3 ms·

> I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a

> I don't even think there needs to be evidence to justify the point, because it's common sense That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale, which is probably what supports the figures you gave. I'm pretty sure if I go download a thousand songs off of what.cd right now, I'm not draining a thousand dollars out of the music industry. In fact, I'm not draining a cent out of it. A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. > No, downloading a song that is priced at $3,000,000 isn't worse than downloading a song priced at $1, but that doesn't make either of them right? I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you're trying to make here. I was making the point that the author of some creative content should not be able to set all of the terms of their creation, including what they perceive as damages. (This is exactly what "fair use" is.)

citricsquid 14y ago
> That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale No, no I'm not. Nobody believes a download is a lost sale, it's certain that there is crossover between people that would buy if they couldn't pirate but there is no way that every illegal download is a lost sale. My point is that if you (a label, a musician) expect 100,000 people to listen to a song then you should be able to expect that 100,000 people will acquire that listen through means that you support? Either a download or a stream or any other "legitimate" method. If a label or artist only cared about securing the maximum number of listens then they would make the song free, but (most) choose not to, which would indicate they want every listen to be a paid listen (or through an official streaming system), correct? > A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? I'm not pretending money is disappearing and then 100,000 illegal downloads = $100,000 in lost revenue. I'm stating that if an artist or label publishes a song online and they decide it will cost $1 to download then they should be able to expect 100,000 downloads to net them $100,000 in revenue. If 100,000 downloads means only net $5000 in revenue (95,000 illegal downloads, 5000 legitimate) then that is unreasonable and they should be able to consider that "bad", and make efforts to stop that (through shutting down of illegal download services). > Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal.
- __david__ 14y ago
  > I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal. No. Technology changes markets. The market needs to adapt, not ban the technology--banning the technology is just a shortsighted, temporary move. In the long run, the people who adapt to the new uses of technology are the ones who are going to survive (in the marketplace). "Buggy-whip manufacturers" and all that....
- Wilya 14y ago
  That's ignoring the fact that piracy increases the raw number of songs acquired. Whether I pirate 20 albums a month plus buy one, or just buy one, the money received by the music industry as a whole is exactly the same. Which artist precisely gets my money is a bit different, but that's irrelevant to the industry as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that everything is nice and clean, and I believe that the amount of money spent is actually decreasing. But, frankly, it's been what, 12 years since Napster ? The music industry should, and probably does, takes piracy into account when planning their sales. Scare tactics are a way to protect their business. I understand that. I would prefer it if they used different tactics to convince me to give them money, though.
cageface 14y ago
Why do people always start arguing about music when piracy comes up? I write music making software and I know many indie developers that can correlate big drops in sales to the day a new crack is released for their software. The argument that piracy isn't a lost sale just isn't true much of the time.

citricsquid 14y ago

> That's the problem. You're stuck thinking that a download == a lost sale No, no I'm not. Nobody believes a download is a lost sale, it's certain that there is crossover between people that would buy if they couldn't pirate but there is no way that every illegal download is a lost sale. My point is that if you (a label, a musician) expect 100,000 people to listen to a song then you should be able to expect that 100,000 people will acquire that listen through means that you support? Either a download or a stream or any other "legitimate" method. If a label or artist only cared about securing the maximum number of listens then they would make the song free, but (most) choose not to, which would indicate they want every listen to be a paid listen (or through an official streaming system), correct? > A huge percentage of pirates not only had no intention on purchasing, but no money to purchase with. Not that they're necessarily entitled to the music, but the money you want to pretend is being lost just doesn't exist. What use is telling these people not to be so "selfish"? How is that a solution? I'm not pretending money is disappearing and then 100,000 illegal downloads = $100,000 in lost revenue. I'm stating that if an artist or label publishes a song online and they decide it will cost $1 to download then they should be able to expect 100,000 downloads to net them $100,000 in revenue. If 100,000 downloads means only net $5000 in revenue (95,000 illegal downloads, 5000 legitimate) then that is unreasonable and they should be able to consider that "bad", and make efforts to stop that (through shutting down of illegal download services). > Piracy is a systemic problem due to copyright's flaws, not the other way around. You didn't provide a useful solution for any of this. I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal.

__david__ 14y ago
> I don't have any solutions, but that doesn't justify piracy and make it acceptable, or something that should be allowed. Piracy should be illegal. No. Technology changes markets. The market needs to adapt, not ban the technology--banning the technology is just a shortsighted, temporary move. In the long run, the people who adapt to the new uses of technology are the ones who are going to survive (in the marketplace). "Buggy-whip manufacturers" and all that....
Wilya 14y ago
That's ignoring the fact that piracy increases the raw number of songs acquired. Whether I pirate 20 albums a month plus buy one, or just buy one, the money received by the music industry as a whole is exactly the same. Which artist precisely gets my money is a bit different, but that's irrelevant to the industry as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that everything is nice and clean, and I believe that the amount of money spent is actually decreasing. But, frankly, it's been what, 12 years since Napster ? The music industry should, and probably does, takes piracy into account when planning their sales. Scare tactics are a way to protect their business. I understand that. I would prefer it if they used different tactics to convince me to give them money, though.

cageface 14y ago

Why do people always start arguing about music when piracy comes up? I write music making software and I know many indie developers that can correlate big drops in sales to the day a new crack is released for their software. The argument that piracy isn't a lost sale just isn't true much of the time.