Views: 11078|Replies: 20

SUPPORT PIRACY? OR ANTI-PIRACY? [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-22 19:22:24 |Display all floors
Well ...just wonderin y? thrs a lot of blk market r distributing/selling pirated cd, dvd, vcd, games, software, music & movies  is this really allowed here in china? or wat?.......

well I'm just asking? .. wats u'r opinion about this pepz? post it here!..... do u support piracy? or r u anti piracy? or wat?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-12-22 21:45:32 |Display all floors

Aaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhh ...

... Is your keyboard broken? It is just that you are only a few steps away from using full-blown TXT-speak

Fortunately, there is a cure ...

In the UK, a new release DVD might cost between 10 and 20 UKP - about 140 to 180 RMB. Whereas in China you could pay 5 RMB for a "copy" DVD - in many respects it does make the huge price difference hard to justify.

Pro-piracy? Anti-piracy? I think I will sit on the fence for this discussion. I will buy original stuff if the price is right :)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-12-26 03:15:36 |Display all floors

Nobody can support piracy

because piracy is by definition killing and looting.

File sharing is not piracy. File sharing is the answer to the oligolopy of the giant multinational companies that dominate the movie and recording industries. File sharing is the answer to inflated and fixed cartel prices on products. File sharing is the answer to obsolete distribution forms. File sharing is the answer to control freaks trying to control the customer's behavior with digital rights management and proprietary formats. File sharing is the answer to more and more absurd copyright, where not only the author should be compensated for a limited period of time, but rather his/her and his/her ancestors whole lives for a few generations to come. File sharing is the answer to everything that is wrong with today's market and politics.

File sharing will prevail as long as there is an artificial market that is controlled by a few. When artists abandon the big labels, produce their own stuff using home made equipment, market their own stuff on the Internet, and also distribute their own stuff on the Internet, the big labels will die a slow death, and file sharing will be the norm, the right thing to do, and a most natural form of distribution.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-26 12:07:12 |Display all floors

Liangzai

First, your "definition" of piracy is a rather narrow one; fact is, if you check any dictionary, you will find that it has many other possible definitions than the one you have stated.  It is not a logical form of debate to state that only your definition is valid, and then simply discount any arguments that don't fit within that definition.

Second, allow me to play devil's advocate and present the other side of the argument.  I myself am an amateur musician; I have never made any commercial recordings, but if I were to do so, I would consider those recordings to be my property.  They are the result of MY work, MY talent, MY time, MY effort, etc.

Now, if some parasite comes along and says, essentially, "I don't give a damn that this is a unique product of your time/energy, and not only will I not pay for it, but I will give it to others for free as well", I'd be pretty damn pissed off.  You seem to suffer under the illusion that everyone ELSE should receive compensation for their work; but that for some weird, mysterious reason artists should not -- instead they should simply offer all of their products for free to the world at large.

That ain't real life, my friend...regardless of how many arguments you may present to try to justify it.

Then there is quality of music.  Fact is, production DOES make a significant difference to the quality of any recording.  Try listening to U2 played on cheap guitars with cheap amps, recorded on a cheap system, in someone's garage, compared to U2 played on top-quality guitars with professional amps, recorded on the best systems in an expensive sound studio.  There is NO COMPARISON.  

Yet all those 'extras' cost money to produce.  Why do YOU enjoy listening to these songs so much?  BECAUSE of the professional production and word that has gone into making them.  So again, my question would be why should ANYONE be expected to put so much time/money/effort into making great music, only to have a bunch of parasites copy it and distribute it free of charge?

This whole "democracy of the internet" thing sounds great as an abstract philosophy.  But the REALITY is that if such a system were truly implemented, you'd have far less music, and the quality of the music that existed would be far, far poorer.  Essentially, we'd end up with a bunch of talentless hacks doing stuff in their garage and pumping it out on the internet.

The above argument applies equally to any other industry -- movies, literature, etc.

If you think that music is overpriced, then don't buy it.  If you think that movie studios are ripping you off, then don't watch their movies.

But to somehow claim that you have a "right" to own AND distribute materials that you had nothing to do in creating, at no cost to yourself, but that the people who PRODUCE those things must continue to spend time/money/resources to make them, you truly live in a different universe.  

