[SixthFall]

I often listen to pirated songs through my beats solos, which if you guys haven't heard are the best headphones in the world.
 
 
 
 

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

Kidding of course

 

 

[ac500]

Quote:

Despite the low blows on my intelligence, I would be interested in seeing your work. Can you send me a link?
In regards to being off-topic, I think this is probably the most informative one this thread has seen.

I did not intend for any of my post to offend your intelligence, so I apologize for wording things incorrectly.
 
When I said that any sane person would be scared by companies having the power to shut down other companies without due process, I didn't mean to say you weren't sane but rather to imply that that the threat of such a proposition is very real and in no way to be taken lightly. We are already seeing similar things such as warrantless searches, etc., and I think most people agree this is bad.
 
When I said there was a massive gap in mentality between you and other people if you see no problem with censorship, I did not mean to imply your mentality was inferior but simply that it was in the minority, and as such should bear the burden of proof before being taken seriously (in other words, if you have an argument why corporation-controlled censorship is good, I will read it).
 
That said, I do agree with you saying that it's not good to use scare tactics to influence matters like this whether for the "right" or "wrong" ends. However I would argue that the threat of a censored internet is in of itself frightening enough, and thus the "scare tactics" here is not one constructed towards pro-piracy agenda so much as an honest albiet cynical interpretation of the law's potential implications. Given the history of humanity to exploit laws for one's own gain, I believe it's extremely important to point out how very dangerous SOPA and PIPA is in this context. If you disagree that it is dangerous then by all means do explain, but at the moment the vast majority of analysis of the actual technical and political implications looks to be very very very dangerous indeed.
 
I'll PM you some of my work since you're interested.

 

[dorino]

Claiming the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement is nothing more than "rhetoric" is really disastrous. The bill (take your pick, SOPA or PIPA) is worded very poorly. It's not that it will destroy sites like Tumblr or Facebook or Reddit, it's that it can. Furthermore, it's that copyright holders can do so with very little evidence of infringement. The burden of proof is almost nonexistent, and the remaining burdens are placed entirely on the websites in question, rather than having something like the DMCA in place where there's such a thing as safe harbor and copyright holders are given the responsibility of keeping track of infringement. Under both SOPA and PIPA, that's not the case. It's not rhetorical, it's factual.
 

Quote:

Well, it's more accurate to say that most professional musicians don't mind piracy. Regardless, you're correct: most of the revenue comes from live concerts and endorsements; revenue earned from selling tunes online is usually negligible in comparison.

 
As far as the artists are concerned, yes. As far as the labels are concerned, there is potential for lost revenue. Potential because a pirate possibly wasn't going to buy the track anyway, even if it wasn't available for free illegally. Still, try telling that to the recording industry that thinks a downloaded track is 1.25 out of their pockets.

 

[gaspir324]

SOPA/PIPA bill got cancelled, it will come around in different words in near future, and Obama will veto it if it goes too far. There, back on track, pretty please.

 

[dorino]

Quote:

SOPA/PIPA bill got cancelled, it will come around in different words in near future, and Obama will veto it if it goes too far. There, back on track, pretty please.

As much as I'd like to go back on topic (and this is the last offtopic post I'll make, promise!), Obama also planned to veto the national defense budget until the indefinite detention clauses were removed. SOPA and PIPA aren't cancelled, just "paused". Still, I don't think either will pass because of the huge outcry following the blackouts.
 
On an on-topic note, I did get "called out" for not wearing beats today. A guy heard my talking about my plans to upgrade my headphones, and recommended Beats. When I said I wasn't interested, he said I didn't know what I was talking about. I probably don't, but it's not because I don't want beats. Not my kind of sound, sir.

 

[gaspir324]

Too many blackouts will occur if they come back, so they leave them paused indefinately, come up with something similar and try again. In the meantime you all should be aware of ACTA. IMO a bit more conserning.

 

[LizardKing1]

This is a huge-ass post, so skip ahead if you're not to be bothered with it.
 
