The Pirate Bay and Megaupload scandals: Never forget.

Page 2 of 3 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

17 Oct 2012, 2:37 pm

Oodain wrote:
the same can be said in reverse,
does a shareholder with no personal investment to speak of hold the right to continously profit from the work of others?


Thanks for bringing this discussion into a territory I actually care about enough. "No personal investment" is a weird way to put it since the investment is indeed very personal. A shareholder has elected to postpone gratification now, in exchange for more gratification later.

Much like when someone lends you money and expects to get their money back + interest.

If I buy 10% of the equity in a company, I literally own 10% of that company's after tax profit, so I'm entitled to 10% of the proceeds left over after everyone else has been paid, which includes the person or persons who willfully and knowingly entered a legally binding contract to exchange their labor for payment.

If they want to, they can come to me and offer to buy back my ownership share of the company at a premium to compensate for future cash flows I won't be receiving, thus netting more of the benefits of their labor, in exchange for postponing their gratification for later.

So, your example really only shows that you have no idea how share based ownership works. Which unsurprisingly enough is a hallmark of people who love befitting from the labor of others through redistribution policies in the form of socialism, who also complain about evil shareholders.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

17 Oct 2012, 2:41 pm

Kurgan wrote:
The artist gets an average 9% of the income on iTunes. An average song has been downloaded 1400 times.

9 % > 0 %.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,387
Location: Scandinavia

17 Oct 2012, 2:50 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The artist gets an average 9% of the income on iTunes. An average song has been downloaded 1400 times.

9 % > 0 %.


Artists with more money than they're able to waste (James Hetfield, Lily Allen, Madonna etc.) have no reason to complain with what they earn by tours.

Liam Gallagher wrote:
I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan – at least they’re f*ckin’ downloading your music, you c*nt, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f*ckin’ appreciate that – what are you moaning about? You’ve got f*ckin’ five big houses, so shut up.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

17 Oct 2012, 3:13 pm

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The artist gets an average 9% of the income on iTunes. An average song has been downloaded 1400 times.

9 % > 0 %.


Artists with more money than they're able to waste (James Hetfield, Lily Allen, Madonna etc.) have no reason to complain with what they earn by tours.


I deeply apologize for my stubbornness, but I simply do not accept that a person's right to property should be violated simply because that person has a lot of property. That would be a serious disincentive to being successful in any business endeavour.

And piracy is still hurting the artists who are *not* as successful as James Hetfield, Lily Allen and Madonna, so my initial point stands.

Kurgan wrote:
Liam Gallagher wrote:
I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan – at least they’re f*ckin’ downloading your music, you c*nt, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should f*ckin’ appreciate that – what are you moaning about? You’ve got f*ckin’ five big houses, so shut up.


I don't take advice on intellectual property rights from a full-blown ass hole like Liam Gallagher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Galla ... _with_Noel

(Noel isn't a saint either, by the way. That jab at Damon Albarn about AIDS was pure evil).

But I respect their right to the fruits of their work, nonetheless.

Listening to Damon Albarn in "Clint Eastwood" when posting this, BTW, and that was pure accident 8O. And yes, I paid for it.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,720
Location: Reading, England

17 Oct 2012, 3:48 pm

Music piracy means big labels are less willing to take risks on small bands, which means less good music.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,387
Location: Scandinavia

17 Oct 2012, 4:57 pm

GGPViper wrote:
I deeply apologize for my stubbornness, but I simply do not accept that a person's right to property should be violated simply because that person has a lot of property. That would be a serious disincentive to being successful in any business endeavour.


Piracy is only a violation of their property rights because various laws across the world says so.

I do not download pirated music (with the low prices of Spotify Premium, using Torrent-sites to get music just becomes tedious), but I do not sit on a high horse and lump those who do together with thieves or swindlers.

Quote:
And piracy is still hurting the artists who are *not* as successful as James Hetfield, Lily Allen and Madonna, so my initial point stands.


These artists still make more money by concerts and their work gets promoted more if their music is widely available.

