- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 68 Hour
- Reading permission
A) Musicians DO get royalties from sales of their recordings. No, they don't get the lion's share...but then they don't have to spend millions of dollars on production, advertising, etc. There are LOTS of musicians out there who DO try to "do it on their own"...and the simple fact that you've never heard of most of them (or if you have, you think their music is crap) is simple testimony to how "effective" that route is.|
B) Do you actually make an effort to determine how much money each artist receives for their music? Do you ONLY pirate from the ones who DON'T get much? But then, isn't that a rather ass-backwards argument? I mean, essentially, you are saying that if the artist DOES "own" the music, and gets most of the profits, that perhaps you wouldn't "pirate"...but that if they only get a LITTLE money (and the studios get most), then you WILL pirate. THAT means, essentially, that you ensure that those artists who already get the LEAST money will get even LESS, because they don't even get the measly royalties they'd get from a legal sale of their music. The "champion" of the musician you are NOT. "They only get a little money, so I'll make sure they get even less!" Brilliant argument.
C) If there hasn't "been any good music", then why the hell are you listening to it? I mean, either you LIKE it, and you BUY it.....or you DON'T like it, and there's no NEED to have it -- free or not. This argument makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Dude, its all irrational justifications that don't really mean a thing.
D) I would actually agree with you somewhat in regards to the length of a copyright...but that is largely irrelevant to this argument, since MOST of the piracy going on takes place with MODERN music/movies/etc., NOT older stuff. I didn't see anywhere that you said people should ONLY pirate materials that are out of date.
Dude, your arguments make no sense at all. You say you don't like the music...yet you want to both copy AND distribute it! If you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN TO IT!!! And if you DO like the music, that means that you must appreciate the time/energy/talent/money that went into PRODUCING that product...yet you make lame arguments about why you think you deserve to get it all for free.
Your arguments are self-contradictory, claiming that piracy is justified because "musicians only get a little of the money", but then igoring the fact that if this is TRUE, your actions are robbing them of even the SMALL share of the profits they'd get otherwise. Who is MORE "evil"...the company that gives them a small share of profits? Or the talentless hack who ensures that they'll get NO royalties at all?
It is simple to me.
My music is a unique product of my skills/abilities/effort. If I personally choose to make those available for free, I can. If I choose to sell them, I can.
You also have a choice. If you like my music, and think that the cost is reasonable, you can buy it. Or, you can choose not to buy it, and therefore not listen to it.
What I fail to understand is this misbegotten concept that you have some sort of "right" to download my music, free of charge, and to give it to others, without contributing a damn thing. That you -- who made no contribution, who has no share in the product -- somehow has the right to determine how it is distributed, while I -- who made that music -- have no right whatsoever.
And if I choose to sell my rights to a production company -- because they can make it sound more professional, because they can advertise and get me a larger audience, etc. -- it is my right to make that choice. And, again, it is your right to choose whether you want to listen (and pay), or not listen (and not spend a penny).
You said, "This is not about the artists; this is about the labels, the studios, the greedy oligarchies"
What a load of crap.
This is about self-serving justifications for you to download other peoples' property without having to pay for it. I see no difference between YOUR greed (to listen parasitically to other's music, without paying for it) and the greed of the corporations you claim to protest against.
It is simple. REALLY simple. Follow the argument:
1) My music is my property. It is a unique product of my own work/effort
2) As it is my property, I can choose to do with it what I please. I can choose to put it out for everyone to use for free. I can choose to charge money for it. I can choose to sell it to a larger company to help me produce/advertise it. You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to dictate what can or cannot be done with my product.
3) You can choose to listen to it, or not listen to it. If you want to listen to it, and there is a price charged for it, you can choose for yourself if that price is worthwhile. If you think it is worthwhile, pay it, and listen. If you don't think it is worthwhile, don't pay it, and don't listen to it.
Nothing easier. None of this hypocritical, self-serving nonsense that serves basically to justify your "right" to take my product and do whatever you want with it without giving any compensation whatsoever.
[ Last edited by canadianguy at 2005-12-26 06:17 PM ]