– Never Pirate Games -

But I’ve been thinking about how to make my response a little better, and here’s a point that was lurking in my mind but completely unrelated to your response to my post.

I think my definition of “the industry” is skewed – I don’t take musicians to be part of the industry nearly as much as, say, game developers in the game industry. But that’s only because I have a skewed mind – I believe the industry is everybody that’s in it for the money.

I think the MAFIAA (yeah, I’m talking both the Music and Film Industry Association of America and the Members Against Freedom of Information Association of America) is going in completely the wrong direction with their advertising against piracy, and you bring up why they are.

You bring up a very strong point that it’s not just the musicians who suffer from piracy, but also the people in the industry itself – but, I’d have to amend this to say that it’s not the musicians who suffer, but mainly the industry people. Like I explained before, I don’t count musicians as part of the industry because they’re not in it chiefly for the money. (If they are, tell me.) So the claim that “musicians won’t make music if you keep on pirating” is false. They may stop distributing it as widely because the industry people are losing their money, but I don’t think there’s any major example of a musician that refused to keep on making music because his sales were being hurt.

So if you want to get the real message across of why piracy hurts the music industry, you need to stop citing musicians as a principal victim. Musicians don’t suffer because of piracy – the industry does.

it’s a shame they have no right to be angry when they have signed away all of their rights to everything they have created as a band [and the sale and distribution thereof] to their record label / distributor etc for the benefit of being publicised and making a royalty, with this kind of set up surely it is possible for the artist them self to be punished for burning his own music and giving it to a friend?

i know a few small artists none of them are rich, most of them have quite a few fans [relatively ;)], all of them are just happy to make music

how many people that you know, your self included, legally own enough music to fill up your mp3 player?

things just aren’t right :(

Everyone has a product or service they sell for their living. You probably do, too. To make payment only at the discretion of the taker of goods and services, we’d also require a workable paradigm for everyone, and good reason why this is better. Pirates didn’t target the arts because of some grand free speech free information ideology, Mr. Briggs. Pirates targeted digital merchandise simply because it became large-scale possible. If cars could be cloned we’d be hearing the same specious justifications. We all know this is very true.

But this movement gathers none of the respect of the American revolution because it is not across the board nor conceived in courage; it is narrowly contained to digital only where theft is quick and easy and secrecy is the way.

We can also likely agree that more and more product and service will move to digital in time. When a thoughtful and irrefutable explanation can be advanced why only digital product and service–but not anything else– should suffer this institutionalized gutting of fairearned revenue while the damage to the families is perhaps sad but still proper, respect will follow. Until then pirates are just old fashioned crooks with a technical assist in a new exciting medium, and a just culture will do what it must.

If you’re not popular because you basically suck, FIX YOUR SOUND before blaming others for your problems.

However, with blockbuster movies, they already have a legitimate venue of income – theatres. Just like music bands have their live performances, movies will appear in theatres. It’s non-digital distribution that’s the most reliable in terms of income. For example, Spiderman 3 made about three times its production cost from box office sales alone.

“But digital movie distribution would be more reliable if it weren’t for piracy!”

And artists would be more reliable if it weren’t for the fact that they found out they were flops and got ripped off.

P.S. Note that I have never once stated that pirates will buy music after downloading it because it’s the right thing to do – because it’s my belief that some of these pirates believe that the music itself shouldn’t cost anything – they pay out of appreciation, out of the fact that they like what the artists are doing, and want to support it. Buying the track is just a way to justify their donation. When it comes to movie pirates… well, I’m not sure what their excuse is, actually.

And they both had the honourable (to their minds) goal to reach.

The argument that formerly indie artists will invariably choose the industry is still wrong – it is completely the artist’s choice whether to join the industry or not. Doing so has no direct effect on how successful the artist is – there are hundreds of successful indie bands, and thousands of unsuccessful industry bands.

These people are asking for a reform of the industry so that it’s no longer a proper industry – i.e. they’re no longer in it for the money, but instead, money is just a nice thing to have along with the popularity. While that’s all fine and dandy, there has to be a way to do it.

That being said, without the extraneous capitalization and name-calling, his posts make a lot of sense. However, he should realize that this place is like 4chan – it will never change no matter how much you lecture it.

@Reasoned Mind: I’m going to try to explain what these people are thinking, and perhaps how your arguments can make some more sense.

They think that artists should just create music because it’s music, not because they want to earn oodles of money like current superstars. Some of these people have no idea what they’re talking about, but some others do. I have no doubt most artists think that way, but the industry thinks differently. It’s an industry, for crying out loud, of course they’re going to be in it for the money! (The industry people, not the artists.)