Quote:
I don't take advice on intellectual property rights from a full-blown ass hole like Liam Gallagher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Galla ... _with_Noel


Everybody knows that he's an a-hole, but that doesn't make his point less valid. Plenty of soft rockers (Jon Bon Jovi, Bono and Lou Reed are all good examples) are actually far from "nice" in real life.

Quote:
(Noel isn't a saint either, by the way. That jab at Damon Albarn about AIDS was pure evil).


Noel Gallagher has apologized for this. Most people who have actually met him, say that he's a regular guy and that the one who's to blame for the infamous feud is his younger brother Liam.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

17 Oct 2012, 5:45 pm

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I deeply apologize for my stubbornness, but I simply do not accept that a person's right to property should be violated simply because that person has a lot of property. That would be a serious disincentive to being successful in any business endeavour.


Piracy is only a violation of their property rights because various laws across the world says so.


Just like breaking into a home and stealing family heirlooms is only a violation of peoples' property rights because various laws across the world say so.

Kurgan wrote:
I do not download pirated music (with the low prices of Spotify Premium, using Torrent-sites to get music just becomes tedious), but I do not sit on a high horse and lump those who do together with thieves or swindlers.


I do not sit on a high horse. I observe that people enjoy the fruits of other people's work but refuse to pay said people for the very same fruits.

And then they claim the moral *high ground*. It's like Robin Hood without the entire "give to the poor" part :scratch:.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
And piracy is still hurting the artists who are *not* as successful as James Hetfield, Lily Allen and Madonna, so my initial point stands.


These artists still make more money by concerts and their work gets promoted more if their music is widely available.


Why don't you let the artists themselves decide whether or not that statement is true or false?


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,387
Location: Scandinavia

17 Oct 2012, 6:32 pm

GGPViper wrote:
Just like breaking into a home and stealing family heirlooms is only a violation of peoples' property rights because various laws across the world say so.


My freedom ends where other people's freedom begins. It's morally wrong to steal their belongings because that involves other people losing their belongings.

You're free to have your opinion on the matter; there's plenty of stuff I do not think highly of that I still do not wish to ban (women not shaving their armpits, alcohol, preppies etc.).

Quote:
I do not sit on a high horse. I observe that people enjoy the fruits of other people's work but refuse to pay said people for the very same fruits.


People who download more actually buy more as well. Furthermore, fruit is not a good example, because it can't be copied.

Quote:
Why don't you let the artists themselves decide whether or not that statement is true or false?


The income source tends to follow the same pattern in all successful musicians. Most of the musicians who fanatically crusade against piracy have more than enough money—and after the music market became almost exclusively digital, their income from tours increased, whereas their income from album and single sales declined.

Frank Zappa said the following in the mid 80's:

"The day people stop copying my music is the day I start to worry."



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

17 Oct 2012, 7:16 pm

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Just like breaking into a home and stealing family heirlooms is only a violation of peoples' property rights because various laws across the world say so.


My freedom ends where other people's freedom begins. It's morally wrong to steal their belongings because that involves other people losing their belongings.


But if you paid for a non rival good that someone else produced, they would "gain" a belonging. By not doing so, you have deprived them of a profit from their work. If you just don't care about this, then why not say so?

Kurgan wrote:
You're free to have your opinion on the matter; there's plenty of stuff I do not think highly of that I still do not wish to ban (women not shaving their armpits, alcohol, preppies etc.).


False analogy.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I do not sit on a high horse. I observe that people enjoy the fruits of other people's work but refuse to pay said people for the very same fruits.


People who download more actually buy more as well. Furthermore, fruit is not a good example, because it can't be copied.


Semantics. I am not referring to "fruit". I am referring to the fact that some people put time and effort into creating music, television, etc.

And why not just buy it? There are several outlets (MTV, (some) streaming sites, ITunes etc.) that actually provide easy access to music without violating the property rights of creators of content.

Kurgan wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Why don't you let the artists themselves decide whether or not that statement is true or false?


