Thoughts on Media Piracy

[TradeDraft]

What about Download old roms for Nes,Snes,Arcade,Gameboy,Gameboy Advance and Old Sega Systems?

Do people download those's?

 

[TradeDraft]

so has dave stolen WWE and TNA?

does that mean nobody else in the world can watch this now because dave has stolen it?

Well if you go by the Copyright Holders say you can't but you can,

Do you want the link to a site where you can download some? PM me to get it

 

[TradeDraft]

What about Recording from the TV? is that Piracy?

 

[mattys123]

What about Download old roms for Nes,Snes,Arcade,Gameboy,Gameboy Advance and Old Sega Systems?

Do people download those's?

I did that for a little while (before I got my PS3), and used the roms on my PC.

I don't know the exact legalities of these files, but I guess they are illegal to download also, as they would probably still b classified as "property" of the gaming companies who developed the games in the first place.

But then theres the case that most of these ROM's or even orginal copies of the games aren't sold anywhere anymore, well at least by the organisations that created and distributed them.

Tough one this one, but I'd say it's till considered "piracy", but I sincerely doubt anyone has been prosecuted over this type.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

What about MARS11 and Faves Video you could say Techinally Piracy because they don't have Premisson by Collingwood and AFL for the Video's

Technically, yes. But common-sense says that it's a waste of time/money to pursue those kinds of litigation because there's no money to be made by AFL (Collingwood doesn't own the rights).

If Mars/Faves tried to sell them on it'd be a different story - expect the AFL to get nasty about it.

Same with the old ROMs for video games - you see it on the old download sites that you're meant to own the original machine and then download the ROM as a backup (yeah, like that happens!). But I doubt anyone would be enforcing it unless they were making a business out of re-distributing those ROMs.

 

[Nardz]

Technically, yes. But common-sense says that it's a waste of time/money to pursue those kinds of litigation because there's no money to be made by AFL (Collingwood doesn't own the rights).

But they're stealing! The AFL owns something and we are stealing it! how can we allow this!

 

[mattys123]

But they're stealing! The AFL owns something and we are stealing it! how can we allow this!

Yep, I agree, time to get one of these going;

 

[jerry springer]

currently downloading the first couple of episodes of the new BBC Day of the Triffids series which has a very small chance of airing here in Aust

any difference between that and WWE? I think not

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

In terms of your actual point, there's nothing "perverse" about it, and rather the fact that it does help the majority of the creative population (specifically non-major artists) is precisely what differentiates it from theft. More on this below.

You don't suppose that "help the majority of the creative population" is a sweeping generalisation and an unprovable point? And yes I still believe the idea that by obtaining illegal copies of a product to "try before you buy" you are somehow performing some form of below-the-line marketing service is absurd. There's perfectly legal ways of viewing/hearing most of that content in a restricted format that would still lead to the same conclusion (to buy or not).

But that's precisely what I'm getting at. The traditional business model of many of these big corporations necessarily pushes the biggest acts/movies/writers at the peril of everyone else...

I'm not arguing against you on the point of copyright law or what would be considered "fair" in terms of distributed content. The Radiohead example you posted earlier is something I support. I agree that copyright law exists for far too long.

BTW, the figures quoted in that extract from the HBS don't really point to anything conclusive. Sure production is up in countries where piracy is rampant. But that's also at a time when their economies are starting to threaten those of the Western World and there is a burgeoning 'middle class' that can afford to pay for Movies/Music/etc.

It's sharing between the watchers/listeners/readers. I take it you've never exchanged books or CD's with anyone? Because that would be STEALING, right?

That misses my point. The sharing doesn't benefit the original creator does it? And if I share a book with the good wife or a friend then ownership of the book hasn't changed has it? I still get it back when they're finished with it (all things going well...)

First off, the artist's cut after you take into account having to repay the advance and other label costs, is significantly smaller than what you've suggested. But it's also highly irrelevant. If it were stealing, it wouldn't make a difference whether it were 3 cents or $3000, it's still stealing.

As for "feeling the same way" I'm not sure what you mean. I was suggesting jerry springer would never have bought the CD in the first place. It's a group I'd refer to as "new listeners" - people who may have earlier relied on the radio/whatever else but now use torrents.

