Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Music > Music piracy - opinions
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: Music piracy - opinions Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Aug 30th, 2003 10:49 PM
Perndog I figured if I actually planned on trying to get them in trouble, I assumed I'd be able to find someone who would be able to do something about it.

It's not that the pop stars were really dragged down by the DJs playing their music for free, it's just the principle of the whole situation. Professional DJ companies that play the same kind music at weddings and such are often very strict about using only licensed (i.e. they paid for the recordings) mixes or compilations for this very reason - they could land in serious hot water if someone filed suit against them for playing stolen music. And I think the kids who do the high school dances should be held to the same standard.
Aug 30th, 2003 05:54 PM
Anonymous If the bands didn't need more exposure in the first place, how are a few burned CDs in the hand of a half-baked DJ at a school dance going to impair them?

And you didn't say who you'd report them to anyway.
Aug 30th, 2003 05:21 PM
ScruU2wice You're too stupid to spell right ( this coming from me :/ ). Please go fuck yourself.
Aug 30th, 2003 05:16 PM
Royal Tenenbaum You're to stupid to understand music. Please leave us alone.
Aug 30th, 2003 04:39 PM
ScruU2wice i haven't spent a dime on cd's since i was 11
but then again im not much on music i can't see how people have the time to have thousands of songs to listen to. the most ive ever had is 130 some. im not gonna justify what i did, but most of those songs are the only good ones on there respectable cd's :/
Aug 30th, 2003 03:33 PM
Perndog They weren't all that good at what they did and they weren't paid for their skills, they were paid for owning a receiver and lights and speakers and for playing music. People came to hear the music, which (along with the equipment) is what made a profit the DJs didn't pay for. As for who the fuck spins CDs, these guys do - I'm not talking about real club DJs, I'm talking about just running school dances, just switching discs in a couple of CD players. Finally, everything they played was the same manufactured pop/hip-hop/dance music that doesn't need more exposure in the first place.
Aug 30th, 2003 03:17 PM
Anonymous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perndog
I'm not sure about young adults, but in high school, almost every person whose collection I saw had many more burned copies than originals, and several people owned several hundred copied CDs and only a couple dozen they had paid for. This includes all of the amateur DJs that worked at dances in the area, and I would have turned them in if they weren't my friends - I already disagree with copying CDs, and these guys were profiting from stolen music.
1. To whom would you 'turn them in?'
2. Who in the fuck spins CDs?
3. Some stuff is very hard to get and sometimes online is the only way to get it.
4. They're profiting from their song selection and mixing skills. Besides, it's not like they were giving everyone a copy of their CDs. If they were selling CDs of their live set then...I still wouldn't have a problem. :< I think it'd be totally gay to 'turn in' anyone for pretty much any reason, though, especially in relation to music, and especially especially when it gives artists more exposure.
Aug 30th, 2003 05:32 AM
FS I really hate when a CD comes with "multimedia" crap that interferes with regular play. For instance, I have a CD right now of which I'd like to record the numbers to MP3 to listen to on my MP3 player, but they've fucked it up so that I can't.

Not only can this CD not be recognized in half the CD players I try it in, but the only way I can play it on my computer is by letting it run a tiny home-made CD player application which completely sucks up all my system resources and has no shuffle function. Shit like this really pisses me off. I'd already had all of the numbers downloaded before I decided to buy the CD and support the band (plus I accidentally deleted the MP3s at some point), but now it just feels like a waste of money.
Aug 29th, 2003 11:39 PM
Royal Tenenbaum "When i've got the cash, i'll buy an album, but there's just too much that i like for me to be able to keep up monetarily"

Exactly! I just download everything I can't keep up with. I may not have the $20 to spend on a CD at that second, but I'll still like to buy it at some point. Or, when I can, I'll get stuff that isn't out yet to listen to, but will by it as soon as it comes out. I downloaded the new Belle & Sebastian, and I'll definitely get it the second it comes out.



