4 ms·

This is great. I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let the

by sh1mmer 18y ago

This is great. I think "shameware" is much more compelling than DRMware. If you remind people that they are costing a small developer business and then let them pirate anyway then you are going to catch the people who might pay. The people who are going to pirate will do it whatever. Also USB Overdrive is a great product. So I'm glad to see them trying something to keep their business viable.

mattmaroon 18y ago
They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free. They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent. Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    I doubt most people know that though. People are unaware of the economics of the recording industry and don't really care much. It's the same with software.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Well, we can try to help them :). http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
  - lux 18y ago
    Indie artists listed on iTunes (for example) make more than 60% on each song/album sale. It's way higher since there are no middle men involved. And it's easy to get listed through services like cdbaby.com. So "stealing" music from indies does hurt more in those terms. But even with being a musician, I lean on the side of piracy myself because it's a virtual loss not an actual one, and it's natural for people to want to share the music and things they appreciate. Any long-term successful solution will have to account for and will likely encourage that. Copyright is becoming less and less relevant, and artists (including software developers) will continue to forge an existence in a post-copyright world too. Funny story, I was playing a show the other day and some kids came up after to tell me they liked the show. One of them bought a CD and the others said they'd "totally buy one" but had no cash. So I told the first kid to just rip it for his friends, and the look on their faces was priceless. They were like "wow, awesome!" but you know he was probably going to do it anyway so why not acknowledge it? :)
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      You're right, but that's the exception not the rule. Unfortunately, most artists that people want music from (or know about) are still with the big record labels. That's a great story. How do you feel about sites like favtape.com?
      - lux 18y ago
        I think sites like that are great! It's great to see people experimenting with new ideas around sharing music, and while I'm not sure which of them will provide the ultimate successor to the current music industry structure, or which combination of them will, the more experiments we put out there the faster we'll find out. Ultimately, whatever does emerge as the best solution will be one where artists and listeners are much more connected and in control than before, so while there may be short term losses, I think we'll get to a net win in the end :)
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Theoretically some piracy replaces sales. A pirated CD is not one less you'll sell, but it's more than 0. But yeah, might as well except reality and just use the extra exposure to sell more concert tickets. If you can't beat em...
- lkozma 18y ago
  While it might be true that people just want stuff for free, I guess it is more because of the close-to-zero marginal costs. Knowing that it costs almost nothing to make a new copy of a software or music album it is easier to rationalize and have a clear conscience. I guess we haven't met this kind of zero-marginal-cost intellectual property stuff throughout our evolution, and this might not be a bad thing.
- lacker 18y ago
  The rationale is that nobody is getting hurt. Which is true. The other side misuses words by calling it "stealing", which they rationalize by saying that not giving people money is the same as stealing money away from them.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Well, it's not true. One group (bands, record labels, distributors, companies that press the cd, etc.) is getting hurt when you pirate a CD you otherwise would have paid for. However another group, often including the band you pirated, makes money when you pirate a CD you wouldn't have paid for, like it, and then go see a concert you otherwise might not. In the end, the net effect is certainly bad for a lot of people, but possibly good for some. Either way, it is unpreventable and isn't going away, so the question any more isn't so much "who is this hurting and how much?" as "what do we do given the new realities of the industry?" But just because the focus has changed doesn't mean that piracy isn't hurting people. It clearly is. Not as much as they'd like to claim (record industry lawsuits always assume every pirated CD would have been purchased, which is clearly far from true) but still, people are getting hurt.

by sh1mmer 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

They won't pay due to shame. Not at all. People steal music from indie artists just as readily as they do Madonna. They're not out to get someone by stealing from them, they just want stuff for free. They rationalize it largely as they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

fallentimes 18y ago
That's stealing more (in terms of dollars) from the labels than it is from the artists/talent. Personally, I would pay for more music if the artists saw more than 5% of the proceeds. If you really want to support an artist: go to the concerts, donate directly or tell your friends about them.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I doubt most people know that though. People are unaware of the economics of the recording industry and don't really care much. It's the same with software.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Well, we can try to help them :). http://www.negativland.com/albini.html http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
- lux 18y ago
  Indie artists listed on iTunes (for example) make more than 60% on each song/album sale. It's way higher since there are no middle men involved. And it's easy to get listed through services like cdbaby.com. So "stealing" music from indies does hurt more in those terms. But even with being a musician, I lean on the side of piracy myself because it's a virtual loss not an actual one, and it's natural for people to want to share the music and things they appreciate. Any long-term successful solution will have to account for and will likely encourage that. Copyright is becoming less and less relevant, and artists (including software developers) will continue to forge an existence in a post-copyright world too. Funny story, I was playing a show the other day and some kids came up after to tell me they liked the show. One of them bought a CD and the others said they'd "totally buy one" but had no cash. So I told the first kid to just rip it for his friends, and the look on their faces was priceless. They were like "wow, awesome!" but you know he was probably going to do it anyway so why not acknowledge it? :)
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    You're right, but that's the exception not the rule. Unfortunately, most artists that people want music from (or know about) are still with the big record labels. That's a great story. How do you feel about sites like favtape.com?
    - lux 18y ago
      I think sites like that are great! It's great to see people experimenting with new ideas around sharing music, and while I'm not sure which of them will provide the ultimate successor to the current music industry structure, or which combination of them will, the more experiments we put out there the faster we'll find out. Ultimately, whatever does emerge as the best solution will be one where artists and listeners are much more connected and in control than before, so while there may be short term losses, I think we'll get to a net win in the end :)
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Theoretically some piracy replaces sales. A pirated CD is not one less you'll sell, but it's more than 0. But yeah, might as well except reality and just use the extra exposure to sell more concert tickets. If you can't beat em...
lkozma 18y ago
While it might be true that people just want stuff for free, I guess it is more because of the close-to-zero marginal costs. Knowing that it costs almost nothing to make a new copy of a software or music album it is easier to rationalize and have a clear conscience. I guess we haven't met this kind of zero-marginal-cost intellectual property stuff throughout our evolution, and this might not be a bad thing.
lacker 18y ago
The rationale is that nobody is getting hurt. Which is true. The other side misuses words by calling it "stealing", which they rationalize by saying that not giving people money is the same as stealing money away from them.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Well, it's not true. One group (bands, record labels, distributors, companies that press the cd, etc.) is getting hurt when you pirate a CD you otherwise would have paid for. However another group, often including the band you pirated, makes money when you pirate a CD you wouldn't have paid for, like it, and then go see a concert you otherwise might not. In the end, the net effect is certainly bad for a lot of people, but possibly good for some. Either way, it is unpreventable and isn't going away, so the question any more isn't so much "who is this hurting and how much?" as "what do we do given the new realities of the industry?" But just because the focus has changed doesn't mean that piracy isn't hurting people. It clearly is. Not as much as they'd like to claim (record industry lawsuits always assume every pirated CD would have been purchased, which is clearly far from true) but still, people are getting hurt.