PDA

View Full Version : How do you feel about the possibility of "pirates" flocking to Linux?



joflow
November 15th, 2005, 06:43 PM
I'm sure you guys know all about Vista's DRM features such as PVP-OPM. If MS is successful in curving privacy on the windows platform (making hack-proof DRM...I know its not likely) then it only makes sense for all the internet movie and music pirates to move to linux where all of the "tool of the trade" are available minus the DRM.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, Linux could benefit alot from the huge increase in its user base. DRM would go against everything Linux and OSS stands for but is it ethnical to provide a safe haven for those seeking to break the law?

Kyral
November 15th, 2005, 06:47 PM
To some people Linux is already a synonym for "Criminal"

(I've seen articles like it, believe me)

earobinson
November 15th, 2005, 06:50 PM
my guess is that linux users allready pirate as much music and movies as windows users.

canadianwriterman
November 15th, 2005, 06:55 PM
While I have deep respect for GPL licencing and the concept of free software, I think that it has been a deliberate and philosophical choice for Linux and all associted with Linux. That said, "free" isn't everyone's choice. In the case of music and film artists, they have chosen NOT to work for free and I think we have to respect that.

I know that people on this forum are careful when pointing people to sources of codecs. Also, those codec sources often specify that you must not download and install if you live where their use is prohibited.

So.... it's all about choice. We're in Linux because we've chosen to support software freedom. Others have chosen a different route. If "pirates" use a Linux platform, theta's their choice. Who are we to judge... we don't want to become another Micro$oft.

earobinson
November 15th, 2005, 06:58 PM
So.... it's all about choice. We're in Linux because we've chosen to support software freedom. Others have chosen a different route. If "pirates" use a Linux platform, theta's their choice. Who are we to judge... we don't want to become another Micro$oft.

True but what about the legal problems that this could cause, if linux makes it to easy to rip/shair movies and music the music/movie indrustry might come after the developers, and that would hurt everyone

kabus
November 15th, 2005, 06:59 PM
The ethical/political/economical implications of DRM technology worry me far more than some kids downloading movies.

az
November 15th, 2005, 06:59 PM
I think that FLOSS is a great vehicle to increase awareness about free formats. The fact that Ubuntu does not ship with mp3 or any other proprietary format support is not only practical, but a statement.

No, DRM is not against the FLOSS philosophy. Artists' work is not something that should be free under all circumstances like the algorythms and thoughts that lead to the development of software. They are two different things.

mstlyevil
November 15th, 2005, 06:59 PM
If you use Sony's definition, everyone is a pirate. Thankfully there is still laws on the books like the Fair Use law that will limit DRM once the courts sort out the mess tha MS,Sony and DRM are causing.

DRM only affects the law abiding citizen who legally purchases his/her music. Pirates will crack it and continue in their ways under Windows just as before so no I do not see a big shift to Linux from the pirates. Also, pirates tend to like the chanllenge of cracking new technologies just to show these companies that they are smarter and will not be stopped.

jc87
November 15th, 2005, 07:02 PM
DRM is so illegal as the things that was made to prevent .

About pirates coming to gnu/linux , they are wellcome ;)
, one of the principles of free software is that anyone is free to use the software , no matter race , age , group , political believes , etc...

Besides as the great RMS would say , agreing with terms that prevent you from sharing your software (or any other thing) with other people is basically a promise to be a bad person.

Kvark
November 15th, 2005, 07:09 PM
That would truly be a huge user group, like most of the broadband users, so it would lead to better hardware support and more games being ported. I think it would also lead to less 'piracy' because some of the 'pirates' would rethink and stop after being exposed to free alternatives, look at this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=90125) for example.

Besides, it's not linux's problem. If one car manufactorer installed a GPS device that checks the speed limit at your current location and makes it impossible to go above it plus refuses to park in a wrong spot, an alcohol sensor that shuts off the engine if the driver smells drunk and a remote control that the police can use to turn off the engine... Would the other car manufactorers feel bad because bank robbers would start using their cars instead?

canadianwriterman
November 15th, 2005, 07:12 PM
I think that FLOSS is a great vehicle to increase awareness about free formats. The fact that Ubuntu does not ship with mp3 or any other proprietary format support is not only practical, but a statement.


