Save the music industry/Help economy - End Piracy!

[DAOS]

It seems like in 2011 piracy has become accepted.

At any given moment anyone could go on Craigslist and find at least ONE person selling fake programs.

I'm in the L.A. area and I see around 5 different ads everyday.

I think people need to be severely punished for stealing music programs and music in general.

We need to make examples out of a few, to effect the masses.

PUT A STOP TO PIRACY NOW.

no more sites for downloading free music (unless the artist agrees to it)

IF MUSIC IS FREE, IT HOLDS NO VALUE.
BRING VALUE BACK TO MUSIC.

(side note)
itunes needs to stop selling one song at a time.
People used to buy an album because they liked one song on it, then they were forced to listen to the rest of the songs on the album.

Now people buy a song and call it a day and move on to the next band/song/album.

This doesn't help.

[FoxMulderFBI]

I've been saying that since 2004, but nothing happens.

[Jay M]

I thought Steve Jobs saved the music industry. Are you saying that maybe he actually hurt it?

It doesn't affect me, I just watch / listen for free on YouTube.

[Squidy]

I agree about ending piracy. I don't agree with not being able to buy a single song off itunes though. I prefer to buy full albums but some don't. Besides if someone has to pay for a full album to hear one song for testing or for good memories sake etc they're just going to go "screw this" and go download it free. Most people won't pay for a full albums price for one song they want, if they had to it would actually encourage piracy.

Giving them the option of one song for one price gives their cheap arses a far better chance of buying it instead of downloading it free.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Gearslutz.com

[DAOS]

We as musicians/professionals need to take a stand and change the way things are.

[ivansc]

Originally Posted by DAOS

I
itunes needs to stop selling one song at a time.
People used to buy an album because they liked one song on it, then they were forced to listen to the rest of the songs on the album.

Now people buy a song and call it a day and move on to the next band/song/album.

This doesn't help.

But there again this has happened because of the number of albums that have been issued over the years with ONE or maybe two good songs on them and a bunch of filler.
You are complaining about people stealing music but what you are suggesting is just as dishonest.
Think about it.

[DAOS]

Well then maybe this is even better.

Albums with "filler" wont sell, so musicians will be forced to make better albums.

[Kiwi]

I suggest you also alert the criminal community and advise them to behave themselves and be nice to people.

That should work too.

OK - world peace restored. Back to making music for MONEY!!!!

[cinealta]

Tell the college kids with their university sponsored ultra broadband T1 lines, terabyte server storage farms and "whac a mole" peer-to-peer super networks able to freely distribute thousands of man-years worth of intellectual property within milliseconds.

[Mr. Shore]

I beleive hunger, invasion of suverign countries, enslavement thru financial predatory policies and many more viscious deeds are well accepted and being a norm in 2011. They're actually legalizied. He worries about downloading free songs off the net?! That's your concern? Really?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Kiwi

Back to making music for MONEY!!!!

Nope.
Back to making music for music, but being financially supported to make it one of your life priorities. If fans want better music, fans should be prepared to support the people making better music.

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by DAOS

IF MUSIC IS FREE, IT HOLDS NO VALUE.
BRING VALUE BACK TO MUSIC.

Mathematics is free. (Nobody owns the formulas for the area of a triangle or the equations for Einstein's General Relativity.)

Shakespeare is in the public domain and also free. (Copy entire text of Hamlet to your harddrive.)

The Louvre Museum in Paris has free admission the 1st Sunday of every month. (In other words, you can go see the Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo for free.)

Do any of these have value?
If "yes", why?
If "no", then music has the same challenges as the examples listed which means nothing has value.

[DAOS]

well mr. shore this is gearslutz, im here to talk music.


im simply trying to make a statement that I for 1 want a change.


If the U.S. justice system can put bank robbers behind bars, its time they start putting hackers away.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by Mr. Shore

I beleive hunger, invasion of suverign countries, enslavement thru financial predatory policies and many more viscious deeds are well accepted and being a norm in 2011. They're actually legalizied. He worries about downloading free songs off the net?! That's your concern? Really?

yes.

you don't download music illegally, do you?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Jason West

The Louvre Museum in Paris has free admission the 1st Sunday of every month. (In other words, you can go see the Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo for free.)