Yeah I agree the artist's cut would be smaller - 5% is just easier to do the maths for a hypothesis I wasn't intending it to blur the distinction of whether it's stealing or not. Moreso just to underscore the cumulative effect that it could have.

It's not lost at all. It's what your entire accusation of theft is predicated on. Actually, good time for a question. If I download the new Muse album, realise it's utter tripe, and delete it a week later, am I still a fairdinkum pirate? Am I still stealing? After all, I don't own the album.

Good question - from a legal standpoint I have no idea. But I reckon our forefathers had it right - "Caveat Emptor". Read a review, listen on the radio, talk with your friends, whatever. But when yer ready to get the album just pay for it.

Can I just make it clear, though, that I'm not trying to climb to some moral highground here. As a struggling designer I had to pirate software (many, many years ago) just to get training with the big apps and get some sort of foothold. If I had my time again I'd probably find a better way that didn't cheat the system.

I'm happy to use iTunes and grab a 15-30 second sound bite to work out whether I like a track. Or read a review on Pitchfork or chat to a friend. Or subscribe to something like www.emusic.com where the subscription price is way, way lower than the big labels force you to pay and you also get better exposure to indie labels or less accessible music.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

But they're stealing! The AFL owns something and we are stealing it! how can we allow this!

I'm not taking the bait Nardz Besides, I like their work.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

currently downloading the first couple of episodes of the new BBC Day of the Triffids series which has a very small chance of airing here in Aust

any difference between that and WWE? I think not

No there aint. And it pisses me off that our dear ABC would prefer to buy crappy old episodes of Dalziel and Pascoe rather than Never Mind the Buzzcocks, forcing me to watch it via YouTube whenever I have the opportunity.

I'd pay-per-episode from iTunes or similar if I could (or even subscribe to BBC if it allowed it) just to watch 'em. It seems like common-sense for something I don't even think I'd want to keep.

 

[Nardz]

I'm not taking the bait Nardz Besides, I like their work.

so because you like their work their piracy is not an issue to you?

i happen to like the work of the pirate bay, and mininova before they went all free of restricted content.

 

[mdc]

You don't suppose that "help the majority of the creative population" is a sweeping generalisation and an unprovable point?

Not as much as you'd imagine, simply because of the way the "Blockbuster model" works. Promotion of the few at the expense of the many. Fwiw, your dismissal of the HBS report numbers was entirely too hasty. A 2.5x increase in total albums within 7 years is far too large to be coincidental or simply a corollary of improved economic conditions in China/where-ever.

The one thing I'd like to stress is that my concern is strictly with non-major and prospective artists. It is something that is very dear to me, for various (personal) reasons. The "consumer's right" is very much secondary, it's just that I strongly believe ease-of-access to content is spectacularly important. It's for the same reason that I do my best to support the local 2nd hand bookshops, or wonderful film-enthusiast companies like MoC whenever I have the do-re-mi.

And yes I still believe the idea that by obtaining illegal copies of a product to "try before you buy" you are somehow performing some form of below-the-line marketing service is absurd. There's perfectly legal ways of viewing/hearing most of that content in a restricted format that would still lead to the same conclusion (to buy or not).

That's neither here or there. I'm a lot more concerned by whether it's ethical, and in my mind it's a resounding yes. For the counter-example, I always ask folk to consider that it's perfectly legal to send old ladies letters with fine print offering to buy their shares at < half of face value.

That misses my point. The sharing doesn't benefit the original creator does it? And if I share a book with the good wife or a friend then ownership of the book hasn't changed has it? I still get it back when they're finished with it (all things going well...)

Repetitive, I know, but I'm saying that's exactly what it does. I'd claim that a lot of my musical preferences have in fact been shaped by the sharing of CDs/tapes back in the day. I'm probably a bit unique in that I never listened to radio or watched Rage/similar all that much, so I've always had to rely on myself or others to inform my musical preferences.

With the proliferation of torrents, this has become even more pronounced. Several of my favourite albums of the decade I've only heard because they have been recommended to me by folk on good torrent communities, ditto for movies or whatever else. That's one thing that's not mentioned very much - good private trackers have actually become an unparalleled source of knowledge/information.