It is a statement. And, I think it's the "due diligence" that Ubuntu needs to take to remain "pure." After that, people can chose to do whatever they want with the platform.

joflow
November 15th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Alot of interesting discussion in this thread!

The MPAA and RIAA would find it hard to pressure distro as a whole to implement DRM. Unless it was done on a kernel level there is no way every distro would use some form of DRM.

From a legal standpoint, I don't think the developers of the software have anything to worry about. I'm no copyright lawyer but I think the precedent is that the law sides with the software companies/developers if their software has a reasonable legal purpose.

It seems it would be hard for the music and movie industries to effectively combat illegal downloading on linux without the broad support of the linux community as a whole.

hachre
November 15th, 2005, 08:03 PM
In case Windows really would prevent the piraters to have fun some of them would slowly move to Linux.
My guess that it would be less than 20% of all of em.

The MPAA and RIAA won't do anything about a few people. They do all this stuff to Windows because 95% use it.

Even if Linux would be used by 30% of all people after that change I don't think the MPAA or RIAA would really care as they are lazy by design.

earobinson
November 15th, 2005, 08:16 PM
That would truly be a huge user group, like most of the broadband users, so it would lead to better hardware support and more games being ported. I think it would also lead to less 'piracy' because some of the 'pirates' would rethink and stop after being exposed to free alternatives, look at this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=90125) for example.

Besides, it's not linux's problem. If one car manufactorer installed a GPS device that checks the speed limit at your current location and makes it impossible to go above it plus refuses to park in a wrong spot, an alcohol sensor that shuts off the engine if the driver smells drunk and a remote control that the police can use to turn off the engine... Would the other car manufactorers feel bad because bank robbers would start using their cars instead?


This is a very good point sir, but whats to stop this point from being taken a step further to say there should be no gun control?
(I do agree with you however)

az
November 15th, 2005, 08:32 PM
This is a very good point sir, but whats to stop this point from being taken a step further to say there should be no gun control?
(I do agree with you however)
Yes, but does that "free software and free ride" aspect give linux a bad name?

xequence
November 15th, 2005, 08:54 PM
How do you feel about the possibility of "pirates" flocking to Linux?

I welcome it.


If you use Sony's definition, everyone is a pirate. Thankfully there is still laws on the books like the Fair Use law that will limit DRM once the courts sort out the mess tha MS,Sony and DRM are causing.

DRM only affects the law abiding citizen who legally purchases his/her music. Pirates will crack it and continue in their ways under Windows just as before so no I do not see a big shift to Linux from the pirates. Also, pirates tend to like the chanllenge of cracking new technologies just to show these companies that they are smarter and will not be stopped.

I agree with that fully.

ferentix
November 15th, 2005, 09:49 PM
...I know that if I was a record company exec (or an artist or film maker etc.), I wouldn't want buyers to be copying and distributing en masse. I can see the argument there, and I think it is fair enough. On the other hand, I can't see what the problem is with making a copy of a film for your own personal use.

Anti piracy measures have become absolutely ridiculous. some CD protection measures are designed to stop a computer type CD drive from recognising it, something to do with inserting "bad" sectors or "dummy" sectors. A computer drive is "smart" and won't read a disc with such incorrect data. A CD player however is "dumb" and doesn't care about such things... but:

a) stopping people playing music on their computers is just so stupid, it's just not on.
b) Lots of newer CD players now will use computer CD drives because they are cheaper. What does this mean? Yes! You can't play CDs on your frickin' CD player either.

People will always, and I mean ALWAYS find a way around these protections if they want to. But the number of people who will then go on to illegally share copies about are relatively small... I think that companies need to accept the fact, and then prosecute if that's the road they want to take (which it normally is) when they find people breaking that law.

uberlinux
November 15th, 2005, 09:54 PM
I think that FLOSS is a great vehicle to increase awareness about free formats. The fact that Ubuntu does not ship with mp3 or any other proprietary format support is not only practical, but a statement.

What Ubuntu should ship with is an easy GUI based tool to convert existing MP3s to ogg/flac, otherwise, that is just frustrating.

mstlyevil
November 15th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Sony stated themselves that these measures were meant to stop "casual piracy". What they are saying is that they do not want you to make copies at all and that they are trying to find ways to make law abiding citizens purchase more music. They are experimenting on ways to make the cd itself unplayable if you exceed what they think is an excessive amount of copying.