The reason your arguments fail to their ears is because they believe you are arguing that artists are certainly in it for the money, and paying them will make the situation better because the money does go to the artists. And yet, it’s likely that most of the mega-popular artists aren’t in it solely for the money. They’re in it for the popularity (money is just one thing that follows), and the music industry is just one venue for that, because it has the capabilities of mass-production and advertisement on their side. It’s kind of like Windows – if crap is advertised well enough, it will sell well. I’m not saying that all mass-selling albums are crap, but what I am saying that if it is crap, nobody notices. That’s probably why the millions of people you mentioned like Britney Spears – a small percentage of them are genuine fans, while others are just following the crowd.

What’s important about this is that the only reason the industry is “infinitely better” than doing it alone is because they have much better advertising. This gives some artists the illusion that the industry is the only way to go if you want your music to be popular, which, like you mentioned, it isn’t.

Now, you might have it in your head that it’s certainly because of the financial support that artists choose the industry, but keep in mind that the industry only has good financial backing because – and even then, if – the sales are good. If it turns out to be a flop, guess who gets affected the most? It’s certainly not the industry – they have thousands of other artists in queue, waiting to be heard.

You might, again, have it in your head that they can’t cancel it – it’s a binding contract! Before the industry will give an artist a contract, that artist must have prior experience. If not, then the contract will probably be provisional – subject to cancellation at any time by either party. The only way that those people will have prior experience will be to make music when they’re still out of the industry. That means performing in an independent band, or being an independent musician.

Now, the people you mentioned, like the lighting guy and the sound-board person: they are in it for the money, but they’re part of the industry, while music artists are just an accessory. A lot of artists beg to be included in the industry just so that they can grasp at that spark of a hope to become popular, not realizing that they’ll probably be screwed over in the end. Please show a paper or some link to a website (or even a Google search string that will return results pointing to the aforementioned) showing that any group in the music industry has actually lost a significant number of jobs as a direct result of music piracy. (Not money, actual jobs. These people won’t believe that job losses result from money loss, given that they believe that the industry has too much of a windfall already.) No doubt there are dozens of examples, but there are dozens more examples where they have been unaffected or even improved despite or because of piracy.

Correct anything in here that’s wrong; I need to refine my argument.

You can check us out at

http://www.facebook.com/thelastambassadors
http://www.myspace.com/thelastambassadors
http://twitter.com/TLAband

I really don’t understand the irrational fear the entertainment industry has when it comes to YouTube. No self respecting pirate would use an FLV video file as an alternative to a quality audio file of sufficient bitrate. Bookmarking the video certainly wouldn’t suffice either as it may disappear at any time. Honestly, I must be completely blind because I cannot see how a YouTube video could ever constitute a lost sale. P2P I can sort of understand, but YouTube? Really? Wow, talk about crazy assed paranoia.

you often refer to paradigms as if they are a fix thing (perhaps a bit of re-enforcement divised by your employers seen as it suits them to be fixed – cant kill the cash cow now can we?), we as society create them and change them, such as file sharing and they become the new paradigms wether you like it or not

you also state …. At some point SOMEone must stand up for the artist who is no longer being paid properly for the digital goods you are pilfering.

hahaha thats rich (pun intended) seems to me the “pilfering” starts with your employer ….and as proven time and time again file sharing is proffitable for artists as well as other numerous gains that comes

keep up the propaganda, we need people like you to remind us what the alternative is

Although I am a pirate, I thought both these videos was great. Since you made such great music, paired it with a beautiful video, and then actually spoke to me (per say) via youtube I went to the itunes store and picked up the song from the video. Even though I could just as easily have downloaded it. I probably wouldn’t purchase an actual CD because it’s expensive, but take note that if you’re ever coming through Portland that I’ll be in the crowd! A small show of support. Keep up the good work guys.

You, sir, simply reveal you are on the poor gets poorer side of the spectrum. Fine. Some things just work out.

I also take from the arts what I wish and I pay for every bit as intended for sale because that, THAT, is in the best interest of art and artists and media. PAYING THEM.

If technology temporarily routed your living and left you with MYSpace and tshirts BECAUSE IT’S COPIED not PAID FOR you’d be justifiably calling your representatives. This is not like the buggy whip metaphor, not by a long shot. You still love and want the buggy whip, you’ve simply found a way to illegally copy the whips you want without paying the creator of the original, a very different paradigm. And you have the gall to say you are about the arts and media. Rubbish. At some point SOMEone must stand up for the artist who is no longer being paid properly for the digital goods you are pilfering.