A final question -- if the people who MAKE and OWN these products don't have the right to determine how they should distribute them, why should a talentless hack who has done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to contribute to this product be able to make such a determination?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-12-26 16:53:48 |Display all floors

LOL

Few artists own their own music. The labels do in most cases, unless you are Madonna. The artists are forced to hand over the rights to the labels to get to that studio. And few artists get any money from the labels once the process with production, marketing and distribution is finished. The artists make their money on concerts and t-shirts, unless you are Sono Bono. Why should I support the studios rather than the artists? Search for "Courtney Love's speech" on Google.

Do we really want more Avril Lavigne? Maybe you are what I want to hear, but you can't get through because you don't fit into the studios' model of what is hip bubblegum pop music?

As I see it there hasn't been any good new music around since Kurt Cobain popped a cap in his brains. That's all because of the monopoly of Sony, Warner, EMI-Bertelsmann etc.

You also need to look what I stated in my post, that copyright has been extended excessively. In the beginning, copyright was given for 14 years, with an optional 14 years extension, to protect the rights of the author, to make sure he/she can make a living on his production. Now it is 90 years after the author's death, which is excessive in absurdum. I do support copyright, patents and so on, but not in the current absurd implementation.

In China, there has never been such a view on an author's rights. On the contrary, stuff that is produced by learned and gifted people should forever fall into the possession of the whole society. And since China is a power on the rise, this will have an impact on the future of copyright, together with the uprising against absurd copyright, patent laws and so on in the West.

For me this is war. When Sony and others try to hijack MY computer with rootkits and other DRM schemes, and when they try to control what I can do with MY own copies, I will fight them. This is not about the artists; this is about the labels, the studios, the greedy oligarchies.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-12-26 18:14:38 |Display all floors

Faulty Arguments

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 ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2005-12-26 18:42:41 |Display all floors

Nah

A. Artists do get royalties, but then they have to pay for the studio time and so on. In the end, there is at best zero balance for most artists. As I said earlier, most artists make their bucks on concerts.

B. Unfortunately, there hasn't been many channels for providing artists with money for the stuff you really like. In fact, there hasn't been many channels for getting the stuff you like in the first place. Only recently have you been able to download ONE song (and omit the 13 other crap tracks), and that's thanks to Apple, NOT the labels. Unfortunatley, of the 99 cents the song costs, 1 cent goes to Apple, 96 to the studios and 2 to the artist.

C. Since a few years back I only listen to Chinese music (actively; I can't control the radio waves and what other people are sending out). I download Chinese music via P2P, evalutate it, and if I can find it legally I buy it. The only instance I have been able to find legal copies is on the net, and I bought the whole Wang Fei collection (100 plus albums), since the price was reasonable. You can't find legal stuff in stores. It is ALL illegal. Thus, my arguments DO make sense, I really DON'T listen to the Western crap music anymore. I don't have a single Western song in my mp4 library of 10000+ songs.

D. Steamboat Willie from 1928 and other early Disney productions are copyrighted until 2045, unless the media companies once again buy parliaments and extend the period. The same goes for Louis Armstrong and Edit Piaf. Much of the good ole stuff is lying rottening in the studio basements because no one is willing to pay the amount the studios demand. Since there is no good new music, one should be able to return to the past to review what's been done before. I guess that most "pirates" (file sharers) download Madonna and U2, stealing those poor bastards' money, but there is also many downloading Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Elvis and other artists.

And you need to consider this: people who download the most on P2P are also the ones who BUY the most stuff, go to concerts the most and buy gadgets the most. They use P2P to preview stuff, to find bootlegs and so on. Read  
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf and http://w1.nada.kth.se/media/Rese ... usicLessons-DL4.pdf to update your views.

1. If it is your music, why does it say (C) EMI Music on the cover?
2. Your rights are limited to your sphere of jurisdiction. it doesn't apply all around the world.
3. I can choose to listen to whatever I want. Downloading music is still legal in most countries, and I see it as nothing more than a radio broadcast.

You do know that the media companies previously were against radio broadcasts of music? Or the introduction of the cassette tape? The VHS video recorder? They resorted to take legal actions to prevent these new distribution forms instead of joining the times. History repeats itself, and now they buy congress and parliaments to make personal copying illegal, $$per with your computers by installing root kits and otherwise controlling the way you handle digital stuff.

[ Last edited by liangzai at 2005-12-26 06:44 PM ]

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.