The courts have ruled in the past that you own the CD and the contents on it under fair use yet Sony and a few other media companies are trying to tell us we do not own it but rent it. If these companies keep this up I will never buy another CD again. I will not buy anything anymore with the name Sony on the label if they continue to violate my rights and try to take over and disable my computer.

Stormy Eyes
November 15th, 2005, 10:38 PM
What Ubuntu should ship with is an easy GUI based tool to convert existing MP3s to ogg/flac, otherwise, that is just frustrating.

Such a tool requires MP3 support, which Ubuntu does not include in order to avoid legal trouble. As far as the default Ubuntu install is concerned, MP3 and other proprietary codecs do not exist. If you want them, you have to use the universe and multiverse repositories, which are not officially supported by Ubuntu or Canonical.

cstudent
November 15th, 2005, 10:49 PM
To some people that don't know any better, Linux is synonymous with Hackers. I've had a few people state that when I tell them I'm into using Linux. They'll make a comment like, "That's what hackers use isn't it?". Then I have to go into teacher mode and start to educate them.

In regards to DRM. I'd certainly use any tools in Linux I can to strip DRM from any music CD's I've bought. Same holds true for software. My opinion is let the manufacturers set a price for the crap that makes them happy and give me the freedom to put the stuff on all my equipment. If it would make MS feel better to charge $300 for XP home and let me put it on all my computers, then charge $300 and then butt out of my life for Pete's sake. All this arguing back and forth about DRM, licensing rights and software patents, etc is stiffling productivity and ingenuity. Just think how far advance computers could be if it wasn't for mega corporations so worried about their almighty dollar.

Bill

openmind
November 15th, 2005, 11:00 PM
You are making a rather insulting assumption; that everyone who despises DRM and refuses to abide by it are "Pirates" or "Criminals". Many, if not most are law-abiding citizens sick of being Treated like criminals by these corporations!

I think Linux devotees are more "savvy" than their MS counterparts and are therefore more aware of the violation of their rights.

Rather than continually ask about the legality of users, it's about time focus was shifted to the legality of some of these companies' view of DRM.

Thank You Sony!;)

sethmahoney
November 15th, 2005, 11:09 PM
DRM would go against everything Linux and OSS stands for but is it ethnical to provide a safe haven for those seeking to break the law?

First, is it always ethical to obey the law? Second, is it always unethical to break the law?

Though not necessarily in this case, I'd tend to answer "no" to both questions, so to your question, "is it ethical to provide a safe haven for those seeking to break the law?", I'd have to answer, "maybe!" But as regards Windows users who want free music and movies, I don't even think that is the issue. Its like saying that someone who gives a friend a copy of Windows 98 (which, of course, has nothing like a hack-proof DRM) they are no longer using is providing a safe haven for someone seeking to break the law.

There's also an issue of competing philosophies (open and closed source), one of which (open source), I tend to think is generally more ethical than the other. Letting the better of two options die off because it is possible someone will use it to break the law, especially a law that is in desperate need of revision anyway, is not a good trade.

xequence
November 15th, 2005, 11:32 PM
First, is it always ethical to obey the law? Second, is it always unethical to break the law?

I like that. People should quote it.


To some people that don't know any better, Linux is synonymous with Hackers. I've had a few people state that when I tell them I'm into using Linux. They'll make a comment like, "That's what hackers use isn't it?". Then I have to go into teacher mode and start to educate them.

On another site I used to go on someone said something about linux, and someone replied that they use debian because its the perfect hacker OS.


What Ubuntu should ship with is an easy GUI based tool to convert existing MP3s to ogg/flac, otherwise, that is just frustrating.

One lossy codec to another is called transcoding. It gives you worse quality, though some dont notice it.

daller
November 15th, 2005, 11:51 PM
To some people that don't know any better, Linux is synonymous with Hackers. I've had a few people state that when I tell them I'm into using Linux. They'll make a comment like, "That's what hackers use isn't it?". Then I have to go into teacher mode and start to educate them.

What do you answer them?

...Most of us are hackers, isn't that correct?

