How do YOU feel about your music being pirated?

[munchkin]

Those who steal should have their hands chopped off. Try playing/making music with no hands. It's difficult...I believe...though I've never tried it.

[Psygotran]

I would hate to get to work and find the company had
'Downloaded' my work for the next few weeks, and then find I would not be payed for any of it. I would not be able to adapt, I would just die.

[munchkin]

Has anyone thought about the fact that downloading is a lot more eco friendly than CD's?

[zircon]

You know, one thing people ignore that I think is relevant to the discussion is that CD prices are actually reasonable, even if they are $15. Think about it. The price of goods generally goes up over time due to inflation and other factors. For instance, candy bars and soda cost more now than they did 25 years ago, and so forth and so on. But CD prices have remained *relatively* constant for the most part - stuff on Amazon for instance is still $10-$15. So maybe the big bad labels aren't 100% evil?

[Psygotran]

Those who steal should have their hands chopped off. Try playing/making music with no hands. It's difficult...I believe...though I've never tried it.

You should hear my music, I have no Talent, that is worse than no hands. I could actually make money for
not releasing tracks.

[kaden]

Oy gevalt...do you guys think in stereotypes all the time, or just on music related issues? If the size of your audience doesn't matter, why worry about the manner by which your music is disseminated? Just to have a piece of vinyl in your hand?

Ego or Fetish? I can't decide.

Cripes...now you're starting to scare me.

Knock yourselves out, kids.


K

[Hink]

Has anyone thought about the fact that downloading is a lot more eco friendly than CD's?

good point....but I don't know about you but I burn the songs I download to cd...

btw basically all I use is MSN for downloading music...

[Quaternion]

I would not be able to adapt, I would just die.

Well, then you have to "establish your position in the marketplace where people pay you to build them things."

Just to have a piece of vinyl in your hand?

Ego or Fetish? I can't decide.

Neither of them. It's because of my girlfriend. She always says that my music is absolutely horrifying (but that's her opinion on the genre per se), and that I should spend more time with her.

But with a vinyl I can proove that I'm doing something "serious", not just fooling around wasting time in front of the computer.

And MP3s wouldn't impress her one tiny bit.

[harmony gardens]

Compairisons to slavery aside, it does boil down to the right to eat the food raised by your own efforts.

If people continue to download music for free, the artist is still denied compensation for thier efforts. This should be a concern for ANYONE who hopes to make a living in the music field. Think about it. If you can justify getting music for free, you are saying that it doesn't matter that people don't pay you. The ethics in the matter are clear, but it seems that there are a lot of people can overlook that. If the people who have a vested interest in the matter don't stand together, this sort of theft will continue, and the industry will collapse, killing any oppertunity for all of us to make a living.

[Hink]

I would not be able to adapt, I would just die.

Well, then you have to "establish your position in the marketplace where people pay you to build them things."

Just to have a piece of vinyl in your hand?

Ego or Fetish? I can't decide.

Neither of them. It's because of my girlfriend. She always says that my music is absolutely horrifying (but that's her opinion on the genre per se), and that I should spend more time with her.

But with a vinyl I can proove that I'm doing something "serious", not just fooling around wasting time in front of the computer.

And MP3s wouldn't impress her one tiny bit.

I can't belive what I just read dude, there's a good chance your 'ol lady will be somwhere else in ten years anyhow...you'll always have your music, you don't need her validation, but I suspect you're still looking for your own...

[nuffink]

Compairisons to slavery aside, it does boil down to the right to eat the food raised by your own efforts.

If people continue to download music for free, the artist is still denied compensation for thier efforts. This should be a concern for ANYONE who hopes to make a living in the music field. Think about it. If you can justify getting music for free, you are saying that it doesn't matter that people don't pay you. The ethics in the matter are clear, but it seems that there are a lot of people can overlook that. If the people who have a vested interest in the matter don't stand together, this sort of theft will continue, and the industry will collapse, killing any oppertunity for all of us to make a living.

