Dubstepforum.com

I've never really been a fan of cinema, just find it hard to sit down for three hours, and invest that time in something that could be shit (and usually is). If I do download a film I never feel that bad. Production companies complain about piracy eating into their profits but still pay some absolutely fucking talentless gump actor like ashton kutcher or something tens of millions in advance to be in a film. It's like football clubs about complaining about low ticket sales when they're paying their players the gdp of a small country to mince about and gang rape teenagers.

wub wrote:

nicenice wrote:I'm not entirely sure. I think with music the waters are muddier.

Why though?

As I stated above, with film, (afaik) there are only two possible ways to provide money to the people that made the film, through sale at the box office and sale through dvd/internet. If you pirate the film you are not inclined to give anyone any money for it because you have it sitting on your computer and can see it any time. It seems people favour watching a film at home then going to the cinema as well, so its not like the home experience and 'live' experience are like the home and live music for music. If you pirate the film the studio and director are almost certainly going to make a loss.

With music, if you pirate it and you like it. You are more inclined to give that artist money. Through purchase of the physical format or going to them perform live. So piracy of music is not entirely bad. As had been said before, it is a form promotion, if you see it in such a way. I know certain music blogs that are quite succesful because bands are willing to let their music be downloaded for free, even albums put out commercially. In this case it would seem the fans care more about piracy then the musicians. Also, what happens if you pirate music and you don't like it. Are you still inclined to pay for that music. You can't buy an album or release from a band and then ask them for your money back because you think its shit.

i'm skint 99% of the time. i can't afford to buy as much vinyl as i do AND pay for DVDs and cinema outings, so i tend to pirate movies while buying music on smaller labels

maybe when i have a stable job and settled down a bit i'll go to the pictures. i'd like it if there was a place like the Alamo in austin, TX. you can have beer and steak n shit while you watch. i'd pay for that any day

I don't see piracy as theft, I think thats a campaign major corperations came up with to protect their profit.

I do see walking into a shop and walking out with a big bag of cds and vinyl as theft.

What about mixs, you're putting out, normally, an albums worth of songs that you may or may not have made and letting people download them. Is that not the same as piracy?

nicenice wrote:I don't see piracy as theft, I think thats a campaign major corperations came up with to protect their profit.

I do see walking into a shop and walking out with a big bag of cds and vinyl as theft.

What about mixs, you're putting out, normally, an albums worth of songs that you may or may not have made and letting people download them. Is that not the same as piracy?

is remixing a track a form of piracy?

Films are franchises, which means they get revenue from other things than the part they expect you to enjoy - that you 'should' pay for.
Its about selling this package of looks, clothes, cars, cementing certain actors etc with a little happening thrown in on the side.
There were always studio sponsored pictures though, its not entirely new.

Music doesn't appropriate certain products for you to buy as direcly as waving a bmw with penelope cruise cruz tits ontop in your face.

Think of the old starwars compaired with the newer ones. It's not like the newer ones would lack funding, would they ?
So why is it so completly void of anything personal ?
In the first one (or is it 4th?) Harrison Ford was a carpenter on the set, that just happened to be so charming that he eventually landed a leading role.
I bet something like that didn't happen in the newer ones, where a certain amount of revenue was expected. So even if its the same people (with more experience and basicly unlimited finances) the climate has changed and they need to put in work and go against capitalism. The fact they don't most of the time is another reason to have no morale issues pirating.

Why can't they just think up weird new shit and pay for it.

I bet they could, look at Pixar compaired with Disney, that guy Lassiter basicly gutted Disney and all there stupid morale shit (you know like how donald duck is those three little ducks uncle and not their farther, because that would insinuate donald got some tail at some point or other shit) and handed it back to them.
Can't remember the figures but pixars' (who's a Disney subsidiary) - Toy Story was like three 4ths of the entire Disney revenue that year
-where coincidentally the old time hand drawn pictures couldn't bring in enough for disney to survive.
So what is needed is a revolution like that where the ones doing the work trust their subject matter and actively cares/fights for it.

I dont think pirating music is such a big problem though, money would come from live gigs or from those external effects that relate to airplay like licencing etc.

Pirating films is part duty, part common sence imo. Its ridiculess sums spend on idiotic shit - mostly.
I liked the idea of say taking the time and making a full 3d world like in avatar - but look at how many shit 3d films that brought with it -securing more expensive ticket sales from then on.

Did the artist who made the song comission it?

If not did you download the song illegally or legally?

Are you putting it out?

