Huuur if videogames company dont make monies and the tv makers dont make moni they will no make mor contnet
DUUR HUUR

DURRRRRRRRR

It doesn't hurt the musicians nearly as much as it hurts the people that actually record the music.

If you are really good you'll make millions of dollars no matter how much your songs are pirated. How much money do artists need to keep making songs? Maybe this affects niche bands but niche bands are niche they'll never be making money.

>>7446432
As a producer myself, I'd like to see sources or an explanation of what you mean.

>>7446435
>If you are really good you'll make millions of dollars no matter how much your songs are pirated.
holy shit do people really believe this? kinda makes me sad :/

There isn't, because the people who actually like whatever it is will spend money on it anyhow.

The only one I can think of is that piracy effectively cuts out the middle man (e.g., the RIAA), thus costing many people their jobs. Of course, their jobs are pointless and often hinder the creativity of the artists themselves, but that's true of about 90% of jobs today anyway.

Probably that you're stealing the work of the people who recorded and distributed the album. But then zombie Proudhon runs up and yells PROPERTY IS THEFT.

I think it's wrong because defending corporations whom I gain nothing from is what a good citizen thinks.

Hmm, being able to find and listen to tracks I would never have been able to other wise.

Plenty of music I listen to was released in limited quantities on small labels and only traded through those in the "in" crowd.

Now I download it for nothing. No one loses out, I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Well, it IS stealing and therefore wrong. Some of the arguments that the RIAA make are just idiotic though, like comparing music sharing to car theft. Music sharing is different considering that there is an unlimited supply of the product as music is not a physical object. Also, I can't really have too much sympathy for the RIAA when they go around bringing lawsuits against average Joes. It's nearly impossible to have an actual, fair trial brought to court due to legal fees so these cases are almost always settled out of court. The RIAA doesn't even plan on taking anything to court and rely on the fact that they have much more money than the average person and can just scare them into paying a settlement fee. Because of this, they may not even need a good case that would stand up in court. Honestly, I think the damage done to record sales by one person is negligible to the RIAA as a whole, yet they ruins these people's lives by cleaning them out. Let's not forget that the RIAA isn't exactly nice to artists either. They make you think that you are hurting the artist when in fact it's hurting them. If anything, music sharing is good advertising. More exposure means more fans, who buy the more profitable products that directly benefit the band, such as merchandise. With that being said, music sharing is still wrong. If I ever get caught, I'm not really going to be expecting any sympathy.

Tl;dr music sharing is wrong, but the RIAA is pretty homo about dealing with it.

hurrrr piracy is wrong

If me and a team of people make a car together, that's a definite amount of actual work right there. And we (should, if we are honest) sell that car according to a few factors:
# the value of our time
# the value of our skill - which can be many years in accumulating
# the value of the item

Also, that is one physical product. There is no magical force in the universe by which i can duplicate that item that i/we have just made.

We good so far? Right.

If me and a team of people get together and put some DATA together, and want to sell it, now we have a problem. Because, first of all, there IS some "magical force in the universe by which i can duplicate that item" (the collection of data). Computers, electronics, with music - emulators of sound, etc. Now, furthermore, this technology exists in over half the houses in the civilised world, and is accessible to pretty much the entire rest of the world.

So, if this team of people try to sell this item (a physical collection of DATA), they have some value problems:
# the value of the item, according even just to the universal principle of SUPPLY AND DEMAND, begins at WORTHLESS.
# the value of the skill of the team is worthless also. Why? Because they are not selling this ONE ITEM, like the team that make the car was. They have started with a seed, and they want to sit back and watch it bear all the fruits of a garden.

It is dishonest to expect that you have that right.

Copyright is people standing on the side of the road selling secrets.

fuck copyright.

>>7446449

Yes I do, some shitty bands make it to the top though. Also, I'm not /mu/ crying over their shit band not being a hit, if I had it my way anime theme songs would be top dog in the music world.

>>7446556mb
> it IS stealing and therefore wrong
i disagree that it's even stealing

Intellectual Property is one of the stupidest greediest concepts to EVER actually creep into the laws of mankind, and it's premises and theory are idiotic and untenable

you self-righteous ultracapitalists really need to shut the fuck up.

Pirating is a reasonable systemic response to a flawed distribution model. Pirates tend to purchase more media than non-pirates in the long run, so draconian punishments to 'protect the industry' are not ethically justified. Tracking individual media consumption would require unreasonable reductions in personal privacy. Taking a virtual copy of an item does not make anyone poorer, as there is no limit on supply.

>>7446609
its gonig to sound like Im sucking your dick but i consider this seriously wise and I agree and appreciate it bro

that is all

>>7446449
Nordstrom had to move houses a few times. Some new label deals have the band pay for the production cost. Random things really, and it's not too big of a deal in my opinion because the cost of making a nice sounding album has gone down. Still sucks if you work in recording, though.

>>7446790
There was still work and cost put into it. If you don't feel like supporting the system then don't buy the album/etc. Pirating it because you think it should be free is extremely childish.

>>7446890
> There was still work and cost put into it
Obviously, but you're missing the point. That work and cost goes into the **Intellectual Property / Copyright Factor**, not into the item. That work and cost is not invested into each individual duplicate, only the original.

Just so you know, i don't believe in stealing CDs. That is stealing an item, which may be DIRT FUCKING CHEAP to produce and distribute, but they are still an item of physical worth. '

But i will never honour Intellectual Property or "copyright". I believe in the right of DATA sellers (musicians, writers, movie makers, whatever) to make their stuff, and to sell it. But they can only honestly sell the physical/industrial items - DVDs, CDs, whatever.

For this reason, musicians should basically be poor unless they can make their money from live performances, or, unless people would rather buy their CDs/DVDs in industrial quality rather than fileshare it.

> because you think it should be free
> childish
fuck off, don't presume shit. I have elaborately considered all this, and i am not just being selfish here.

>>7446932
just want to elaborate on this and say something i left out, even though it should be obvious:

there is nothing wrong with file/data sharing or "piracy"

the music industry must conform to pirating

that is all

>>7446854
> Taking a virtual copy of an item does not make anyone poorer, as there is no limit on supply.

This. There is no counter-argument. I buy CD's if the price is right. Just because I download a song, doesn't mean I would have bought it if I couldn't. On the contrary, I recently bought a CD because I enjoyed the music I downloaded from the same performer.