Also... I don't feel that paying for mp3s or whatever computer format is really a viable thing. I would hate just having an album I love on my computer. I want a physical object if I'm going to pay for it; I want a book, I want a disc, and I want a cool package. Fuck just having the music, that ruins the whole experience of collecting music. Perhaps when you buy a CD you should get access to some website that allows you to download a copy for yourself as well. If people want to buy just the mp3s then that's fine for them, but I definitely never want that to be the only option. Long live the disc!
Aug 29th, 2003 10:42 PM
whoreable yea exactly. I have my whole collection at my fingertips instead of having to have a 300 disc changer.

not only that but most records stores around me have a shitty selection. I would rather mostly support a band by going to see them and getting the record straight from them than barely support them by buying their album from a record store.

And I think the direct copy cd thing is a MUCH smaller problem than downloads.
Aug 29th, 2003 10:36 PM
Ninjavenom I don't have any sort of problem with downloading albums, i'm the same way as Snake is. When i've got the cash, i'll buy an album, but there's just too much that i like for me to be able to keep up monetarily. It's also incredibly convenient to be able to store a massive playlist on your pc, so that switching cds and fetching them from a cd wallet is no longer necessary.
Aug 29th, 2003 09:25 PM
Perndog The current online standard is 99 cents per song, at least on the major sites (i.e. the ones that get decent amounts of traffic) like Apple, BuyMusic, and Liquid Audio. Sites that sell memberships with unlimited downloads often have small collections, and sites that sell individual tunes for cheaper often have renewal fees to keep files for over a month and charge 99 cents for files that won't expire.
Aug 29th, 2003 09:02 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perndog
No way they're selling songs for .05 apiece. I can see a buck, or maybe seventy cents, but not .05 - only about $4.00 per CD goes to packaging and materials, so that means the record company, the artist, and all other interests are splitting up between $8 and $14 for the album when it's bought in a store. They're might have to reduce their profits per copy, but it won't be by such a drastic amount.
Um, I think online providers are already selling them for really cheap. :/

That's a good start, but what they need to do is give them a little fluff, make buying a song for $ .05 more appealing and convenient than d/l one for free....
Aug 29th, 2003 05:09 PM
Perndog No way they're selling songs for .05 apiece. I can see a buck, or maybe seventy cents, but not .05 - only about $4.00 per CD goes to packaging and materials, so that means the record company, the artist, and all other interests are splitting up between $8 and $14 for the album when it's bought in a store. They're might have to reduce their profits per copy, but it won't be by such a drastic amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Royal Tenenbaum
"In a 30 second period i could probably name off 15-20 albums i bought that i only liked one or 2 songs on the entire album... ITs kinda sad..."

That just means you listen to really shitty music. Every album I buy I like at least 90% of the songs, if not all of them. Get albums by good bands and all the songs will have merit.
I agree with Tenenbaum here. Most bands who write their own music and/or haven't been manufactured by the business tend to release real albums instead of hit singles, meaning most of the album should be of similar quality. It's mainly the pop stars who have a couple of singles and a bunch of crap to back them up.

Either that or you're just really, really, picky.
Aug 29th, 2003 01:15 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Tenenbaum
The people that are ruining music are the ones that buy nothing and burn everything. Buying music in this day and age is like voting; buy the music from the bands you want to keep making music.
I have a really shitty computer, so I can't download much, but I disagree with your argument.

I think markets change, and innovations spawn change. The RIAA is reacting in a very reactionary manner, and it will only hurt them in the end. They can't stop this downloading craze, but in the meantime, while they spend their time suing college students and heading a witch hunt, they could be adapting to the changes. They COULD lower the prices of their products, they COULD sell songs for dirt cheap online. Sell a song for $ .05, and give away some special feature with it that you can't get by merely d/l a song from Kazaa.

