6 ms·

'Pirate content' is such an oxymoron. First you created a network with our support so that you can distribute content to us. Then you used that clout to force a

'Pirate content' is such an oxymoron. First you created a network with our support so that you can distribute content to us. Then you used that clout to force artists to fall on their knees, 'help' them get their content out. Now you have a license for such content. So you're forcing us to behave to your definition of 'proper'. Started teaching people some manners, now? The very same people who make you whatever you're. That's not going to work sir, I am afraid. You don't own the network of us. You can't make it behave according to your whims and fancies. The artists can connect with us directly. They love to. Stop bothering us.

VMG 14y ago
Does it bother you at all that some of the artists did not want to connect to you for free? That they don't find it okay that The Avengers is streaming to you in 1080p for no cost at all while they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars? Edit: qualified first statement
- monsterix 14y ago
  Yes gave it thought: "Some of the artists did not want to connect to you" then why make a commercial flick called Avengers at all? Surely, those artists did mean to connect with us. For a price, not free you meant I think. Agreed, artists should make money. They should make money, and it CAN be done by embracing technology, by making it better at delivery. That's a different approach in life. I don't think the ideas to (referring CNN's article) "snoop who is downloading and teach them some manners" is going to work at all.
ghshephard 14y ago
I always find it interesting to see if I can find the logic in the arguments that people make to justify stealing other people's property. I really doubt that the artist behind "Hurt Locker" were trying to "connect with us directly" when people ripped off their movie on the torrents.
- monsterix 14y ago
  But you agree that people were trying to see the movie 'Hurt Locker' or treasure it? And obviously there was no official way of acquiring the content - a place which works nicely and is priced correctly. We've seen this, argued over and over again for past fifteen years. Justifying stealing is different from putting middlemen to their place. Teaching consumers manners, penalizing them is not the right way. One can understand this, or wait to understand this the hard way.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    Oh, I agree that people were trying to see the movie hurt locker in much the same way that I try to see (and treasure, trust me!) Game of Thrones off the torrents. I don't have any rationale other than the fact that I don't want to pay the $876 that HBO + Cable will cost me. I also like to have it with me while travelling, and the streaming solutions from HBO, good as they are, just aren't great on an airplane / hotel in some other country. I'm not "putting middlemen" in their place - I just want cool content in the format that is convenient for me for what I consider to be a reasonable cost to me. I do make it a absolute habit of purchasing the DVDs when they come out, to try and make my conscience a little lighter. But, I _never_ kid myself that the artists behind GoT wanted to "connect with me directly." They wanted to get paid the same as I do at my job.
    - Swizec 14y ago
      I pirate most television shows I can get my grubby little paws on. But whenever an artist whose works I enjoy tries to connect with me directly, I buy stuff. For instance, I have bought most of Amanda Palmer's albums in her various bands. Especially now that she isn't using a label anymore, but even before that she was putting a lot of work into connecting with fans directly. I also bought Louis CK's standup show thingy. And I've bought certain indie games that were enjoyable. All because the creators connected with me directly-ish. But more importantly, they made buying from them reasonable. Never any DRM, downloadable content immediately after purchase (the CD is just for show and dust collecting), ability to buy on every content in every country at the same time and so on. Conversely, I didn't buy my latest MacOS upgrade even though it was just $25. Why? Because I would have to wait three weeks for it to be available (online) in my country. Fuck that.
citricsquid 14y ago
> The artists can connect with us directly. They love to. Stop bothering us. So why don't they? http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com http://soundcloud.com http://soundcloud.com http://myspace.com http://myspace.com http://cdbaby.com http://cdbaby.com All services that an artist can use to distribute music yet musicians still choose to sign with labels to this day. Maybe, just maybe labels provide value to artists beyond what you can comprehend? Would Justin Bieber be worth over $100,000,000 if he had released his music on Bandcamp? Would Lady Gaga be worth $150,000,000 if she had released her music on Myspace? Do you think Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber want people to pirate their music and care only about people hearing their music? If that was the case why don't they release it for free? Radiohead released an album independently in... 2005? That was a success, if artists only cared about making music and didn't care about making money why hasn't every artist since released independently? Why can't people that create content be a business? Surely that is the entrepreneurial spirit everyone here is supposed to have... and if so, why can't they be against people that engage in media piracy?
- monsterix 14y ago
  Point taken. It's good to see the options coming. Yes, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga are creations using the current technology. Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly.
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    > I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly. Please can you explain what your point is then, I don't quite understand what you're saying if that is the case. > Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. You mean the freedom to take a product without doing whatever the person licensed to distribute it wants (eg: pay $10) like we have to do with every other product?
    - monsterix 14y ago

