anyway. Their fans are good enough, for the most part, to purchase and see them in concert. Many times they don't rely on record sales anyway. I think this is more about the mid-tiered artist than the complete low level indie or the uber-popular Pop artists.

---

you're right. Indie fans are generally loyal enough to not rob their favorite bands blind. there was that article in Esquire that showed how even a successful indie band is not doing very well financially, but let's face it, Black Flag didn't live high on the hog either. The bands that don't really have a profit motive can at least survive for a few years before flaming out. Which is how it always was.

But it is the mid-tiered bands that are getting crushed. They simply don't exist anymore. Look at Aerosmith's career. It would be impossible today. they never, ever, ever would've made it to Toys in the Attic. They couldn't have survived those early years putting out moderate sellers on a major label. That doesn't happen now. It's the "middle class" who has been destroyed. They are also the ones least willing or able to pull their material. They have to play ball or starve.

Cult TV shows are able to stay on the air right now because they can sell DVD's despite poor ratings. It used to be syndication, but now its DVD sales.

While I agree TV distribution could be better, its probably the best its ever been. We get great shows and all are relatively easy to get. Many shows are available on Netflix streaming (except for HBO, which is its own kettle of fish). But if we want lavish HBO shows, we need to pay for it. I can't blame HBO for keeping Game of Thrones within their own universe so they can make money off of it. That show isn't made for free.

quote:

---

And as an ever-burgeoining (read: never finished anything important)writer, what is the answer?

---

Volume. Some of the $.99 cent authors on Amazon supposedly do very well.

quote:

---

Your comment about IT is spot on, the Internet made ideas and experience almost worthless.

---

The rules are different on the Internet. It's a very feast or famine media. If you can get the right exposure you'll do ridiculously well, if you can't get the exposure, you might as well not exist. If Baloo is right about how little money artists get from digital music then the answer may very well be to take the music off the services. Don't sign with a record label, use social media to market your band and sell your music directly from your website.

quote:

---

As far as musicians and songwriters not making money, cry me a river. Shreveport is full of musicians, actors, artists, etc. who are never going to be millionaires. Get a real job like everyone else. I get where you are coming from Baloo. I've seen numerous posts of your concerning this subject and I get it. Musicians are the ones really getting screwed in this war. Adapt with the times or GTFO. No one is crying for the horse and buggy makers or VCR repairmen.

---

No one is saying be a millionaire. I'm talking about being able to make a living at what is your job. And yes, this is their job. It's not a hobby. And no, not every person in Shreveport with a guitar gets to make a living at making music. But the point here is that none of them can ever hope to make a living at it. Zero. It's a pyramid with no pinnacle.

The VCR repairmen analogy breaks down because WE STILL CONSUME MUSIC. All that's changed is the distribution. If we stopped listening to music, okay, get another job, hippie. But we are buying their product, just in a different format, and that's supposed to make it okay to not pay the artist? It's like if we invented a flying car which used the internal combustion engine yet stopped paying people who worked on engines. Sorry buddy, this car no longer has wheels. You're obsolete.

quote:

---

It's also not that I WANT to live that way, but it's how we have to live (if you want to ask the bigger question). Given the amount of responsibilities that have also been tacked on to all of us because of the changes of instantly available everything, we are also pulled in all of those directions. We've fed the beast of impatience, and there's no turning back.

---

I do agree with Freaux here. Restricting the product is a terrible idea and anti-consumer. If there is no viable legal way to get the show, you either stop watching or steal it. The Oatmeal cartoon is perfectly apt. By refusing to put up a feed of Walking Dead, AMC is not only turning down money, they are begging people to get free copies behind their backs, cutting AMC out of the deal. DVR helps the problem, but I like to watch seasons in their entirety in one sitting. I actually wait for Breaking Bad to finish instead of watching it each week. It fits my viewing habits.

There is a balance between consumer and artist rights. But I do not support solutions which do not compensate the creators. I want them to get paid so they will keep making things I like.

quote:

---

I find it literally impossible to watch any show at air time. Impossible.

---

I'm in the same boat. My wife and I have several shows that we DVR. We do most of our primetime TV watching from 10-12 at night.

Another problem I see with this whole situation is perspective. We are currently discussing movies and TV on the internet. Which means we have a little bit of a clue about the Internet and are probably really into movies and TV if we go to the net to talk about it. Most people aren't like that.

If I can just talk out of my arse for a minute, I will. Now I dont' have any hibbity jibbity stats to support what I'm about to say like it's fact, but I really believe that we are in the minority and are expecting industries to change they way they do things just to suit our needs. But it is a situation like wine. Where 20% of the population drinks 80% of the wine. So does the wine industry go after everyone, or do they go after those 20%?

Right now, TV and Music are in an in between zone and are there are so many available ways for access and new ways of doing things every year there is no way to keep up. Who would have thought 10 years ago that we would be watching TV on our cell phones?

Everyone jus tneeds ot chill the frick out. The market will do what it does.

But it will never be free!

quote:

---

1) Accept that selling your music is a thing of the past. You are not going to make any significant money on the sales of albums or on plays on the streaming services.

2) Engage your fan base via your web site and various social media platforms

3) Sell merchandise. T-Shirts, posters, key chains, stickers, figurines, whatever.

4) Tour. Tour. Tour. This is where your money will be made.

---

1) Then you as a consumer must accept that you will be unable to buy it once the artists stop recording it.

2) Gee, no band does that now. They've never ever thought of that. Social media! What a great idea! People rake in big bucks giving away stuff on facebook!

3) Yes, instead of selling the thing you actually produce (music, writing, etc.), you should bring in a third party to sell merchandise for people who like the thing you actually produce. This is perhaps the dumbest business plan ever conceived.

4) While I agree music is meant to be experienced live, it also is hard to make a living just touring. You want artists to give up their revenue stream for recording and writing music, and think that a boost touring revenue will replace that? How? Isn't it better to diversify and have multiple revenue streams?

Your argument is one that artists should give away their most valuable commodity -- the permanent hi-fidelity recordings of their work -- away for nothing and hope they make it up in merchandising? That's insane.

If we're not willing to pay for recorded music, artists should stop making recordings. Consumers want something for nothing.