Stop buying music and movies!

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Sorry NS1, but that's a bad example. The porn industry isn't against piracy as much as RIAA/MPAA, because they see that it benefits them. They don't promote piracy obviously, but when people pirate porn and find stuff they like they are more likely to get porn from that site/company. They will also share it with friends, and the more the company/girl/video is known the more sales they see. The porn industry is a bit different than music/movies/games.

Well if the MPAA and RIAA put out highly desireable content, then the model should work for them as well.

With PC games for example, I usually wont buy a PC game without at least downloading it and trying it out first. If it sucks, then I uninstall and forget about it. But I've bought dozens of games in the last few years. Am I stealing, maybe. But like the porn example above it's directly lead to the purchase of more games then I would if I didn't try them out first.

 

[DrPizza]

xkcd on the topic

I agree with the arguments about DRM. It doesn't stop piraters & only harms legitimate consumers.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Sorry NS1, but that's a bad example. The porn industry isn't against piracy as much as RIAA/MPAA, because they see that it benefits them. They don't promote piracy obviously, but when people pirate porn and find stuff they like they are more likely to get porn from that site/company. They will also share it with friends, and the more the company/girl/video is known the more sales they see. The porn industry is a bit different than music/movies/games.

I think that may have been true a few years ago, but nowadays you can find ANYTHING porn related with a few google searches.

I swear, rapidshare/megaupload ONLY exist for the purpose of pirating porn.

//edit

Actually, I will agree with you as far as TGP's and whatnot goes, but why buy when you can dl entire clips/sites?

Oh I agree, but the point I was making simply was that the porn industry model of business is different than RIAA/MPAA. The porn industry decided that even though some losses from pirates stealing porn, they would get a benefit from that person's word of mouth type advertising.

Originally posted by: TallBill


Well if the MPAA and RIAA put out highly desireable content, then the model should work for them as well.

With PC games for example, I usually wont buy a PC game without at least downloading it and trying it out first. If it sucks, then I uninstall and forget about it. But I've bought dozens of games in the last few years. Am I stealing, maybe. But like the porn example above it's directly lead to the purchase of more games then I would if I didn't try them out first.

While I still believe you are "stealing", I would much rather you download something to try then if you like it buy it.

A great personal example for me is STALKER and Bioshock (although Bioshock I plan to play through at some point). I got both because they were so highly hyped and rated, but after buying and installing I didn't ever play again after the first few hours. Granted I do plan to finish Bioshock at some point, I still got these games because they were "great". If I had tried them prior to buying I most likely wouldn't have (or would have gotten them a few months later).

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I'm not going to adjust to the MPAA's business model. The MPAA is going to have to adjust to my model if they want my money. Its that simple.

This.

I sincerely hope Netflix (or someone else) figures out a way to make every new release downloadable -- both HD and DVD -- for a reasonable flat monthly fee. If/when they do, I'll sign up for life and forgo physical media (*cough* newsgroups *cough*) altogether.

As for music, there's not much worth listening to these days that I don't already have. Most new music just plain sucks, or the bands are small and I just buy their CD's at the shows...

Fuck the MPAA and RIAA.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I legally "try before I buy" using Netflix for movies and Napster for music. For games I rely on demos and reviews.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: ParticleMan

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe consumers should stop stealing?

150 year copyright steals from the public domain and DRM steals from fair use.

Searching

(insert movie/band/song/program here) + rapidshare + forums OR

(insert movie/band/song/program here) + torrent

On google shows you just how much consumers give a shit.




I agree with fair use; I also agree that (artists not companies) should be paid fairly for their work.

edited; To show who should be paid for their hard work.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I guess I didn't even mention the music industry, but they are in need of change as well. Trent Reznor was able to satisfy all my requirements when he released Ghosts I-IV online. He had Ghosts I released for free in a lower quality mp3 file, had the whole album available in high quality mp3s and CD quality lossless flac, and even put up 24bit 96khz lossless flac. All albums were tagged and included album art. And best of all, he only charged $5 for his album and made $1.6 million in the first week his released it. The only advertising he had were online sites like digg and slashdot. This is how I want to buy my music. Except what would be nice is if I had an account and I could redownload my album at any time after buying it (I think he allowed his). small article

Ghosts I-IV wasn't even a normal release album. It just contained tracks from Reznor playing around with different musical instruments. Reznor made so much money that he put up his next album, The Slip, for free on his site before you could get it in stores. A flac rip was included.