They need to be proactive at a time when they are in fact trying to fight the tide, and it'll only ruin them. I don't subscribe to the notion that people who don't buy CDs are ruining music. People who only buy CDs and never go to see the acts live at real venues are ruining live venues, so should those live venues be up in arms....?
Aug 29th, 2003 12:46 PM
Royal Tenenbaum "In a 30 second period i could probably name off 15-20 albums i bought that i only liked one or 2 songs on the entire album... ITs kinda sad..."

That just means you listen to really shitty music. Every album I buy I like at least 90% of the songs, if not all of them. Get albums by good bands and all the songs will have merit.
Aug 29th, 2003 11:25 AM
KILLADEUCE
Quote:
Half the songs you d/l are of real poor quality anyway.
I slightly agree with this, as most people when they rip the songs to mp3 use shitty encoding, or the volume levels are all scewy...

Personally I am all about piracy- RIAA is basically reaping what they have sown... OF course noone can see the future, but , if RIAA took actions at the inception of the boom of Internet communications they would not be in the boat they are now.. And the fact that they are trying to crack down on this is laughable.. Its kinda like dealing with revolutionaries- You may kill a few people off here and there.. But you wont stop the revolution...

Personally I really like what apple is doing where you can purchase specific songs off an album as opposed to the whole thing, lets face it... In a 30 second period i could probably name off 15-20 albums i bought that i only liked one or 2 songs on the entire album... ITs kinda sad...
Aug 29th, 2003 11:24 AM
Royal Tenenbaum I have about 300 or so (guessing because I've never counted) "real" copies of CDs, and about 15 burnt CDs. I hate having a burnt CD instead of the real thing, it's just so shitty. But I do admit to having 800 or so albums on my computer and CDs. But I do buy tons of shit, hell, I bought 7 albums in the past 2 days.
Aug 29th, 2003 11:14 AM
Bennett We must just have a completely different group of peers. Even those people I know who have a ton of burnt cds, only have a respective handful that are direct copies. Most are either still in the mp3 format (a lot of radios, dvd players, cd players etc now will recognize them... my friend's new truck recognizes mp3s and it's got a five disc changer filled with burnt cds of mp3s) or they have been transferred to the wav format-normal cd.

I've seen just the opposite of what you're describing. I've seen people download an entire album, download the cover art and the art on the cd, stamp the cd with a label that looks like the art, put the cover art in an empty jewel case, and voila!

It may just be like I said, we have a different group of peers. Looking at this thread, however, nobody has really mentioned how many "direct copies" they have as compared to shared files. They have mentioned that they only download stuff when they wouldn't want to buy the whole album. From this statement, it seems like if they wanted a whole album they would buy it rather than copy it.

The last time I did it, which was a while ago, ripping and burning songs from a group of cds was a MAJOR pain in the ass. Could you imagine swimming through the pile of cds it would take to amass 50 gigs of mp3s? Especially if you're only taking a few songs from an album you otherwise wouldn't buy.

That last statement is key in this discussion, I think. You now have the ability to say, "oh I don't want to buy that album, there's only one good song on it, and I can get that from Kazaa." Before, a person might be swayed to buy an album if they had heard one or two songs they liked. Whereas now, they know they can get it for free. Why bother if you don't want the whole album. Similarly, sales for singles is a shadow of what it used to be, you only have to go to the nearest record shop to see how tiny the singles sections have become. Who wants to pay five or six dollars for a cd single or 15 dollars for a cd with a couple good songs on it?
Aug 29th, 2003 01:56 AM
Big Papa Goat This thread made me want to go out and buy a CD or two.
Aug 29th, 2003 12:40 AM
Perndog It's true that the volume of files shared is huge, but I have seen some pretty impressive collections of copied CDs - I'm not sure about young adults, but in high school, almost every person whose collection I saw had many more burned copies than originals, and several people owned several hundred copied CDs and only a couple dozen they had paid for. This includes all of the amateur DJs that worked at dances in the area, and I would have turned them in if they weren't my friends - I already disagree with copying CDs, and these guys were profiting from stolen music.