Most people never understood the word "hacking"

...When it's criminal, it's called "Cracking"

I'm hacking every day! :D

ssam
November 16th, 2005, 12:11 AM
what would be worrying would be the possibility of a law makeing it illegal to manufacture devices that can duplicate copyrighted media. to a politician being lobbied by the record lables that sounds sensible.

but it could be used to force all computer manufactures to make sure their computers can't do this 'out-of-the-box' (by installing windows), and to implement someway to stop anyone putting anything else on there.

see this
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/0535231


One lossy codec to another is called transcoding. It gives you worse quality, though some dont notice it.

itunes imports wma by trascoding them to aac.

cstudent
November 16th, 2005, 03:25 AM
What do you answer them?

...Most of us are hackers, isn't that correct?

Most people never understood the word "hacking"

...When it's criminal, it's called "Cracking"

I'm hacking every day! :D

You know that and I know that, they just don't know that. That's usually where I start.


Bill

Sheinar
November 16th, 2005, 03:28 AM
Pirates are awesome. I wish I was a pirate. :(

Malphas
November 16th, 2005, 03:30 AM
Do people really still call themselves hackers? I thought that had become passé years ago.

23meg
November 16th, 2005, 03:33 AM
Pirates will have their way under any platform. With the rise of P2P this is totally out of control, and will never be stopped by any mechanism including DRM. I'm more excited about the possibility of legit users who will get fed up with the restrictions placed on their basic rights by the Trusted Computing ******** flocking to Linux.

BWF89
November 16th, 2005, 03:37 AM
To some people that don't know any better, Linux is synonymous with Hackers. I've had a few people state that when I tell them I'm into using Linux. They'll make a comment like, "That's what hackers use isn't it?". Then I have to go into teacher mode and start to educate them.
True. But if someone is going to try to break into websites or create tools of destruction what better OS than *nix right?

Kvark
November 16th, 2005, 04:04 AM
Pirates are awesome. I wish I was a pirate. :(
Lol.

Well, yeah it was hard to become a pirate In the old days when you had to plunder merchant ships on the salty seas with a peg leg and a parrot. But modern technology makes life easier. All you need to do today to become a horrid despicable rotten pirate is download some music.


Do people really still call themselves hackers? I thought that had become passÚ years ago.
Yeah, there are still so many different kinds of people that are called hackers either by themselves or by others that the word should be declared a synonym with "computer user".

cstudent
November 16th, 2005, 04:42 AM
True. But if someone is going to try to break into websites or create tools of destruction what better OS than *nix right?


Maybe, but the point I was "trying" to make was that to some people who are not at all familiar with Linux they have this misconception that Linux is a tool that only people with bad intentions use. There are still so many people out there that don't understand what an OS is and that they could have a choice. Which is exactly the way MS would like to keep it.

Bill

ThirdWorld
November 16th, 2005, 04:46 AM
Public perception is that Linux is a platform for hackers and internet criminals, and that all the people writing viruses for windows are the same guys writing code for Linux.

ThirdWorld
November 16th, 2005, 05:02 AM
On the other hand i dont feel bad for the musicians. If you illegally download their music, that affect them marginally. The truth is that the only ones that loss some money are the record companies, but this loss is nothing in comparition with how much money these companies make in a year. Remenber that the bulk of money a singer make in a year is in the concerts, and that your favourite actors get pay per movie, they ususally dont receive money from the dvds sales. if is an author, like say Tolkien's family then, they only receive a tiny fraction of total goods sales. The truth is that all the commotion and legal sues are because of these big corporations not the artists

BoyOfDestiny
November 16th, 2005, 08:23 AM
I'm sure you guys know all about Vista's DRM features such as PVP-OPM. If MS is successful in curving privacy on the windows platform (making hack-proof DRM...I know its not likely) then it only makes sense for all the internet movie and music pirates to move to linux where all of the "tool of the trade" are available minus the DRM.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, Linux could benefit alot from the huge increase in its user base. DRM would go against everything Linux and OSS stands for but is it ethnical to provide a safe haven for those seeking to break the law?

Depends what you mean by pirate. If you mean people [mostly in Asia] printing millions of discs and selling them for pennies to a few dollars, then well, I'd rather not support them, which is why I avoid bootlegs like the plague. I'd guess these would fall into bootlegger category.

If you mean like someone who has downloaded an mp3. Well I'm betting most computer users are pirates at this point then. Also, the swashbuckling kind with parrots are ok too (if they are nice).