I just wanted to echo how awesome this was. Even before this Trent had the multitracks from a lot of his album releases plus most (all?) of the songs from his remix albums posted on his website. Plus there's the slew of fan remixes that are hosted there as well, a lot of which are very good. Here is an artist that wants people to enjoy his music, encourages people to alter and remix his music, doesn't treat fans like criminals, and makes a butt load of money in the process.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I guess I didn't even mention the music industry, but they are in need of change as well. Trent Reznor was able to satisfy all my requirements when he released Ghosts I-IV online. He had Ghosts I released for free in a lower quality mp3 file, had the whole album available in high quality mp3s and CD quality lossless flac, and even put up 24bit 96khz lossless flac. All albums were tagged and included album art. And best of all, he only charged $5 for his album and made $1.6 million in the first week his released it. The only advertising he had were online sites like digg and slashdot. This is how I want to buy my music. Except what would be nice is if I had an account and I could redownload my album at any time after buying it (I think he allowed his). small article

Ghosts I-IV wasn't even a normal release album. It just contained tracks from Reznor playing around with different musical instruments. Reznor made so much money that he put up his next album, The Slip, for free on his site before you could get it in stores. A flac rip was included.

I just wanted to echo how awesome this was. Even before this Trent had the multitracks from a lot of his album releases plus most (all?) of the songs from his remix albums posted on his website. Plus there's the slew of fan remixes that are hosted there as well, a lot of which are very good. Here is an artist that wants people to enjoy his music, encourages people to alter and remix his music, doesn't treat fans like criminals, and makes a butt load of money in the process.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I guess I didn't even mention the music industry, but they are in need of change as well. Trent Reznor was able to satisfy all my requirements when he released Ghosts I-IV online. He had Ghosts I released for free in a lower quality mp3 file, had the whole album available in high quality mp3s and CD quality lossless flac, and even put up 24bit 96khz lossless flac. All albums were tagged and included album art. And best of all, he only charged $5 for his album and made $1.6 million in the first week his released it. The only advertising he had were online sites like digg and slashdot. This is how I want to buy my music. Except what would be nice is if I had an account and I could redownload my album at any time after buying it (I think he allowed his). small article

Ghosts I-IV wasn't even a normal release album. It just contained tracks from Reznor playing around with different musical instruments. Reznor made so much money that he put up his next album, The Slip, for free on his site before you could get it in stores. A flac rip was included.

I just wanted to echo how awesome this was. Even before this Trent had the multitracks from a lot of his album releases plus most (all?) of the songs from his remix albums posted on his website. Plus there's the slew of fan remixes that are hosted there as well, a lot of which are very good. Here is an artist that wants people to enjoy his music, encourages people to alter and remix his music, doesn't treat fans like criminals, and makes a butt load of money in the process.

That is because he actually can create music, and is a true artist. Most of the bands now just play the same shit that has been recycled, because they cannot (or won't) produce unique music. If bands were forced to follow a similar business model as TR, a lot of them wouldn't be successful because of their lack of original works.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ParticleMan

Originally posted by: Ns1

Maybe consumers should stop stealing?

150 year copyright steals from the public domain and DRM steals from fair use.

BULLSHIT! Post again AFTER you've created valuable intellectual property and watched as others stole it from you. :thumbsdown: :|

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Ns1
.
.
I agree with fair use; I also agree that (artists not companies) should be paid fairly for their work.

edited; To show who should be paid for their hard work.