 

[Nardz]

i can tell you for a fact that a friend of mine (may or may not actually be me) would not be into music at all if he had to buy all of his music.

now he downloads stacks of music, and goes to concerts, paying money that benefits the artist

had he not been a thief as you put it the artist would not be getting any of his money

net gain from piracy for the artist there if you ask me

 

[Jabso]

I used to have a hard line against it especially when it came to music. However now I download everything including shows, movies, games (only really DS games because it's easy) and music.

With music I try not to listen to the album too much otherwise if I actually like it I won't be inclined to buying it. I try to buy every album I remotely like because the music I listen to have bands and even record labels that wouldn't make that much money.

Even those bands are not fussed at all about it. The consensus seems to be as long as they are listening to their music and they like it they will most of the time buy the record. Also let's not forget that before the internet people used to trade records and borrow them anyway.

Without piracy I doubt any non-mainstream genre would last in today's world. Radio exposure is only existent for artists that can buy the exposure and be radio friendly (i.e. cheap machine generated pop, nothing too offensive to the ears, nothing ground breaking).

For every 1 person that "steals" the album, there are at least 2 that listen to it and buy it whereas without the ability to download the album without paying for it they wouldn't have listened to it.

As with TV shows I do not see how it makes a difference. I do not have a ratings box. I am not contributing to the absolutely stupid ratings system. I am not going to be persuaded by advertising and even if I am it will not be measured and related back up to the show.

Again with TV shows I will buy the dvd series when it comes out and even watch it on TV when it's on in Australia again. I know people say that but I can say that with a clear conscious. Same goes for movies. I don't really like going to the cinema, and so many people make money off movies anyway when they simply don't deserve to be doing so. Downloading the movie (which I only do if I can find a dvd rip, not a cam) gets me more interested in the movie and more likely to purchase the DVD if I like it.

All is happening now is that consumers are exercising their right to purchase only quality content. Mainstream movie and music companies spend so much on marketing and very little on content that people are becoming scared to shell out money for something that might be absolute bullshit, which most of it is. Sure there are people out there that are just plain cheap.

Also I think we've advanced far past paying to view something once, people are more and more willing to own a copy of that media that they can play as many times as they want as opposed to the VHS days.

The only reason there is a massive anti-piracy campaign today compared to the old taping tv shows off tv and borrowing records days is because it is now able to be quantified. You can get the numbers of how many people downloaded something and you can say "Oh we lost $250 million because of piracy". They don't take into account that had internet piracy been non existent they wouldn't have made that money in the first place and the overlap of people who download AND pay.

 

[Nardz]

i don't bother with dvd's any more. i've download most movies and tv shows that i've already owned the dvd, and disposed of the dvd's. Much more convenient to have everything on a usb/hard drive. your traditional space-consuming dvd library has just become digital

 

[Jabso]

i don't bother with dvd's any more. i've download most movies and tv shows that i've already owned the dvd, and disposed of the dvd's. Much more convenient to have everything on a usb/hard drive. your traditional space-consuming dvd library has just become digital

I disagree I prefer having something physical.

DVDs really need to become a better package, i.e. more extras, better cover work/packaging, perhaps more booklets to. Similar to cds.

 

[Nardz]

I disagree I prefer having something physical.

DVDs really need to become a better package, i.e. more extras, better cover work/packaging, perhaps more booklets to. Similar to cds.

i guess that comes down to personal preference.

 

[skeetz]

I disagree I prefer having something physical.

DVDs really need to become a better package, i.e. more extras, better cover work/packaging, perhaps more booklets to. Similar to cds.

The latest Tool cd is a good example of this. It came with 3d glasses and some great artwork to view through the glasses. I would guess this would have had a positive impact on sales. I hope all media moves in this direction, of offering the consumer a product that they cannot simply download.

 

[TradeDraft]

Technically, yes. But common-sense says that it's a waste of time/money to pursue those kinds of litigation because there's no money to be made by AFL (Collingwood doesn't own the rights).