I would welcome them indeed. Actually I think if they switched to Linux, it would make sense not to pirate certain apps anymore. I honestly would not even contemplate pirating ms office or ms windows.

Juissi
November 16th, 2005, 09:10 AM
On the other hand i dont feel bad for the musicians. If you illegally download their music, that affect them marginally. The truth is that the only ones that loss some money are the record companies, but this loss is nothing in comparition with how much money these companies make in a year.
I have to disagree here. Maybe it doesn't matter if you are selling a million albums per year but what about the remaining 97% of artists? Take my brother for example, he makes marginal electronic music and makes very little profit. It really matters to him if somebody steals his music instead of buying the album. Yes, the record label takes its share but you shouldn't say that stealing the music doesn't really harm the artist.

edit: and where should we draw the line? Artist sells 500 000 albums per year -> it's ok to steal the music?

fin
November 16th, 2005, 09:24 AM
To some people that don't know any better, Linux is synonymous with Hackers. I've had a few people state that when I tell them I'm into using Linux. They'll make a comment like, "That's what hackers use isn't it?". Then I have to go into teacher mode and start to educate them.

In regards to DRM. I'd certainly use any tools in Linux I can to strip DRM from any music CD's I've bought. Same holds true for software. My opinion is let the manufacturers set a price for the crap that makes them happy and give me the freedom to put the stuff on all my equipment. If it would make MS feel better to charge $300 for XP home and let me put it on all my computers, then charge $300 and then butt out of my life for Pete's sake. All this arguing back and forth about DRM, licensing rights and software patents, etc is stiffling productivity and ingenuity. Just think how far advance computers could be if it wasn't for mega corporations so worried about their almighty dollar.

Bill


Whatever.

Stupid people.


Screw all of them.

egon spengler
November 16th, 2005, 10:53 AM
Besides, it's not linux's problem. If one car manufactorer installed a GPS device that checks the speed limit at your current location and makes it impossible to go above it plus refuses to park in a wrong spot, an alcohol sensor that shuts off the engine if the driver smells drunk and a remote control that the police can use to turn off the engine... Would the other car manufactorers feel bad because bank robbers would start using their cars instead?

I would agree 100% that it would not be the fault of Linux but that wouldn't necessarily absolve it of blame in some people's eyes. P2p technologies have legitimate use (esp. bittorrent) but I have seen people seriously put forward the idea that they should be banned because pirates use them. It wouldn't surprise me if someone argued the same for Linux.



You are making a rather insulting assumption; that everyone who despises DRM and refuses to abide by it are "Pirates" or "Criminals". Many, if not most are law-abiding citizens sick of being Treated like criminals by these corporations!

I don't think (s)he did, they mentioned that people who routinely infringe copyright on Windows might migrate to Linux if DRM is successfully implemented. That isn't the same as denouncing all who oppose DRM as no more than thieves

jc87
November 16th, 2005, 06:30 PM
I have to disagree here. Maybe it doesn't matter if you are selling a million albums per year but what about the remaining 97% of artists? Take my brother for example, he makes marginal electronic music and makes very little profit. It really matters to him if somebody steals his music instead of buying the album. Yes, the record label takes its share but you shouldn't say that stealing the music doesn't really harm the artist.

edit: and where should we draw the line? Artist sells 500 000 albums per year -> it's ok to steal the music?

Many pirates if they download your brother music , can end up enjoying it , and paying to go for one of his concert┤s , ever thought on that?

23meg
November 16th, 2005, 07:02 PM
I have to disagree here. Maybe it doesn't matter if you are selling a million albums per year but what about the remaining 97% of artists? Take my brother for example, he makes marginal electronic music and makes very little profit. It really matters to him if somebody steals his music instead of buying the album. Yes, the record label takes its share but you shouldn't say that stealing the music doesn't really harm the artist.

edit: and where should we draw the line? Artist sells 500 000 albums per year -> it's ok to steal the music?
If your brother makes music that interests a marginal minority, chances are he's (ans should be) on an independent label that doesn't screw him up on the contract like the big ones do, which in turn means he'll get more of a share, and people who are into his music (who will probably be aware about these issues) will be more likely to support him by buying his album because they'll know it's not an "evil" label.