Are you another ethically challenged parasite, or do you think "companies" don't pay for the cost of producing, packaging and marketing artists and delivering their creative products? :roll:

 

[imported_dgingeri]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: ParticleMan

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe consumers should stop stealing?

150 year copyright steals from the public domain and DRM steals from fair use.

Searching

(insert movie/band/song/program here) + rapidshare + forums OR

(insert movie/band/song/program here) + torrent

On google shows you just how much consumers give a shit.




I agree with fair use; I also agree that (artists not companies) should be paid fairly for their work.

edited; To show who should be paid for their hard work.

I agree. the Artists (musicians, singers, actors, screenwriters, directors, songwriters, gaffers, cameramen, caterers, etc. in other words: the ones who actually work hard to bring us good stuff.) should be well paid for their contributions. I have no qualms with that. As a matter of fact, I like that. I pay for all my movies and music. I even pay for the DVD's of the TV shows I like to watch. In my opinion, it makes them know that what they've made is appreciated, and they should make more like it.

Instead, I get threats about my IP address being used to share Rap songs that I don't listen to and certainly have not shared. The IP address lease is from before I even moved to my apartment in Denver. their "evidence" isn't even halfway believable if you know anything about technology. Yet, I still have to pay a lawyer to get it to go away. It's just not right.

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

 

[Ns1]

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ParticleMan

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe consumers should stop stealing?

150 year copyright steals from the public domain and DRM steals from fair use.

Two wrongs make a right? Horray!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

And there are certainly bigger fish to fry than a woman who uploaded 24 songs....

Go after the uploaders from top down. That will get you much further than going after the downloaders. If the content isn't available to download, that issue will resolve itself. The content has to be there to be able to download it, so go after the ones who share it.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ns1

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

And there are certainly bigger fish to fry than a woman who uploaded 24 songs....

Go after the uploaders from top down. That will get you much further than going after the downloaders. If the content isn't available to download, that issue will resolve itself. The content has to be there to be able to download it, so go after the ones who share it.

I don't have a problem with that either.


Disclaimer: I work for a major entertainment company. In financial reporting no less...

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ns1

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

And there are certainly bigger fish to fry than a woman who uploaded 24 songs....

Go after the uploaders from top down. That will get you much further than going after the downloaders. If the content isn't available to download, that issue will resolve itself. The content has to be there to be able to download it, so go after the ones who share it.

I don't have a problem with that either.


Disclaimer: I work for a major entertainment company. In financial reporting no less...

Oh so we should send all of our RIAA hate mail to you?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
I'm not going to adjust to the MPAA's business model. The MPAA is going to have to adjust to my model if they want my money. Its that simple.

This.

I sincerely hope Netflix (or someone else) figures out a way to make every new release downloadable -- both HD and DVD -- for a reasonable flat monthly fee. If/when they do, I'll sign up for life and forgo physical media (*cough* newsgroups *cough*) altogether.

As for music, there's not much worth listening to these days that I don't already have. Most new music just plain sucks, or the bands are small and I just buy their CD's at the shows...

Fuck the MPAA and RIAA.

Totally agree. I stopped going to the movies when it was $20-ish for a new release plus soda/popcorn only to wind up sitting amongst a bunch of immature tools who spoil the experience. I decided I'd wait for the DVD release and had 300+ before I realized I did more lending to family/friends than I re-watched myself. I quit buying them around 4-5 years ago, the only exception being the rare *great* movie that is both a good deal and has replay value. Now I spend $20/month on a BlockBuster subscription that gives me more movies than I have time to watch.

IMO the price of CD's is a joke. I don't mind buying a release from one of my top 5 favorite artists but outside of that I'm not going to spend $15 or whatever on a CD with a couple of good songs. I've got plenty of stuff I like and don't miss the new stuff because I can listen to them on the radio or borrow from a friend.

 

[Ns1]

Oh so we should send all of our RIAA hate mail to you?

I work on the movie side, but music/movies work the same way from a financial reporting perspective

 

[imported_dgingeri]

Originally posted by: Ns1

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

I didn't upload, or download, anything at all.