The income source tends to follow the same pattern in all successful musicians. Most of the musicians who fanatically crusade against piracy have more than enough money—and after the music market became almost exclusively digital, their income from tours increased, whereas their income from album and single sales declined.


You still haven't answered why them being wealthy suddenly justifies violating their property rights.

Kurgan wrote:
Frank Zappa said the following in the mid 80's:

"The day people stop copying my music is the day I start to worry."


I respect the right of Frank Zappa to hold this view. I only ask people to respect those artists who hold different views about their creative content.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

17 Oct 2012, 7:41 pm

Okay the reason why the Justice Department was wrong to go after megaupload for instance was that it wasn't the people that ran megaupload that was putting the stuff up.

There is really no way of them knowing who had permission to put up what. There were also a lot of people that were using mega upload as a backup site for things that they had purchased (which is perfectly legal), and some people figured a way around the security system to view some of the videos.

It's a complicated mess, but megaupload shouldn't have been charged for the same reason google shouldn't be charged when you can find videos using google that are there without the creator's permission.

Do you seriously want your file backup site snooping through your personal files "to make sure you don't have anything there that may violate copyright law," heck considering it is a good idea to keep your tax records for 5 years, they may get to see your tax records complete with information that would allow someone to steal your identity...

So, yes the Justice Department was way out of line concerning this.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

17 Oct 2012, 7:41 pm

in this day and age music wise it really is a mute point,

youtube killed it, the immense presure from illegal uploads means that almost no one doesnt upload at least a sizable portion of their music on youtube, for them it means free pr and thus more money in the long run.

the thing i hate in the piracy debate is not so much the message, but the hipocracy of the people using it,

the actual artists are in many cases the people that get the least out of it, there certainly comes a stage where that becomes irrelevant for the artist but i do find it odd that we have created such a huge and expensive machinery to distribute what most now do freely today anyway and they know it, i think much more could be gained with much less in the physical distribution buisness as well but that is in the past.

most are wise enough to try to fit into the new world and many are doing quite a job using various platforms.

but that still doesnt change the issue regarding the pirate bay, it is nothing more than a search engine for index files, a database like any other search engine, users dont even upload content so no matter what there isnt any illegal material on the sites own servers, at least not from running the actual site and search engine.

in scandinavia there are laws that mean that any owner of a network is directly responsible for any content accesed or stored by anyone on the network, regardless of permission to use the network.
this essentially means that every single search engine is illegal or the law is wrongly formulated to deal with the issue at hand.

so not only is there hipocracy in shouting that the artists should be rightfully compensated when in fact many dont even today, there are a select few that do but in relation to what the passive background earns i am not so sure one can call it rightfull, should the prime creator not be the prime benefactor?

there is also hipocracy in that if the laws used to sue the piratebay were to apply evenly no other search engine would be legal, technically there is virtually no difference in form and function(in reality it is but the main structure and purpose of the underlying software is not)


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

18 Oct 2012, 6:27 pm

GGPViper wrote:
I deeply apologize for my stubbornness, but I simply do not accept that a person's right to property should be violated simply because that person has a lot of property. That would be a serious disincentive to being successful in any business endeavour.

I prefer musicians that aren't disguised corporate executives.



DerStadtschutz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,467

18 Oct 2012, 10:03 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Music piracy means big labels are less willing to take risks on small bands, which means less good music.


No... What music "piracy" means is that the playing field is equal. ANYBODY can put their music out there for everybody to hear it. If they put a stop to file sharing, guess what? only the people who the big record execs want you to hear are the ones you will hear. Record execs "taking a risk" on small bands isn't a good thing for those small bands. Most of the time, the record company makes most of the money while the artist gets fleeced, especially on album sales. Most of the real money for a real artist is in the concerts.