As for this particular topic I for the most agree with it (with the anti-bill, that is), I just don't like saying "I agree with these guys" because I always think there's some angle I'm not considering. Of course I don't want the internet censored - imagine no Head-Fi... I might actually get some work done. I simply don't agree with saying "the internet WILL be censored". Even if we agree wholeheartedly that it will, it's a scare tactic. I don't want to get too political, but every time a candidate bashes another it's through doomsday warnings of what will happen if you vote for him. Does it scare me that a group of corporations suddenly has the power to create online censorship with little basis? Yes. Will that happen?On this point I would need to know more about copyright legislation to know how abused this law could be, and I don't, so I keep myself relatively neutral. Some of you apparently know it better than I do, and from what I know/read it would be pushed as far as legally possible. So to resume, so far I don't agree with the bill since it creates the possibility for unfair internet censorship and helps almost nothing in fighting piracy. I also don't agree with the way support for fighting the bill has been gathered and of course I know a lot of the support comes from people who just want to pirate everything without caring the least bit for freedom online.
 
 
I keep my anti-piracy stand. Like I said a lot of artists accept their work will get pirated. Many others allow it for free download, which I find awesome. But if someone worked hard on something and believes that if someone else wants to enjoy their work they should pay them, I agree. I know every point by now:

1. Piracy isn't stealing, it's copying, the original file remains the same!

It's not the same as stealing a book or a DVD, no, but on a very basic level it is not paying for something which has a value. You're enjoying someone else's hard work without financially compensating them, and if they feel like that their product is worth something you should either agree and pay, or disagree and simply not enjoy it. It's their product, they decide how much it's worth to them. I disagree with the price of a lot of stuff, and I simply don't buy it. No one's forcing you to buy it, they're simply saying if people want it, they should pay. And think about this: everyone pays for their ticket on a live show. One guy manages to slip inside. He's not hurting everyone, the show is the same (metaphor for "the original remains the same"), however do you feel this is fair, both to the other people and to the band?

1. Artists make money through live shows, they can live without albums.

True, most of the revenue comes from live shows. However an album is the best way to spread their work, it's essential. Now we come back to if you should pay for it, see point above.

1. I illegally download stuff, but I tell about it to my friends and I see those bands live.

That's a great attitude, you're doing the band a favor (no, not sarcastic). So why not buy the album since you're supporting them?

1. Pirates wouldn't buy the stuff anyway, so even if they couldn't download the files, the band/company wouldn't make more money.

Think about it. If there was absolutely no way of illegally sharing files, are you telling me you wouldn't but at least 1 more CD? Of that band you really really like, and thus would be incapable of listening besides 1 or 2 singles they put online?

1. Real musicians should care about being known, not making money. If it was me I would put all my work available for download!

So would I. And when we both do it, it won't be piracy. I actually support these artists whenever I can because I know they really care about having their work spread and not being paid. But if some artist wants people to pay to enjoy all the work he's, who are we to say he's wrong? It's his work. If we disagree, let's simply not listen to it.

1. Musicians are rich anyway, watch MTV Cribs!

No, don't watch that show, it's crap. But yeah point taken, that's why I really don't care about downloading Metallica or The Rolling Stones. That doesn't work as well with small bands who are just starting up, those aren't exactly buying private jets.

1. The recording labels take all the money, so I'm not stealing from the band.

This is actually an issue that worries me, the guys have all the work and someone else takes most of the profit from it. However I just don't think piracy is the best way to fight this, it even reduces how much that little percentage the artist gets is worth. Also, let's be honest, how many pirates give a crap how much the band is getting paid? I'd say not many.
 
So as you can see I've been spoon-fed every single pro-piracy argument. I know them, and I simply don't agree with them, they are usually a way of excusing yourself for something you probably don't agree with either. I don't agree with a lot of stuff in the content I have (the price, how much of it actually goes to the artist), but I don't think piracy helps that in absolutely any way. I still buy CDs whenever I can, nos just because of this, but because a CD copy gives you ownership (as a customer, of course) rights to that track for the rest of your life, while a digital file doesn't.
 
I'm sorry for keeping this debate on and for the obvious length issue, but I felt like I should explain my beliefs a bit further. If it comes to that, please just delete my posts instead of closing the thread.

 

[dorino]

Quote:

too long; didn't quote

I can agree here. The argument that the internet WILL be censored is flawed, nobody's psychic, but the reality that the bills make that possible is, well, a reality. The argument the bills are bad because they stop piracy is flawed too - Both because piracy is wrong, and because the bills don't actually stop piracy. Anyone in the tech industry will tell you that it's way too broad and that digital pirates have other avenues. I encourage you to read up on the bills (and ACTA, a great point!) because they do have the capacity to censor the internet and do give huge power to mega-corporations.
 
On that note, CD copies don't give you any more rights than a digital copy - as far as the record labels are concerned. You can look this up, I'm sure.
 