VMG 14y ago

Does it bother you at all that some of the artists did not want to connect to you for free? That they don't find it okay that The Avengers is streaming to you in 1080p for no cost at all while they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars? Edit: qualified first statement

monsterix 14y ago
Yes gave it thought: "Some of the artists did not want to connect to you" then why make a commercial flick called Avengers at all? Surely, those artists did mean to connect with us. For a price, not free you meant I think. Agreed, artists should make money. They should make money, and it CAN be done by embracing technology, by making it better at delivery. That's a different approach in life. I don't think the ideas to (referring CNN's article) "snoop who is downloading and teach them some manners" is going to work at all.

ghshephard 14y ago

I always find it interesting to see if I can find the logic in the arguments that people make to justify stealing other people's property. I really doubt that the artist behind "Hurt Locker" were trying to "connect with us directly" when people ripped off their movie on the torrents.

monsterix 14y ago
But you agree that people were trying to see the movie 'Hurt Locker' or treasure it? And obviously there was no official way of acquiring the content - a place which works nicely and is priced correctly. We've seen this, argued over and over again for past fifteen years. Justifying stealing is different from putting middlemen to their place. Teaching consumers manners, penalizing them is not the right way. One can understand this, or wait to understand this the hard way.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Oh, I agree that people were trying to see the movie hurt locker in much the same way that I try to see (and treasure, trust me!) Game of Thrones off the torrents. I don't have any rationale other than the fact that I don't want to pay the $876 that HBO + Cable will cost me. I also like to have it with me while travelling, and the streaming solutions from HBO, good as they are, just aren't great on an airplane / hotel in some other country. I'm not "putting middlemen" in their place - I just want cool content in the format that is convenient for me for what I consider to be a reasonable cost to me. I do make it a absolute habit of purchasing the DVDs when they come out, to try and make my conscience a little lighter. But, I _never_ kid myself that the artists behind GoT wanted to "connect with me directly." They wanted to get paid the same as I do at my job.
  - Swizec 14y ago
    I pirate most television shows I can get my grubby little paws on. But whenever an artist whose works I enjoy tries to connect with me directly, I buy stuff. For instance, I have bought most of Amanda Palmer's albums in her various bands. Especially now that she isn't using a label anymore, but even before that she was putting a lot of work into connecting with fans directly. I also bought Louis CK's standup show thingy. And I've bought certain indie games that were enjoyable. All because the creators connected with me directly-ish. But more importantly, they made buying from them reasonable. Never any DRM, downloadable content immediately after purchase (the CD is just for show and dust collecting), ability to buy on every content in every country at the same time and so on. Conversely, I didn't buy my latest MacOS upgrade even though it was just $25. Why? Because I would have to wait three weeks for it to be available (online) in my country. Fuck that.

citricsquid 14y ago

> The artists can connect with us directly. They love to. Stop bothering us. So why don't they? http://bandcamp.com http://bandcamp.com http://soundcloud.com http://soundcloud.com http://myspace.com http://myspace.com http://cdbaby.com http://cdbaby.com All services that an artist can use to distribute music yet musicians still choose to sign with labels to this day. Maybe, just maybe labels provide value to artists beyond what you can comprehend? Would Justin Bieber be worth over $100,000,000 if he had released his music on Bandcamp? Would Lady Gaga be worth $150,000,000 if she had released her music on Myspace? Do you think Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber want people to pirate their music and care only about people hearing their music? If that was the case why don't they release it for free? Radiohead released an album independently in... 2005? That was a success, if artists only cared about making music and didn't care about making money why hasn't every artist since released independently? Why can't people that create content be a business? Surely that is the entrepreneurial spirit everyone here is supposed to have... and if so, why can't they be against people that engage in media piracy?

monsterix 14y ago
Point taken. It's good to see the options coming. Yes, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga are creations using the current technology. Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly.
- citricsquid 14y ago
  > I never said artists should release their music for free. You did not read properly. Please can you explain what your point is then, I don't quite understand what you're saying if that is the case. > Not by suppressing freedom to download, or by penalizing consumers who download, or by asking them to behave properly. You mean the freedom to take a product without doing whatever the person licensed to distribute it wants (eg: pay $10) like we have to do with every other product?
  - monsterix 14y ago