So many of those suffering because of piracy are quite the opposite: simply artists, writers, musicians, and other creators, who are just trying to make a living from their work so that they continue to create. Let’s also not forget that many record labels – especially smaller and independent labels – are truly aiming to create music with artistic value and integrity.

Neither these labels nor most artists can afford to operate as charities, or are lucky enough to be independently wealthy. We do not live in a socialist culture where one need not worry about income, after all. Many musicians – and often those with the greatest artistic integrity – barely scrape by financially as is. Why should such people be villainized for expecting quite reasonably to be paid when their work is valued and “consumed”?

File-sharing is sexy because reproduction is sexy. ;)
Freedom is sexy. :)

A lot of sexy people here on Torrentfreak…

…except the industry moles. ;P

> Viviane Reding joined the debate, focusing on the need for reconciliation between the almost warring factions.

Moot point. The war has already been won by file-sharers.

> However, the fact that both sides are reluctant to see the world from the perspective of the other, progress is being held back.

False, and a moot point anyway, since the world has already changed and there’s loads of file-sharing/bit-torrent/hacking/etc. progress. Anyone’s potentially a free content provider.
Check out Archive.org or Kahvi.org or even You Tube for 3 examples.

> …with many in the file-sharing community more determined than ever to preserve their activities and nurture their beloved hobby, often in a particularly proud way, a point not lost on Reding.

Hardly a hobby for some. Various industries, such as software, promote virtual monopolies with costly closed-source apps and their customers end up being locked in.
Do the industries want a free market or not? Well, file sharing is now an element of it. It’s competition. So suck it up and compete.

> Noting that this age group should become the “foundation of our digital economy, of new innovation and new growth opportunities,”

They already are, despite the apparent whims of the corporate suits to maybe bring them over to their side and/or turn them against each other. For one, they are enabling file-sharing technology and hacking monopolistic software such as Photoshop for poor designers to share, use and learn from. Meanwhile, open source developers in many age groups are closing in. Also, such as on You Tube, we have become the new mainstream media. We create and consuming our own media, as it should be, so if the old one dried up tomorrow, we’d have plenty of good stuff to enjoy.
Ever seen Zeitgeist or Steal This Film or that Star Trek farce (forget the title)?

> It is necessary to penalize those who are breaking the law.

No, it is necessary to change the law if it goes against what the citizenry want and/or what is ethical, regardless of whether or not you think that it is a bunch of ‘16-24 year old hobbiests’.

> Have we considered all alternative options to repression?

Repression?! WTF?

> In my view, growing Internet piracy is a vote of no-confidence in existing business models and legal solutions. It should be a wake-up call for policy-makers.”

Smarten up: The policy makers are the people. The government are the people. Those elected are merely puppets to effect the whims of those who elect them. The word ‘power’ to describe a politician’s position is inaccurate. I prefer civil servant. Note ‘civil’, as opposed to ‘corporate’.

> If the media companies don’t make access to online media easier and more attractive “we could lose a whole generation as supporters of artistic creation and legal use of digital services. Economically, socially, and culturally, this would be a tragedy,” she said.

Nonsense. Media is not necessarily, and doesn’t need to be, provided by companies, and it may be far and away better off for it.

> Scaring people into becoming a customer is not a sustainable business model.

(shakes head)

> It is up to the entertainment companies to ensure that the route Internet users take to media is via their door, and not to that of the nearest torrent site.

On the contrary. It is up to those companies to get into another line of work. Try fishing for cod in the northern atlantic.

> When that will be is anyone’s guess. My guess is no time soon.

Ya whatever.

I feel the need for the value chain in music business to getting shortened…dropping the record labels out of the game. This is why they are fighting with all means, from bribing Police officers in Sweden who contest against TBP to imposing new legislation in their favour in many countries. This is their battle of D E A T H and they will “hopefully” die sooner than later.

Instead of a centralized distribution (what they want), distro has gone atomic (what we want), and this will be opening many opportunities for small efficient companies catering to the Artists: from concert organisation, studio work, lyrics, marketing campaigns…before it were the BIG Lables who decided to drop or support new talents…now it’s going to be our decision. The one delivers all business model in music is dead. FACE IT BMG, SONY & Co.!

Take a glimpse at the car industry. They don’t build all of their parts themselves, assemble them, market them…they assemble thousands of parts and pieces catered from specialized companies around the globe…sadly they can’t be delivered in bits and bytes over the NET, but music and it’s services can. That is the future, a future without any big, monopolistic pricing, stone age, American nerd, record label!

but i will say it again, until the entire content of the recorded human experience is available on-line and on demand no one’s going to stop pirating. period.

They’re brokers, not creators, and now the consumers owe them something?

People are under no mandate to be paying consumers of any product, and certainly not when the supplier absolutely refuses to update the means of distribution.

If you don’t provide the product people demand, then they’ll go to the supplier that does. It’s economics 101.

Sorry, Content Nazis. Adapt or die.

This also happens with many authors and artist. They are just hired to do their work, and piracy don’t affect their income because a salary was previously agreed.

I don’t think it is going to happen but what does happen if piracy destroys the business? Nothing new. New technologies have frecuently destroyed previous business (and have created new ones). Some people become unemployed. A nasty thing but they do get paid for their work until they were fired, as any other people.

In other cases authors and artist fist create the work and later try to get money from it. Sometimes they get success sometimes not. They assume the risk and sometimes they lose. Nobody forced them and this happened too long time before Internet started to exist.

Artist get 4.5 cents per song sold at iTunes. You say the lack of these 4.5 cents is a disaster for artist but what does happen with the other 94.5 cents? A music downloader is not stealing, he is just enjoying music. He is not getting someone’s else money. Record labels are the true robbers, they steal almost everything of artist income.

You really are an idiot, who lack of arguments. Here the people don’t care about your stupid words, that a waste of time.

You are not more that a troll payed by the RIAA, that’s all.

now that’s not really that hard in real life to do, and so whom is harmed by non commercial uses again?
———-
and again artists talking 1st about money not about art, if you over price your crap products then you deserve to get pirates. That is what happens in a free market when you do not listen to your customers.
YA art dont call your self an artist or the work art if all you yap on about is MONEY