And “Piss off somewhere else” is exactly the kind of thoughtful forward reasoning we’ve come to expect from digital thieves and copyright infringers. Keep infringing and you’ll soon enough be a lot poorer.

So pirate as you wish and take the consequences when they arrive, but don’t even try to kid me or anyone else here that your payment-free approach brings the creation of art what it needs to survive in the real world. Your “I will take whatever I want for free” attitude is unintended, cheap, selfish, disrespectful and illegal, and makes you part of a sad and ugly problem for digital artists everywhere.

Any fan that is interested in having a clean version of a song that they can feel comfortable knowing that the file is not corrupt will still goto places like the iTMS to buy legit copies.

Of course not. And I never even alluded to anything like that. I said the industry path is still infinitely better for savvy musicians and the facts are undeniable. You sound like a petulant child.

When MySpace and FaceBook pages and Tshirt sales support recording artists financially the way industry has, pirates will make their point and every artist will follow. But they aren’t.

In a decade this has not happened because there is no money for a true profession in your “model”, and that is why the industry still exists. $6-8 billion a year has gone missing to artists and their support staff of all kinds and until that kind of cashflow returns, the services and financial supports afforded new artists by industry will remain the standard of achievement, the holy grail of music, and law enforcement will back this up. You think you’ll be anonymous when you join the pedos on VPNs? This is simple economics. You haven’t hurt the fatcats one bit and you are morons to think you can.

It’s the little guy you’ve fucked over for ten years, worse than any industry. You’ve screwed the assistant to the line producer who is now out of work, the guy who used to run the sound board in studio except now there is half the sales for recording, the lighting guy who can’t pay his mortgage anymore because there is less money to tour on, the graphic artists who are laid off and lose their health insurance because you take their work but refuse to pay for what you take. You think Mitch Bainwol is eating less rich food these days because of your noble actions? You think Cary Sherman no longer has a limo? You are ignorant in profoundly selfish and damaging ways and empowered ONLY by technology but not by any realistic set of facts. In every line of work, yours and mine included, people go where the compensation is—the MONEY because they HAVE TO. And what you’ve done to the families who work in the arts is criminal, even if your piracy is currently only “infringement.”

I’ve been in occasional contact with the admins here and in the past they have publicly defended my privilege to be here. Why? Everything I post here is well reasoned and based on history and current fact. I’m better read up on this than most of you added together. The best any of you ever offer is “YOU CAN’T STOP US” which is precisely why your actions are compelling an online police state in the first place. Face it, if what you offer to digital artists is so much better than before, they’d be flocking to you and the industry would be swamped. Read the news sometime. That’s not what is happening at all.

Instead, you hold Britney Spears as some sort of paragon of achievement while offering nothing of value to anyone but your own selfish selves. She’s not to my taste but millions clearly love her and you just sound like the fool here. Is it any wonder government and industry is prosecuting your arrogant lawlessness? When 6-8 billion a year more winds up in the hands of artists, your so called revolution will be complete. Until then you are wasters and liars.

“Share or be shared” is another way of saying “I’m taking it for free, I’m giving it away to anyone who wants it for free, we are paying NOBODY for the work they’ve done to create this merchandise we want and there is nothing you can do about it.” Stay classy, hm?

So in that regard your “philosophy” represents one of the lowest forms of “fan” ever in the history of recorded music or movies. A “fan” who hides behind privacy laws and takes it. Inevitably, you’ll be responsible for mandated ISP fees that will keep the industries institutionalized forever, without risk, without investment, with nothing but their catalog to coast on and their accountant to add it all up. You are stupid beyond human comprehension.

But hey. You’ve got a harddrive full of free music and movies now, right? So it’s all good. For you.

Which is why copyright is so beautiful: it gives anybody the chance of owning anything …. no it does not, it only gives those that have capital in large amounts the ‘rights’ to ‘own’ anything

And by the way i hate ballards.

Pirates of course, try to regard this veritable phalanx of hardworking, talented support professionals as people who add nothing and leech upon the artists.

The irony, of course, is that is precisely who the pirate has turned out to be.

He has the same say in the actions to be taken as anybody else who owns the same percentage of the rights as he does. For simplicity, let us assume it’s 50/50%. That means he can only do anything with the song if the other party also agrees. If it does not, then he cannot do anything, since he only has 50% of say. The same way the other party is not allowed to freely distribute the song without his permission as well.

And indeed, the fact it was he the one who created the song bears no weight in the matter — only possession of the rights do. Which is why copyright is so beautiful: it gives anybody the chance of owning anything — not just talented, creative people who can come up with things on their own. That is indeed the veritable pinnacle of democratic ideals applied to economics! ;)

The Copyright Industry consists of record labels and industry groups, which are operated by lawyers.