Or maybe its not a form of piracy because its not taboo.

hubb wrote:Films are franchises, which means they get revenue from other things than the part they expect you to enjoy - that you 'should' pay for.

So, smaller labels that sell hoodies/tees would be included in this?

hubb wrote:I dont think pirating music is such a big problem though, money would come from live gigs or from those external effects that relate to airplay like licencing etc.

Again, what about independant labels that don't necessarily get licensing, or artists that don't do live gigs?

97% of the stuff I see illegally would never get watched if I had to pay for it. The other 3% gets bought eventually. The majority of big releases in the past decade have, imo, been shit anyway. I think the last DVD of a new film that I bought was Kill Bill pt.1. Tend to buy older films these days like Blade Runner, Little Ceasar, The Big Sleep etc. or foreign films that aren't widely released at the cinema over here.
I doubt all the illegal d/l will make Hollywood collapse, but if it did, I couldn't care less. My heart wouldn't bleed for all the out of work celebs finding it hard to keep up payments for their dogs fortnightly pedicure.
As for illegal music d/l, I only treat it as a try-before-you-buy type deal. If I don't like it, it gets deleted. If I do, it gets bought so I can hear it in all it's glory. Having said that, I only illegally obtain music about three or four times a year.

I see myself as a moral person but I fail to see a problem with me taking a few things off the internet here and there. I grew up with audio and visual tapes. If you heard a tune on the radio you hit play/rec on your tape deck so you could enjoy that tune (even if the DJ was talking over the beginning) at a later date.
If you saw that a film you liked at the cinema or just wanted to see was coming on the T.V, well you slapped in a VHS and recorded it for a later 'illegal' viewing.

tl;dr
Fuck the system!!

Also does youtube videos of songs come under piracy. I know people that don't even download or buy music, they just listen to youtube.

nicenice wrote:Did the artist who made the song comission it?

If not did you download the song illegally or legally?

Are you putting it out?

Or maybe its not a form of piracy because its not taboo.

hum.
say i bought a record and remixed it on my own accord that should be permitted, as it is now my own possession. remixing it and listening back for my own pleasure is my right as a consumer

however if i then distributed the track i would then be in the wrong as i'm giving away someone elses work without permission, even if i gave it to say, a mate for free

so maybe remxing is piracy if not comissioned after all

hubb wrote:Films are franchises, which means they get revenue from other things than the part they expect you to enjoy - that you 'should' pay for.
So, smaller labels that sell hoodies/tees would be included in this?

Im a little offended by this, so first off, fuck you .

Licencing the new Mercedes that hasn't come out yet with Cruise racing it compaired with painting a skull on a fruit of the loom tee, well you decide what to build an industry on, I bet one is a stronger contender and a safer investment.

Again, what about independent labels that don't necessarily get licensing, or artists that don't do live gigs?

Well they wouldn't be able to live off of what people paid them for music in the first place, they could try but they would need other paying jobs, so there's no stealing their livelihood - they might get a little exposure - not that it would mean survival in a monetary sence.

would always download a film with tom cruise or a lady gaga album for example, they live well beyond their means and do stupid shit with their money so they don't need mine.

i never actually buy movies but go to the cinema every so often and i only really buy music from smaller labels. not saying it's 100% ok thats just me

hubb wrote:Im a little offended by this, so first off, fuck you .

No need for bad language.

hubb wrote:Licencing the new Mercedes that hasn't come out yet with Cruise racing it compaired with painting a skull on a fruit of the loom tee, well you decide what to build an industry on, I bet one is a stronger contender and a safer investment.

So, your argument is again about concept of scale - it's ok to rob off larger organisations as they can afford it. But not smaller independants, even though they may well have identical business models/marketing technqiues.

hubb wrote:

Again, what about independent labels that don't necessarily get licensing, or artists that don't do live gigs?

Well they wouldn't be able to live off of what people paid them for music in the first place, they could try but they would need other paying jobs, so there's no stealing their livelihood - they might get a little exposure - not that it would mean survival in a monetary sence.

This point is a little unclear - are you saying it's ok to rob from people providing it's not their primary source of income?

MrAural wrote:I couldn't give a shit if it cut their revenue. I aint paying £5 to see a film, that could well and truly be shit.

By that Logic, Why spend £10 n an album when it could be shite overall?

Capture pt wrote: My friend got his track included on a Ministry of Sound CD: somthing like SOUND OF DEEPER FUTURE DUBSTEP or whatever.

Point is, he found out through someone who happened to see it telling him. MoS didn't tell him they were using his tracks.