Do any of these have value?
If "yes", why?

The artworks themselves are worth millions.
You are granted access to them for free because the French government fund access, probably via taxation.
So no, none of it is free.
On the other sundays can you barge into the Louvre without paying? I doubt it.
So the key here is that you are granted permission on the first sunday of every month. Just as musicians are free to give permission to share their work without payment. But you aren't allowed to make that decision for them, like you can't decide to walk into the Louvre without paying on the second sunday of the month.

This is pretty basic commonsense isn't it???????

[DAOS]

Originally Posted by Jason West

Mathematics is free. (Nobody owns the formulas for the area of a triangle or the equations for Einstein's General Relativity.)

Shakespeare is in the public domain and also free. (Copy entire text of Hamlet to your harddrive.)

The Louvre Museum in Paris has free admission the 1st Sunday of every month. (In other words, you can go see the Mona Lisa and Venus de Milo for free.)

Do any of these have value?
If "yes", why?
If "no", then music has the same challenges as the examples listed which means nothing has value.

Artist intent.

If an artist wants to sell a product and that product is stolen and shared without the consent of the owner, that IMO is wrong.

[chrisso]

+1

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by chrisso

The artworks themselves are worth millions.
You are granted access to them for free because the French government fund access, probably via taxation.

But I visited as an American citizen. I didn't pay any French taxes for access to the Louvre. It is also free to all foreign visitors that don't pay French taxes (British, German, Chinese, etc).

This is pretty basic commonsense isn't it???????

The point is that in certain circumstances, the perception of the product (or service) is "free" or "devalued". How those circumstances come about behind the curtains (the French taxes) are irrelevant to me. I have only visited the Louvre for free. I have never paid for admission. Does it mean the Mona Lisa is worth less (or even worthless) to me? Possibly.

Artist intent.

No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.

[AwwDeOhh]

oh BS.

I noticed as i was walking by your house, that you let your neighbor borrow your lawnmower. I think i'll just walk into your garage and take it. While i'm there i'll grab whatever else i'd like...
See, i've only seen you giving your lawnmower to your neighbor for no payment.. it's my public perception that shit in your garage is free for the taking...
Right?

You see, there these things called Laws.
Break a law, get caught, you get punished.

There's been a massive hole in enforcement. This needs to be plugged immediately. Perceptions will change...

But I visited as an American citizen. I didn't pay any French taxes for access to the Louvre. It is also free to all foreign visitors that don't pay French taxes (British, German, Chinese, etc).

The point is that in certain circumstances, the perception of the product (or service) is "free" or "devalued". How those circumstances come about behind the curtains (the French taxes) are irrelevant to me. I have only visited the Louvre for free. I have never paid for admission. Does it mean the Mona Lisa is worth less (or even worthless) to me? Possibly.

No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

You see, there these things called Laws.
Break a law, get caught, you get punished.

There's been a massive hole in enforcement. This needs to be plugged immediately.

I wasn't speaking about the letter of the law. I was talking philosophically.

In any case, you cannot enforce against piracy of intellectual property. It's impossible. Some folks think it can be done at the ISP level by sniffing traffic 24/7 but for endless technical reasons, that won't work either.

Musicians, authors, artists all have a right to earn a living but it will have to be done in a way that can coexist with uncontrolled piracy. I believe a new revenue model will be invented that makes piracy irrelevant. Unfortunately, we (the industry) haven't figured it out yet.

Instead of fighting piracy -- find a way to make it irrelevant. This is the only realistic hope.

Perceptions will change...

And your evidence for this is?

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by Jason West

...
Instead of fighting piracy -- find a way to make it irrelevant. This is the only realistic hope.

And your evidence for this is?

Why are you arguing the point? You both agree perceptions need to change, the only difference being that he's more optimistic than you are.