The difference between artists, businessmen, and lawyers are analogous to handymen, plumbers, and, well, lawyers, as thus:

Joe the Handyman: “I need a new water heater, and I know how to install it.”

Joe the Plumber: “You need a new water heater, and I’ll charge you this much to install it”

Joe, the Plumber’s Lawyer: “My client says you need a new water heater, and although you obviously know how to install it yourself, a new city ordinance requires that you hire a licensed plumber to do it for you.”

A businessman does business by examining the market, and creating products and services to fill the needs of that market.

A lawyer does business by examining his products and services, and manipulating the market to create a need. The entire purpose of the copyright industry is to decrease the supply of content, increasing the demand, and thus artificially inflating the value of a product that has no inherent value.

Joe, the Record Label’s lawyer: “Despite my client’s product being infinitely reproducible, the law says that my client is the only person who is allowed to make such copies.So, although you are able to make a copy for yourself, you must hire my client to do it for you”

Fuck. That. Shit.

eh?…so it only works in 1 direction does it? what about his rights to do as he pleases with HIS work, seems he has as much say to me if its a 50/50 ownership or more so as he actually produced it ( and i’m ONLY discussing this point) that it could be conjointly owned(?) in the 1st place

As it so happens, the right to redistribute songs (or any other intellectual property, for that mater) does not belong necessarily to it’s creator. It belongs to the person or people who own those rights; if he sold those rights or partially relinquished it, then he no longer can “do as he wants” with it, so to speak. ;)

In the case at hand, Mr. Harris conjointly owned the revenue rights of the song in question. So by freely distributing the song, he harmed the other parties’ right of revenue. In other words, he as in the wrong.

Actually, the opposite. I see changes in the way business will be done, of course, but the advancing paradigm for digital artists of all kinds will prove frustrating at first, unsustainable through time and disastrous in the long run.

Ever ask yourself where the wellspring of artists leaving their corporate homes has been these past 10 years? Where is the legion of artists furious with their lot and actively trashing the industry? Moby? lol.

The number of solid musical acts making a living on music today without label support can be counted on less than ten fingers, and if you give the music away while selling Tshirts you are in apparel, with an attendant musical hobby.

Instead of a relative few well deserving highly polished acts adored by zillions and supported by a legion of paid and experienced professionals working for a label, (think Radiohead or NIN), we are moving towards a kind of permanent amateur night hamstrung by a relative lack of cashflow and overwhelmed by a tsunami of genuine crap created by every person with an ego and an internet connection.

We’ll have a zillion different poor quality options chasing so-called fans who have already shown they will take it for free or move on to the next free thing.

Be careful what you wish for. Artists with the most savvy will always focus on their music alone and let other gifted professionals do the incredible mountain of work that constitutes all the rest of a pro music, recording and touring career. The labels aren’t going anywhere, in fact more and more they are becoming institutionalized with distributed fees on the table. An occasional exception will rise to the top now and then, but real fans have always put their money where their mouth is. The sheer indistinguishable clusterfuck of awful entertainment to choose from is the deserving legacy of an entire culture who were so selfish to demand it all at no cost to themselves, abandoning the artists to T shirts and table scraps.

Time will reveal this. Nice legacy. Serves you so right.

‘shower of’ is a well used adage in the UK and has been for many many years…

some of the more favored endings are

shower of:
1. B’stards
2. Gits
3. Cunts
4. Pricks
5. Fannies (Scottish)
6. Bawbags (scottish)

occasionally you may be lucky enough to hear them all utilised in the same exchange.

I make music videos combining popular music and TV clips and I also watch a lot of other peoples music vids. If I never got into this or never got my friends into this we wouldn’t have discovered some of these bands.

It’s great promotion for the artists.

P.S: The pirates have found a new ally in Barcelona and Calvin Harris (I kept on reading that as Calvin & Hobbs for some odd reason).
P.P.S: “Shower of cunts” is one of the best expletives I’ve ever heard. Spread it, enjoy it, adapt it. Like how music/film et cetera should be!

thats ok except they supress the competition, therfore thier ‘clients’ have no choice if they wish ‘thier’ product to be heard in a wider sense

Instead of viewing the video / listening to the song legally on Youtube, I will go ahead and pirate it!

Yipee! Doesn’t it feel good to contribute to piracy which you hate so much? (Don’t worry, once the song is out, I will download and seed it :D)

This also goes to the “shower of cunts” at the RIAA and IFPI.

Plus, a great response from Barcelona.