Surely, from a morality point of view this is just as bad/worse than illegally downloading anything? My friend wont see a penny from the sales, and MoS will no doubt make a fortune from the CD, and giving none of it too the artists who's tracks were used.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think people need to sort their priorites out on who to witch hunt first - comparing average joe who just wants to listen to a track without going on youtube but cant afford to spend money against a corperate music label who has had massive international success using tracks without crediting any of the artists who WILL make a fortune from the sales....

Perhaps I don't know the whole situation with MoS. Perhaps theres somthing i'm not aware of going on.

Yeah they pay MCPS, all he needs to do is register his work for free with PRS and MCPS and he'll get his royalties. That said MoS his tracks without his permission or atleast his labels is a bit dodgy. He should drop the label it's been released an e-mail i'm sure they will sort him some compensation if no-one was contacted about it.

The conclusion I came to is that there isn't a catch-all solution to the question. There's always going to be cases where piracy will have a greater effect on the people who produced what's being pirated (starving music producer living off rice huddled over a MIDI keyboard vs Will Smith etc...), so each case has to be considered individually.

Generally I, and likely most other people, will feel little or no guilt in downloading the new Holywood blockbuster where the actors are paid more than I'll make in a lifetime. As the income of the people involved reduces, guilt and the need to support the artist increases accordingly. I only really buy music on vinyl nowadays, with the occasional exception of a new mix CD or a digi release, but this is mainly for two reasons. One, the music I'm buying generally isn't from a major label and generally the label it is from will be relatively small and niche, meaning they need my support more than the monopolising majors (same goes for the artist). Secondly, if it's EDM I'm buying, I'll probably be intending to play it out or "publicly broadcast" it, which to me is a whole different ball game to just downloading a track to listen to at home.

I disagree with the view that piracy is theft in a traditional sense. I see the point that it is technically taking something that is the "property" of someone else without permission, but I don't think the old idea of that really applies. "Stealing" implies that you take something from someone else, resulting in them no longer being in possession of it. With a digital file this is completely untrue, it's more like taking a photo in an art gallery and printing it for your wall at home vs buying the original work. Nobody loses anything, but people lose the possibility of gaining something.

I think I rambled for a bit there, apologies

Both are equally bad (or good, depending on your viewpoint). The act is the same, regardless of scale. Same with downloading books, artwork, software or whatever where the creator of said intellectual property hasn't explicitly given out permission to do so.

Paying for copies of stuff on CDs/DVDs is even more stupid because not only are you taking someone's stuff, you're giving someone else money for it.

It's not just as bad regardless of scale because the morally relevant consideration is whether your actions will result in work going uncompensated, not whether some imagined right to control information is being violated.

Of course I am begging the question wrt the legitimacy of intellectual property, but then so is pretty much everyone else in this thread.

lowfreq wrote:would always download a film with tom cruise or a lady gaga album for example, they live well beyond their means and do stupid shit with their money so they don't need mine.

i never actually buy movies but go to the cinema every so often and i only really buy music from smaller labels. not saying it's 100% ok thats just me

+1. I look at it this way. The pop music scene right now is utter shit. However, it's what people eat up since it's on the radio. When I have to DJ top 40 events I'll admit, 99% of the tunes i play are pirated, simply because it would break my heart to spend $200 to get 320s of tunes that took all of 20 minutes to get made in some studio when I could spend that on 8 singles from producers who actually try to push the envelope. Not all music is worth the same dollar value in my opinion.

Some people say that makes me a dick, making money off music I don't buy, but I get at the most 3-5 top 40 gigs a year. At $150-200 a pop I'd be losing money if I had to keep going out and buying the latest gaga, kanye, t-pain or whatever, they pump that shit out so quickly that I'd easily be buying 3-4 albums a month. At $15 a pop that just wouldn't be worth it.

Same with films. Every now and then I'll go out if there's a film by a producer I like (Aronofsky for example), but I download most films, simply because there's a huge chance they could be utter shit, most of the times the trailers don't tell you anything.

And for the tesco vs farmers market thing, let me put it this way. If I could walk into tesco, and just look at a platter of cookies and somehow copy it, without ruining the original, and simply walk out and eat the cookies without paying, I totally would, especially if I was pretty broke. Now if i were at the farmers market and some guys livelyhood was depending on me, then yeah, I'd be more inclined to buy his cookies, knowing that his hard work went into it.

Stealing intellectual property is, in my opinion, different than actual goods. With actual goods, like a car, you are taking something that could have been sold, and thus it can't be sold anymore. With digital property you are taking a copy of something, the original can still be sold.