If Mars/Faves tried to sell them on it'd be a different story - expect the AFL to get nasty about it.

Same with the old ROMs for video games - you see it on the old download sites that you're meant to own the original machine and then download the ROM as a backup (yeah, like that happens!). But I doubt anyone would be enforcing it unless they were making a business out of re-distributing those ROMs.

Well because they don't sell them anymore and Don't Make money out of it

 

[smiddaz123]

I disagree I prefer having something physical.

DVDs really need to become a better package, i.e. more extras, better cover work/packaging, perhaps more booklets to. Similar to cds.

I think we'd all rather something physical.....it's just the whole not paying money thing that we all love haha.

 

[TradeDraft]

No there aint. And it pisses me off that our dear ABC would prefer to buy crappy old episodes of Dalziel and Pascoe rather than Never Mind the Buzzcocks, forcing me to watch it via YouTube whenever I have the opportunity.

I'd pay-per-episode from iTunes or similar if I could (or even subscribe to BBC if it allowed it) just to watch 'em. It seems like common-sense for something I don't even think I'd want to keep.

As long as the Video's are Cheap enough like Dollar a Epsiode then People would Happly pay for it then

 

[Old Spice]

I've heard that argument bandied around about the artist getting more exposure from pirated cd's, and therefore more people turn up to their concerts and buy any associated paraphenalia etc. Also quite evidently a bunch of musos are happy with it is as well.

I do wonder though whether the spin off effects are that great. If a mate of yours told you they ripped a great cd, wouldn't you do the same, or burn a copy off them, rather than actually buy one? Also, there is no even correlation in my mind between buying / ripping a cd and going to a gig. I'd say my cd collection outstrips my trips to gigs by about 20 to one. I'm happy to depart with $25 for a cd, but not excited about spending $60 to smell sweaty armpits and ruin my hearing any more. I don't think I'm alone there either.

If the argument is that band's benefit materially from people not paying for their music, but via increased concert patronage, I'd be very suspicious about such a claim. Underlying this assumption also is the idea that underground / alternate music just keeps expanding as it bypasses traditional methods of transmission. By this I don't mean simply major record labels and radio stations, but any record label and any radio station. I cant see people's visits to gigs expanding endlessly along with the downloading of music. You'd never be home if you were supporting ripped cd artists at gigs.

CD's allow people to listen to music at home while they're washing their dishes or while they're driving the bomb. That's why they sell an enormous volume and only a tiny proportion of the population go to concerts.

I think artists should be rewarded for their efforts with dough for CD sales which must be the meat and potatoes. I know major record labels take a massive cut of cd sales (which I don't agree with) but a smaller margin on the sale of a sh*tload of units is better than a bigger slice of a cupcake.

 

[TradeDraft]

I disagree I prefer having something physical.

DVDs really need to become a better package, i.e. more extras, better cover work/packaging, perhaps more booklets to. Similar to cds.

Have it Both Ways - I have some on DVD and some on USB HD that I can watch on TV with a WDTV

 

[Jabso]

Another counter argument to file sharing in the music industry is that record labels and artists have plenty of ways to sample their music on the internet. However IMO you cannot gauge an artist/record from 30 second excerpts of a few songs or from one or two songs. Sometimes I don't even like a band after 1 or 2 listens of a full album, sometimes it takes longer. I'm not going to hear Propagandhi on Triple M anytime soon (and even if they were radio is an antiquated way of sampling music, especially since it's no longer about the music) so without me downloading one of their albums I would not have bought all their albums and gone to their shows twice in a row.

It still a similar case with a mainstream radio friendly artist who shits out an album because of their 7 record deals from a the greedy record company. They release a single that's relatively popular but the rest of the album is pure shit.

Many independent record labels vehemently oppose the RIAA (basically the quote unquote trade union for record labels and artists in America) because of their money grabbing ways when it comes to anti-piracy measures. Punk rock label Fat Wreck Chords is a good example. The RIAA incorrectly listed them as a member label and they did everything they could to take their name down from being associated with RIAA.

It is no different to a library. The best music comes from people that want to make the music, not from the richest people. If they are good enough they will make a living. Like the rest of us.