6 ms·

I sometimes count my music library in terms of money saved (in the insane world that a pirated album is a lost sale), it's currently something like £8k because

I sometimes count my music library in terms of money saved (in the insane world that a pirated album is a lost sale), it's currently something like £8k because I really have no idea of how many albums I have. Should I start counting by how much I'd get sued? It's over a third of a trillion going by this court.

tzs 16y ago
Did you pay for any of it, or is your entire library pirated?
- falcolas 16y ago
  Wouldn't matter according to the original ruling, if it was ever listed in a file sharing program as available for distribution.
- tobylane 16y ago
  Paid for nothing, had previously owned ~20 albums, got ~10 albums for free (Jamendo). I don't seed, seeders will hate this, anti-piraters may like this. I have no reason to do it, unlimited, p2p-allowing internet. This is my third music library from p2p (and first backed-up).
techiferous 16y ago
I've always been suspicious of the ethics of pirated music and I sincerely want to know how people who pirate music justify it. From my perspective, a musician put forth a lot of effort and cost into creating a piece of music. At that point, I consider that the musician owns what they have created and can choose whether to keep their music to themselves or share it with the wider world. From my point of view it is the musician who gets to decide what they want to do with their work: sell it through a record label, sell it independently, give it away for free. As a consumer of the music I don't think it's in my place to make the choice for the musician about what they want to do with their work. Is there something I'm missing? Am I framing it the wrong way? Or am I right in thinking that people who pirate music are unilaterally making the decision for the original musicians on how their work should be distributed?
- DrHankPym 16y ago
  Honestly, I just don't care anymore. Napster has shown it's face over 10 years ago, so anyone still thinking the same music business model is going to sustain forever is a fool. Hacking a system to create artificial value is not the answer, especially when producing music is becoming cheaper and cheaper.
  - Silhouette 16y ago
    > Hacking a system to create artificial value is not the answer, especially when producing music is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Copyright isn't useful because it creates artificial value, it's useful because it lets a work with a high production cost be distributed for a low per-copy cost, amortising the initial costs over many consumers. Without some sort of model that allows this, we would be back in the dark ages where magnificent works were produced only by artists with rich patrons.
    - rome 16y ago
      Music production costs are the lowest they've ever been. Copyright was created as an incentive to create. Personally I believe that if there were no copyright law, musicians would still create.
      - Silhouette 16y ago
        You're oversimplifying. I don't think anyone would argue that in the absence of copyright, nobody would make music any more. However, that doesn't tell us whether the same quantity and/or quality of music would be made, nor, ultimately, whether the same number of people would get as much enjoyment from listening to music as they do today. No-one is forcing musicians to rely on copyright. If production costs are so low and giving away their work for free really generates increased overall income via secondary effects, then it is remarkable how little evidence there seems to be of professional musicians choosing that alternative strategy.
- radu_floricica 16y ago

tzs 16y ago

Did you pay for any of it, or is your entire library pirated?

falcolas 16y ago
Wouldn't matter according to the original ruling, if it was ever listed in a file sharing program as available for distribution.
tobylane 16y ago
Paid for nothing, had previously owned ~20 albums, got ~10 albums for free (Jamendo). I don't seed, seeders will hate this, anti-piraters may like this. I have no reason to do it, unlimited, p2p-allowing internet. This is my third music library from p2p (and first backed-up).

techiferous 16y ago

I've always been suspicious of the ethics of pirated music and I sincerely want to know how people who pirate music justify it. From my perspective, a musician put forth a lot of effort and cost into creating a piece of music. At that point, I consider that the musician owns what they have created and can choose whether to keep their music to themselves or share it with the wider world. From my point of view it is the musician who gets to decide what they want to do with their work: sell it through a record label, sell it independently, give it away for free. As a consumer of the music I don't think it's in my place to make the choice for the musician about what they want to do with their work. Is there something I'm missing? Am I framing it the wrong way? Or am I right in thinking that people who pirate music are unilaterally making the decision for the original musicians on how their work should be distributed?

DrHankPym 16y ago
Honestly, I just don't care anymore. Napster has shown it's face over 10 years ago, so anyone still thinking the same music business model is going to sustain forever is a fool. Hacking a system to create artificial value is not the answer, especially when producing music is becoming cheaper and cheaper.
- Silhouette 16y ago
  > Hacking a system to create artificial value is not the answer, especially when producing music is becoming cheaper and cheaper. Copyright isn't useful because it creates artificial value, it's useful because it lets a work with a high production cost be distributed for a low per-copy cost, amortising the initial costs over many consumers. Without some sort of model that allows this, we would be back in the dark ages where magnificent works were produced only by artists with rich patrons.
  - rome 16y ago
    Music production costs are the lowest they've ever been. Copyright was created as an incentive to create. Personally I believe that if there were no copyright law, musicians would still create.
    - Silhouette 16y ago
      You're oversimplifying. I don't think anyone would argue that in the absence of copyright, nobody would make music any more. However, that doesn't tell us whether the same quantity and/or quality of music would be made, nor, ultimately, whether the same number of people would get as much enjoyment from listening to music as they do today. No-one is forcing musicians to rely on copyright. If production costs are so low and giving away their work for free really generates increased overall income via secondary effects, then it is remarkable how little evidence there seems to be of professional musicians choosing that alternative strategy.
radu_floricica 16y ago