Once, a very long time ago, about 2001, I tried downloading a couple songs because I couldn't get a decent rip of a CD I had purchased, twice. The first one was so worn out, I had to buy a second one.

The fact of the matter is that they caught someone making several Rap songs available through a torrent nearly 3 years ago. They gather their evidence, then ask Comcast who has the IP address about 6 months ago. The sharing happened while I was living in Littleton, and my connection was on a totally different subnet. in the mean time, I move to Denver, and replace my cable modem twice and my router once due to hardware failures, and then I get sent this letter than they want to sue me to for sharing music.

It wasn't me, but they certainly don't care. Instead, I am getting stuck with having to pay for a major retainer fee and lawyer costs just to defend myself. They won't listen to me. They want to talk to another lawyer. I'm guilty and punished without even a trial.

I barely make enough to pay for my car and apartment. I can't lay out $2500 just for this lawyer to talk to these guys once to et them to back off. Yet, I'm going to have to pay $300 a month to this lawyer for the next 10 months to do just that, 10% of my income. I even have to pay an extra $500 for interest to pay for it over time.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: dgingeri

Originally posted by: Ns1

The lawyers and executives of major movie and music studios don't deserve 1/10 of the money they get. Their lawsuits aren't do anyone any good except for them. the artists certainly get nothing from it. They need to stop. They need to be stopped.

If you don't want to pay the studios fees, go independent and see how far THAT gets you. You are PAYING FOR A SERVICE.

//edit

I don't agree with studios suing people who DOWNLOAD songs/movies. I think they should sue the fuck out of people who UPLOAD songs/movies

I didn't upload, or download, anything at all.

Once, a very long time ago, about 2001, I tried downloading a couple songs because I couldn't get a decent rip of a CD I had purchased, twice. The first one was so worn out, I had to buy a second one.

The fact of the matter is that they caught someone making several Rap songs available through a torrent nearly 3 years ago. They gather their evidence, then ask Comcast who has the IP address about 6 months ago. The sharing happened while I was living in Littleton, and my connection was on a totally different subnet. in the mean time, I move to Denver, and replace my cable modem twice and my router once due to hardware failures, and then I get sent this letter than they want to sue me to for sharing music.

It wasn't me, but they certainly don't care. Instead, I am getting stuck with having to pay for a major retainer fee and lawyer costs just to defend myself. They won't listen to me. They want to talk to another lawyer. I'm guilty and punished without even a trial.

I barely make enough to pay for my car and apartment. I can't lay out $2500 just for this lawyer to talk to these guys once to et them to back off. Yet, I'm going to have to pay $300 a month to this lawyer for the next 10 months to do just that, 10% of my income. I even have to pay an extra $500 for interest to pay for it over time.

1 word for you, outlier

bigger response later during my lunch break

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Who *buys* media nowadays anyway?

/ducks

I do. I understand the fact that many of the products won't be made if the consumers don't fund their creation. I do have a bad habit of skipping commercials on the DVR, though.

 

[Blayze]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Who *buys* media nowadays anyway?

/ducks

I still buy DVDs all the time. Although its been a few years since I've bought a CD.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Who *buys* media nowadays anyway?

/ducks

I do. I understand the fact that many of the products won't be made if the consumers don't fund their creation. I do have a bad habit of skipping commercials on the DVR, though.

I think statistically people end up watching MORE commercials because they end up watching more tv with DVR.

Not sure where I read that though.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Oh so we should send all of our RIAA hate mail to you?

I work on the movie side, but music/movies work the same way from a financial reporting perspective

Oh okay so our MPAA hate mail goes to you, got it

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Who *buys* media nowadays anyway?

/ducks

I do. I understand the fact that many of the products won't be made if the consumers don't fund their creation. I do have a bad habit of skipping commercials on the DVR, though.

I think statistically people end up watching MORE commercials because they end up watching more tv with DVR.

Not sure where I read that though.

Except for the FF part of DVR I would agree with you