I lied about making my last off-topic post, but when you're admittedly not aware of the bill as much as you feel you should be, you shouldn't talk about it. IMO.
 

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

SOPA/PIPA bill got cancelled, it will come around in different words in near future, and Obama will veto it if it goes too far. There, back on track, pretty please.

not cancelled...just put on hold again

 

[mastershake2393]

SOPA/PIPA don't really matter anymore. The US government can shutdown any website they see fit. This is indicated by the recent Megaupload, Megavideo, etc. destruction. 
 
What's to come? Who knows, but I'm betting it isn't going to be good for anyone though...

 

[ac500]

.

 

[ac500]

The major distinction with megaupload being shut down is it was done through the normal legal process, as opposed to SOPA's "shoot first, ask questions later" approach <-- this difference is kind of a big deal. In Megaupload's case, the people behind the website were actually participating in illegal activity and were stupid enough to even keep records of it, and they got caught.

 

[LizardKing1]

Quote:

I lied about making my last off-topic post, but when you're admittedly not aware of the bill as much as you feel you should be, you shouldn't talk about it. IMO.

I never said that. I admitted to not being as familiar with copyright legislation as some other users here. I am quite familiar with SOPA in particular, although if it helps I have not read the entire thing. I promise you almost no one who's making a fuss about it has read it either. But as we well know, a government document can be resumed into a few paragraphs, and many many versions of those I have read. However to make things simple I will read it and then maybe I'll have a clearer view.

 

[mastershake2393]

If I may ask, where did you find out that they "were stupid enough to keep records" of all of their illegal activities? 
 
Everything that I've read points towards them doing nothing illegal. They had the same system as Youtube: if something illegal got posted, it was taken down.

 

[satanigatan]

I know the conversation is winding down, and I'm coming a little late into this.

As someone that grew up in the CD burning era (I'm 24 now) a lot of my life has been with the internet, and getting things for free. Because it's been such a constant in my life, it's easy to fall into this mentality that it's fine to just get something if it's being given out free. It's just a click away after all.  I can only imagine how hard that would be for the even newer generation that came after me, where the internet and downloading was always with them. It's probably not even a second thought. But because I do remember going to the store to buy CDs on release date (prior to leaks being prevalent and widely available), I do feel a sense of responsibility. 
 
I think morally, we have a responsibility to pay for what we can. Some might even argue you have an obligation to pay for ANYTHING you use that costs something. I'm not really here to argue that one way or the other. Just wanted to say that I do feel we should be paying money for the music we listen to, and I''m not 100% opposed to everyone going back to doing that.
 
But all of this said, the SOPA/PIPA bills are obviously not the way to go about doing it. The real solution is: I. lowering the cost of music (especially digital versions, no way they should be $10-12 a pop in this day an age). II. Offer a better service to provide consumers with said music. It's sad when torrenting is a much easier platform to get music than say, iTunes or Napster. The download speeds are quicker, the quality is higher. I honestly have no desire to order anything off of iTunes because they rarely offer lossless or 320, and I can't be arsed to pay $10-12 for that. Hell, might as well just order the CD for the same price off amazon, and rip the CD w/ full quality (and have the choice to convert it to all the different kinds of quality that you desire) + you get a physical item. And again, ll for the same price (or around the same price). The music industry has no one but to blame but themselves. They have always been stubborn and fought against change. First they fought new technology (instead of trying to adopt it, and be at the forefront of making money off it) - and now they are trying to offer subpar service and quality. And secondly, they refuse to lower the price, when the demand isn't as high as it used to be for their product. They have it in their heads that all products retain value over time, and that's just not the case. When products become cheaper to make, or the demand (the consumers views on what it's actually worth) is lowered, then the price should be lowered. Their unwillingness to budge on this, is a big reason many pirate IMO.
 
This leads me to my last point: value. I get a bit torn on this one. Because, I do think some people out there will never pay for music again, even with a price adjustment or a new service offered. To them, music no longer has a tangible value/worth. It's not worth a single cent to them.  No matter what steps you take to get them to pay, they won't. So it seems futile to go after them. But I also strongly believe that if they found a way to stop all downloading, those same people would NOT magically start paying for music. They would just go over to a friends house to listen or burn their CD etc. So it all becomes a moot point. 

I fee at this point, they need to focus on the people that do think music is worth something. And start making it worth it to them to continue to do so. Just my 2 cents.