The other difference we haven't covered is that unless you own an mp3 or mp3 CD player (though they are getting more prevalent), you'll only be listening to your collection at your computer, so most of us want to carry CDs around anyway, and the place people listen to music most often (or so it seems to me) is in their cars, and since not many of us have mp3 players in our cars, CDs are still the way to go. And, again from talking to the people in high school with the huge burned collections (feel free to correct me if adults are different - my friends right now all pretty much agree with me on this issue so I don't know the other side of the story), far more burned CDs are direct copies rather than collections of downloaded files.

Finally, a lot of us buy albums after we download songs from them. When you copy a record, though, you won't have any incentive to buy it unless you really want the original packaging, in which case you would have bought it whether or not you copied it.
Aug 29th, 2003 12:00 AM
Bennett Perhaps my first points were irrelevant, and I definitely have no way to prove it. It does seem to me, however that there is some correlation between the advent of file-sharing technology and the way that the industry has been managed in recent years. I am sure that there are other factors.

I still disagree with what you see as the bigger problem. Sure it is easier for companies to take action against sharers, but look at the amount of mp3's that people in this thread have admitted to having. The extent of file-sharing is huge. Imagine the effort it would take for one of those people to amass that amount of songs onto dubbed tapes. First you would have to know someone who has the desired song/album, and with most people saying they only take stuff they wouldn't buy, it doesn't seem likely that it would be very easy.

Yes, I was around in the 80s, and I don't remember there being anything of this scale. With the ease, extent and availability of file-sharing, there is just no way that I can see copying cds as a larger problem to the music industry.
Aug 28th, 2003 06:38 PM
Perndog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennett
The problem with that is that record sales really do little for the artist, unless they sell an absolutely massive amount. It's the record executives and companies themselves that are hurting from lack of sales.
A pessimistic estimate puts between $0.60 and 2.00 in the pocket of an artist after all expenses for each copy sold (we'll say a buck average). Sell a thousand records, get a thousand dollars (along with the exposure that comes from people owning your album) - this is for the short time spent in the studio - days for unknown groups, weeks or months for bigger ones (and bands that can afford to spend more studio time are generally the ones who will sell mor records anyway). Record sales are good. Loss of record sales is painful, until there's a cushion of hundreds of thousands sold. But that's neither here nor elsewhere. This is the important point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennett
While you might think, "who cares, those guys are assholes anyway," this directly translates into what you hear on the radio/tv these days. The record companies have to make money, which is why you see so much manufactured tripe mass marketed and then dropped by the second or third album, when they've found the next big thing.
Well, yeah, the record companies have to make money. That's what they do. It doesn't matter whether they're losing ground or business is booming - they will do whatever makes them the most money. The process you just described is in no way a reaction to poor sales, it's how things are done, because it's profitable. They certainly aren't going to stop trying to make money when they're secure in their fortunes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennett
And downloading mp3's has become a much bigger problem for the industry than merely copying CD's. If copying were a problem it would have been one long ago when people could dub records or cassettes. There was no lawsuit or list of names of all the people who bought a ten-pack of blank magnavox cassettes. The fact that action is being taken now, i think, show it is a larger problem.
There were lawsuits regarding copying tapes - there was even legislation. I don't know if you were around in the 80s when everyone was copying tapes, but it was a big deal to the people in charge. They thought copying tapes was going to ruin the music industry, and the only thing that prevented things from getting really bad was the advent of CDs, which couldn't be easily copied by every Joe on the street. Now they can, and since it's very difficult to crack down on that, they target file sharers instead, even if they're only a small part of the problem.
Aug 28th, 2003 02:53 PM
Royal Tenenbaum I agree. I just use mp3s to supplement the music I want to listen to but don't feel the need to rush out and buy. Most stuff I will buy if the price is right.
Aug 28th, 2003 02:27 PM
whoreable I have around 50 gigs of mp3s, so i am probaly going to hell. but i still buy albums and go to shows :/ that should count for something
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:01 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.