Music is art. Art is about making something beautiful. It is not about making money. Today, music is about making money FIRST, and that is why most music made today sucks donkey cock. There's a reason it's called "starving artist." I'm not saying that people don't deserve any money for the work they put into making the music, but it should be about the music and NOT the money. The money is just a bonus. And personally, if I made music and knew that millions of people were listening, whether they paid me to listen to it or not would be completely irrelevant. I'd be happy that so many people enjoy what I've created.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,139

19 Oct 2012, 2:57 pm

DerStadtschutz wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Music piracy means big labels are less willing to take risks on small bands, which means less good music.

No... What music "piracy" means is that the playing field is equal. ANYBODY can put their music out there for everybody to hear it. If they put a stop to file sharing, guess what? only the people who the big record execs want you to hear are the ones you will hear.

If its piracy, then it's not *their* music. It's someone else's music. I have several songs in my library that I haven't paid for. But only because the artists gave me *permission* to download them for free.

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Most of the time, the record company makes most of the money while the artist gets fleeced, especially on album sales. Most of the real money for a real artist is in the concerts.

And how does piracy help the artists, if they are already getting fleeced? More fleecing?

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Music is art. Art is about making something beautiful. It is not about making money.

One has to stand in awe of your narcissism. What gives *you* the right to define universally what music is about? Why not let the artists themselves decide?

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Today, music is about making money FIRST, and that is why most music made today sucks donkey cock.

Once again, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself given your tendency to make universal claims about other peoples' (artists and listeners of music) preferences.

DerStadtschutz wrote:
There's a reason it's called "starving artist." I'm not saying that people don't deserve any money for the work they put into making the music, but it should be about the music and NOT the money. The money is just a bonus. And personally, if I made music and knew that millions of people were listening, whether they paid me to listen to it or not would be completely irrelevant. I'd be happy that so many people enjoy what I've created.

I fully respect your right to decide to give away your music. I only ask that you respect the decisions of other artists not to do so.


_________________
Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.

- Daniel Kahneman


DerStadtschutz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,467

19 Oct 2012, 9:44 pm

GGPViper wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Music piracy means big labels are less willing to take risks on small bands, which means less good music.

No... What music "piracy" means is that the playing field is equal. ANYBODY can put their music out there for everybody to hear it. If they put a stop to file sharing, guess what? only the people who the big record execs want you to hear are the ones you will hear.

If its piracy, then it's not *their* music. It's someone else's music. I have several songs in my library that I haven't paid for. But only because the artists gave me *permission* to download them for free.

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Most of the time, the record company makes most of the money while the artist gets fleeced, especially on album sales. Most of the real money for a real artist is in the concerts.

And how does piracy help the artists, if they are already getting fleeced? More fleecing?

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Music is art. Art is about making something beautiful. It is not about making money.

One has to stand in awe of your narcissism. What gives *you* the right to define universally what music is about? Why not let the artists themselves decide?

DerStadtschutz wrote:
Today, music is about making money FIRST, and that is why most music made today sucks donkey cock.

Once again, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself given your tendency to make universal claims about other peoples' (artists and listeners of music) preferences.

DerStadtschutz wrote:
There's a reason it's called "starving artist." I'm not saying that people don't deserve any money for the work they put into making the music, but it should be about the music and NOT the money. The money is just a bonus. And personally, if I made music and knew that millions of people were listening, whether they paid me to listen to it or not would be completely irrelevant. I'd be happy that so many people enjoy what I've created.

I fully respect your right to decide to give away your music. I only ask that you respect the decisions of other artists not to do so.


Let's see... How does it help for people who otherwise would never have heard of an artist to hear the artist's music and have a chance of liking it and possibly actually going out and buying the album, going to a concert, or buying memorabilia? Did you seriously just ask that question? It's called FREE PROMOTION/ADVERTISING.

At no point did I claim that my opinions were anything other than MY opinions, so I fail to see the narcissism.

You can't even call them artists when they don't play, sing, or write anything. It's not THEIR music if THEY didn't create it.

And good job, completely ignoring the point i made about equal representation. Look, I don't give a rat's ass about a millionaire whining about some stupid album sales. End of story.