As opposed to the current situation where, if you're lucky, the record company will write off your debts to them when they drop you.

[tetraplan]

Now that this thread has been well and thoroughly Godwinised, can we drop it now?

Thanks,

Groet, Erik

[_starcraft_]

to all the retardss that keep bringing copyright and intellectual property in the picture .....get a clue.



heres a typical and false assumption:

Many physical objects can only be used by one person at a time. If one person
wears a pair of shoes, no one else can wear them at the same time. (The person who
wears them often also owns them, but not always.) This is not true of intellectual
property. Ideas can be copied over and over, but the person who had the original copy
still has full use of it. Suppose you write a poem. Even if a million other people
have copies and read the poem, you can still read the poem yourself. In other words,
more than one person can use an idea--a poem, a mathematical formula, a tune--without
reducing other people's use of the idea. Shoes and poems are fundamentally different
in this respect.

virtual product and intellectual property are not sinonimous. thats what the
guy don't seem to undertand and thats why he can't exactly be considered a bright chap.
theres not necesarily ownership of an idea in creatin an intangible product. the
intagible product is not an idea in itself.( in case of softarwe is 0 and 1 and in
case of music is frequencies).
as in real life your building with bricks....in software u build with code. if u build something in real life which u think is an invention u might want to patent it.....and same goes in the software industry.if patenting its not fair in one case its not fair in the other case. theres no reason why it should be different for the tangible or intagible product .
intlectual property apllys absolutely in the same way to physical products as to intangible products.....a particular type of shoe can be replicated and distributed all other the world the same as software. the only differnce is that is more costly and slower to copy.
everyone can have a copy of those particular shoes if they pay....but noone is allowed to fabricate or sell copies of those shoes without the original manufacturer consent.
the phiscal product cannot be copied and replicated with the ease of software.....but intellectual property aply to both in the same exact way. nobody could start cloning and fabricating AMD cpus without being hit by law.
according to the reasoning of that guy AMD shouldn't have this right to protect the
illegal reproduction of their cpus.....cos their cpus are just the result of 100 years of previous research and inventions made by others. they should realy just charge 50 pence for production costs....not the 200 quid u will most likely pay.

let's try and reverse the original quote .

phisical products can be copied over and over, but the person who had the
original copy still has full use of it. Suppose u manufacture a car. Even if a
million other people have copies of that car and use it, you can still drive your car
(omg so amazing) . In other words, more than one person can use the same exact
product--a bmw 3.20,an armani suit, a minmoog --without reducing other people's use
of the product

as u can see it works over way round too....so the difference he was trying to make was pointless.
the true difference concerning physical and not physcal products ...is that one is
protected by law....and the other one still not. that cos the guys in politics are
still part fo the old manufactured economy and they don't have their livelyhood at stake in the new production industry.....which is on the screen infront of you.

" companies like Monsanto are patenting seeds for plants, which has really grim consequences: if
your farm gets cross-pollinated or invaded by Monsanto plants and they can prove it, they can seize part or all of your crop as stolen property. "

.....intellectual property is even stronger and more dangerous in case of phisical products!


to conclude .
most developers here don't really want to be paid cos of their copyright,intellectual
property,patent or whatever u wanna call it....but just cos of their work in creating
a product.just like u pay a guy that makes u a table ....your not payin him cos he
invented the idea of a table (in case your not askin a designer table ) but cos of the work and skill he needed to make one.
same way you r paying a devloper not for inventing a synth (most of 'em are all
copies of hardware synths)...but cos of the work and skill he has put into to make u one .


get it ?

ps: i copied and pasted this from another thread in which we discussed about software pirating ....but same applies to music pirating of course.

[fjell_strom]

to all the retards...

I think I just scored the title for my next album.

If starcraft allows me to use it.

[greendoor]

I can't figure out if Starcraft is for or against intellectual property rights ... so much for all those words.