Which comes down to: if you make your own music that you think appeals to a marginal niche, don't set out intending to market yourself to the big boys; aim the fully independent small labels, do good self promotion and try to play out as much as possible. Or better, start your own label.

daller
November 16th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I have to disagree here. Maybe it doesn't matter if you are selling a million albums per year but what about the remaining 97% of artists? Take my brother for example, he makes marginal electronic music and makes very little profit. It really matters to him if somebody steals his music instead of buying the album. Yes, the record label takes its share but you shouldn't say that stealing the music doesn't really harm the artist.

edit: and where should we draw the line? Artist sells 500 000 albums per year -> it's ok to steal the music?

Well, you kinda sound like the AntiPirateGroup here in Denmark!

They think that one "stolen" album equals one album less sold! - It's nonsence!

Do you really think people would have bought all the albums they have downloaded illegally, if downloading wasn't an option? - I don't think so!

joflow
November 16th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I don't think (s)he did, they mentioned that people who routinely infringe copyright on Windows might migrate to Linux if DRM is successfully implemented. That isn't the same as denouncing all who oppose DRM as no more than thieves

Yes, thank you for clearing that up.

I was simply saying that the pirates (people who infringe on copyright not those who are just opposed to DRM) could flock to linux where there is no DRM.

Juissi
November 16th, 2005, 09:22 PM
[somewhat off topic]

Well, you kinda sound like the AntiPirateGroup here in Denmark!

They think that one "stolen" album equals one album less sold! - It's nonsence!

Do you really think people would have bought all the albums they have downloaded illegally, if downloading wasn't an option? - I don't think so!
Maybe not all but perhaps a few, things aren't exactly black&white. I too used to copy albums that weren't "worth buying". This is bad for the artist, even if their record label and antipirategroups are evil. We should at least try to do the right thing, not justify things by saying that "downloading music only affects the artist marginally".
[/ot]

daller
November 16th, 2005, 09:50 PM
[somewhat off topic]

Maybe not all but perhaps a few, things aren't exactly black&white. I too used to copy albums that weren't "worth buying". This is bad for the artist, even if their record label and antipirategroups are evil. We should at least try to do the right thing, not justify things by saying that "downloading music only affects the artist marginally".
[/ot]
I have bought all the albums I have on my pc, but I can see why it's not all people who buy their music...

"This is bad for the artist" - How? - do they loose money on it?

"downloading music only affects the artist marginally" - Isn't it right?

Lets just make an example, and say that Thomas has 30 illegally downloaded albums on his pc. If he hadn't got the ability to download the albums, do you really think he would have bought all 30 albums? - I'd say 5 max!

...And you've said it yourself - not "worth buying" - Meaning that if you haven't got the ability to download the album, you wouldn't have bought it either...

Carbon Copy Man
November 16th, 2005, 10:32 PM
And the thing about the case of P2P, is that other people need to have the music for you to download it, so it has to be popular in the first place. By the time P2P really becomes an issue, you're already successful.


I discovered my favourite bands through mp3s. I can say for certain that I would never have bought a single Nightwish album had I not been given a couple mp3s from a friend (whom I knew over the internet). You just don't really get exposed to east European bands in Australia.


Also, can I point out the explosion in popularity of Japanese animation and comics? There's a massive (paying) market for that. Decades ago it was just people illegally distributing (and independently translating) the original Japanese material. It created an entire new market for the content, and they're making butloads out of it.


There should be a whole new word for information theft. After all, it's completely different situation when you "steal" something without harming the original copy.

Also, in an amazing turnaround recently. The TV series Family Guy made so much from DVD sales that the show was continued even after being axed because of low ratings.

Selling CDs and DVDs is as much about merchandising as anything.

daller
November 16th, 2005, 11:12 PM
And the thing about the case of P2P, is that other people need to have the music for you to download it, so it has to be popular in the first place. By the time P2P really becomes an issue, you're already successful.


I discovered my favourite bands through mp3s. I can say for certain that I would never have bought a single Nightwish album had I not been given a couple mp3s from a friend (whom I knew over the internet). You just don't really get exposed to east European bands in Australia.


Also, can I point out the explosion in popularity of Japanese animation and comics? There's a massive (paying) market for that. Decades ago it was just people illegally distributing (and independently translating) the original Japanese material. It created an entire new market for the content, and they're making butloads out of it.