[DAOS]

Originally Posted by Jason West

But I visited as an American citizen. I didn't pay any French taxes for access to the Louvre. It is also free to all foreign visitors that don't pay French taxes (British, German, Chinese, etc).



The point is that in certain circumstances, the perception of the product (or service) is "free" or "devalued". How those circumstances come about behind the curtains (the French taxes) are irrelevant to me. I have only visited the Louvre for free. I have never paid for admission. Does it mean the Mona Lisa is worth less (or even worthless) to me? Possibly.



No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.

Just like you have your opinion, I have mine, and I say NO.
NO I will not run and find a new way to make money with music.
I will use the laws in our lovely U.S.A. to FIGHT PIRACY.
There is enough man power to rid our airwaves of major piracy.

Its only a matter of time.

I'm sure enough good, honest, hard working people are affected by music piracy, to make a real change.

We need start change NOW..

Expel some of those college students uploading programs, put a few hundred people in jail and you'll start seeing a change.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Jason West

But I visited as an American citizen. I didn't pay any French taxes for access to the Louvre. It is also free to all foreign visitors that don't pay French taxes (British, German, Chinese, etc).

Come on man. So you stayed in a hotel in Paris, you ate at local restaurants. You contributed foreign exchange, and that's how the french government made back it's investment in one day's free viewing per month.
In any case, you simply can't say the artworks have no value, as they are valued in the millions of dollars. The fact is you were granted a free viewing, you didn't demand it any day of the week. This is key to the debate. Giving choice back to the people who own the art.

No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.

That's utterly and totally wrong.
The public perception is that gas prices, electricity, eating at a Michelin starred restaurant are also over-priced and hard to afford.
That's life bud. Whatever the 'public perception' the public [i]fact[/i[] is it's illegal to download music without permission.
What is more important - fact or perception?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

Why are you arguing the point? You both agree perceptions need to change, the only difference being that he's more optimistic than you are.

He's using mistruths and inaccurate 'fact' as the basis of his argument.
I'm pessimistic about the future for young musicians as things currently stand.
You and Jason may be optimistic, but then you at least have no stake in encouraging young musicians, but do have a stake in web access and large usage of data.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Jason West

No. Artists' intent is not enough against the tide of public perception (and technological progress). Basically, artists' intent is irrelevant even though we'd would wish it to be otherwise.

Public perception now governs what is theft? Well, I guess in the end everything including morals is merely defined by mass opinion. Only it DID matter a little while ago, otherwise Sting would have seen his "Don't stand so close to me" used in a deodorant advert after all. Perversely, today this would constitute not a problem, but people's ultimate goal, as then there will at least be a little money........oh dear oh dear.

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

... You and Jason may be optimistic ...

AwwdeOhh is the optimistic one, not Jason, and I expressed no opinion.

[Squidy]

Originally Posted by DAOS

Expel some of those college students uploading programs, put a few hundred people in jail and you'll start seeing a change.

Ahhh yes, because your USA jails aren't overcrowded enough as it is

[AwwDeOhh]

I'm not naive enough to believe piracy can be completely eliminated. But, i'm of the belief that it doesn't have to be completely eliminated to not be the major factor it is today.
A "good enough" solution is all that is needed. Keep honest people honest... let the hacker pukes do what they do, just keep it in their little circles..

Yes, public perceptions can definately change. And rather quickly, as these things go...

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

I'm not naive enough to believe piracy can be completely eliminated. But, i'm of the belief that it doesn't have to be completely eliminated to not be the major factor it is today.
A "good enough" solution is all that is needed. Keep honest people honest... let the hacker pukes do what they do, just keep it in their little circles..

Yes, public perceptions can definately change. And rather quickly, as these things go...

Hear hear!!

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

AwwdeOhh is the optimistic one, not Jason, and I expressed no opinion.

I dunno that i'd call it 'optimism'...
...it's more like:

A gang of bastards broke into my house and are threating me and my family's life.
I won't sit there with a fake smile on my face while my wife and children are being raped in the next room.
You'd damn well better kill me, because i'm not going out without a fight.