There should be a whole new word for information theft. After all, it's completely different situation when you "steal" something without harming the original copy.

Also, in an amazing turnaround recently. The TV series Family Guy made so much from DVD sales that the show was continued even after being axed because of low ratings.

Selling CDs and DVDs is as much about merchandising as anything.

You rock!

23meg
November 16th, 2005, 11:48 PM
We should at least try to do the right thing, not justify things by saying that "downloading music only affects the artist marginally".
[/ot]
But still, if you buy albums released by "evil" labels with the good intention that it will aid the artist even if marginally, you're feeding the artist only marginally and the evil behind them majorly.

An alternative mindset might be to keep downloading albums released by the evil lables illegally so that this system that rips off both the artist and the listener will collapse, and make way for a fairer system.

Sheinar
November 17th, 2005, 12:00 AM
And the thing about the case of P2P, is that other people need to have the music for you to download it, so it has to be popular in the first place. By the time P2P really becomes an issue, you're already successful..
I download a lot of music via P2P by non-popular bands. Bands like Suffer, Municipal Waste, OLD, Sadus, Winters Bane, etc., so it doesn't have to be popular. Though, yes, you're right that it only really becomes an issue when the band are successful. Most people will buy the smaller bands music if they're able to, or at least go to the bands gigs, so it's unlikely they're lose money by people downloading their music. Perhaps even make more money by having their music spread.

Actually, to be perfectly honest, it's probably the same for the more successful bands too. People want the "real thing", so if they like it enough, they'll buy it, whereas if they hadn't had the chance to download it in the first place, they might have never heard it at all and never bought the CD.

poptones
November 17th, 2005, 12:16 AM
An alternative mindset might be to keep downloading albums released by the evil lables illegally so that this system that rips off both the artist and the listener will collapse, and make way for a fairer system.

Microsoft became the gazillion dollar company it is today exactly this way. On an individual level there are very few who think twice about pirating windows - and ten years ago there were far fewer still. The only thing that has threatened them in any way is the rise of a competing product.

It doesn't matter how you get the message; if you help spread it (and that includes just sticking it on your own hard drive) then you are inevitably helping sustain that culture - because you are part of it.

Maverick911
November 17th, 2005, 12:41 AM
Well, you kinda sound like the AntiPirateGroup here in Denmark!

They think that one "stolen" album equals one album less sold! - It's nonsence!

Do you really think people would have bought all the albums they have downloaded illegally, if downloading wasn't an option? - I don't think so!

Excellent Point!

I spent tons on music when I was younger. I stopped buying albums and CD's years before there was such a thing as MP3.
I would never have purchased any of the music I've downloaded. The music industry still counts this as lost revenue. HA!
I bought and paid for most of these songs years ago, I just like the idea of being able to catalog and listen to them on my computer. It did however drive my purchase of an IPOD, so I guess Apple should share a little of the profit with the RIAA.

Sony, Shame on you for trying to pirate peoples PC's.
You might stop me from copying a song but you've also stopped me from buying that big screen TV with your name on it.

23meg
November 17th, 2005, 01:37 AM
Microsoft became the gazillion dollar company it is today exactly this way. On an individual level there are very few who think twice about pirating windows - and ten years ago there were far fewer still. The only thing that has threatened them in any way is the rise of a competing product.

It doesn't matter how you get the message; if you help spread it (and that includes just sticking it on your own hard drive) then you are inevitably helping sustain that culture - because you are part of it.
True to a certain extent, but the software industry and the culture industry are different areas with different products, no matter how much they seem to overlap these days. With the cultural product taken over by the big boys of the recording industry, we have a creator, the artist who's left in the middle of the political struggle between the bosses and the masses. The masses have an emotional and intellectual connection with the creator and their product, but with software this usually isn't the case; software is meant to just function, just do its job, it's a tool, whereas music / books / movies are things people build deep connections with. You can't just step out and say to people "listen to free music only", unless their favorite artists have woken up to what's going on in the world and decided to do away with major labels altogether. People will be attracted by the cultural product no matter if it's free or not. In the present economy, if they want it too much yet can't afford it, they'll pirate it. But the case might be wholly different with another, fairer economy.

And "being part of" something does not in any way rule out the possibility of opposing it; on the contrary, my belief is that participation is the prerequisite of opposition and subversion.