6 ms·

I think it would more apt if both sides go to jail, neither is the answer to the future of artistic works. On one side a bunch of cartels that IMO should be inv

I think it would more apt if both sides go to jail, neither is the answer to the future of artistic works. On one side a bunch of cartels that IMO should be investigated by the monopolies and mergers commission and on the other freetards that don't provide a realistic revenue model for artists.

unalone 17y ago
The pirates aren't freetards. I resent your accusation. The current model isn't working if it's so easily subverted. The solution is to figure out a model that's pirate-proof. They exist.
- tjogin 17y ago
  Spotify is huge in Sweden, TPB's home. According to a survey, [the vast majority] of Spotify users have stopped pirating. I think this proves you are right.
- thunk 17y ago
  Pirate-proof in the sense that works can't be pirated? Or pirate-proof in the sense that piracy is unnecessary because works are already free? I'm pretty sure the former is impossible.
  - unalone 17y ago
    The former's impossible in the paradigm where the only way to make money off music is to sell songs. That's not true, though. A few of the models I'm going to be experimenting with: Raising money before you release an album, with certain perks given to people that pay the money for release. Offering special exclusives that people can choose to pay for, that most people interested in just music won't bother pirating. That's why I'm excited for the iTunes LP: It's an idea that's worth money even after you own the music, that appeals to fans and less to casual criminals. I'm currently thinking of launching an ARG with a future music project. I think that launching a video game through an album distribution would be really fun and potentially really profitable.
- Quarrelsome 17y ago
  Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear there. Not all pirates are freetards, i'm talking about the two ends of the spectrum here. I am a pirate for example but I also subscribe to EMusic and make a point of buying direct from artists when I can and seeing bands live. Some people however are loathe to do this as well and believe that content should always be free. As it stands both models are somewhat flawed and neither are the way forward in their present state.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Okay, that makes sense. :-) My policy is, I buy from artists who I feel aren't big. I bought Joanna Newsom's album for a friend of mine after I downloaded it, and I just got a song from Pomplamoose, which is a crazy duo I found on Youtube. When I feel like my money's going to a good cause, then I pay.
doki_pen 17y ago
I can't resist. I'm a freetard and here is my proposal: * Artists(haha, really? is Spears and "artist"?) perform live to earn income I know... it's earth shattering. If people don't think it's worth the trouble of recording, then they shouldn't do it. See how many people come to your live performance without the free advertising that recordings provide. Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich? I think not. And also, I don't give two shits about all the administrative ppl in the recording industry. They can all live in the streets for all I care. The current system is worse then welfare.
- tedunangst 17y ago
  How about authors? How much money have you spent, lifetime, to hear an author read his books to you?
  - omail 17y ago
    By selling their services to others. Musicians can sell live performances. Authors can ghost write, edit, etc. This isn't a big leap of imagination.
  - tjogin 17y ago
    You've got a point, but the e-book market is vanishingly small compared to the regular paper-book market. Paper-books don't get pirated. You can pretty much write that off as advertising. Of course, their market will implode once we get thin and light screens that can deliver the crisp of type printed on paper.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Books are horrible about copyright. There are many books tied up in copyright that are completely out of print, and if I wanted to buy a copy I would have to buy a used copy at an exorbitant price (due to scarcity). At this point the author (or the publisher) is seeing NO money. Is there a real reason why I can't just take a copy of the book, put it to PDF and distribute it for free? The people that were involved in the production of the book have essentially abandoned it, but they will definitely jump out of the woodwork to try and cash in on it if someone were to 'make it profitable again' (which includes suing a person for distributing it). I see these as the moral equivalent of submarine patents. (Patents where you wait until something becomes popular, and then pop out of the woodwork to sue the biggest companies that you can find for millions or billions of dollars)
praptak 17y ago
> ... and on the other freetards that don't provide a realistic revenue model for artists. Gee, I didn't know this "intellectual property" war has gone this far! Is it now a crime not to provide a realistic revenue model for artists? Just in case it's actually true (I haven't been following the news recently) I am hereby providing a realistic revenue model for artists: get a job. No, really. I don't believe that being an artist (or an author in general) entitles you to anything. Copyright is a privilege, not a god-given right. Its original purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", a social contract designed to provide fair compensation for contributing to the public pool of ideas. Then the suits came and fucked this up with their concept of intellectual "property" and perpetual copyright term extensions. Copyright doesn't serve its original purpose anymore, we should just drop it. If you don't like it, don't publish. It had been this way for most of human history and it worked fine.

unalone 17y ago

The pirates aren't freetards. I resent your accusation. The current model isn't working if it's so easily subverted. The solution is to figure out a model that's pirate-proof. They exist.

tjogin 17y ago
Spotify is huge in Sweden, TPB's home. According to a survey, [the vast majority] of Spotify users have stopped pirating. I think this proves you are right.
thunk 17y ago
Pirate-proof in the sense that works can't be pirated? Or pirate-proof in the sense that piracy is unnecessary because works are already free? I'm pretty sure the former is impossible.
- unalone 17y ago
  The former's impossible in the paradigm where the only way to make money off music is to sell songs. That's not true, though. A few of the models I'm going to be experimenting with: Raising money before you release an album, with certain perks given to people that pay the money for release. Offering special exclusives that people can choose to pay for, that most people interested in just music won't bother pirating. That's why I'm excited for the iTunes LP: It's an idea that's worth money even after you own the music, that appeals to fans and less to casual criminals. I'm currently thinking of launching an ARG with a future music project. I think that launching a video game through an album distribution would be really fun and potentially really profitable.
Quarrelsome 17y ago
Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear there. Not all pirates are freetards, i'm talking about the two ends of the spectrum here. I am a pirate for example but I also subscribe to EMusic and make a point of buying direct from artists when I can and seeing bands live. Some people however are loathe to do this as well and believe that content should always be free. As it stands both models are somewhat flawed and neither are the way forward in their present state.
- unalone 17y ago
  Okay, that makes sense. :-) My policy is, I buy from artists who I feel aren't big. I bought Joanna Newsom's album for a friend of mine after I downloaded it, and I just got a song from Pomplamoose, which is a crazy duo I found on Youtube. When I feel like my money's going to a good cause, then I pay.

doki_pen 17y ago

I can't resist. I'm a freetard and here is my proposal: * Artists(haha, really? is Spears and "artist"?) perform live to earn income I know... it's earth shattering. If people don't think it's worth the trouble of recording, then they shouldn't do it. See how many people come to your live performance without the free advertising that recordings provide. Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich? I think not. And also, I don't give two shits about all the administrative ppl in the recording industry. They can all live in the streets for all I care. The current system is worse then welfare.

tedunangst 17y ago
How about authors? How much money have you spent, lifetime, to hear an author read his books to you?
- omail 17y ago
  By selling their services to others. Musicians can sell live performances. Authors can ghost write, edit, etc. This isn't a big leap of imagination.
- tjogin 17y ago
  You've got a point, but the e-book market is vanishingly small compared to the regular paper-book market. Paper-books don't get pirated. You can pretty much write that off as advertising. Of course, their market will implode once we get thin and light screens that can deliver the crisp of type printed on paper.
- pyre 17y ago
  Books are horrible about copyright. There are many books tied up in copyright that are completely out of print, and if I wanted to buy a copy I would have to buy a used copy at an exorbitant price (due to scarcity). At this point the author (or the publisher) is seeing NO money. Is there a real reason why I can't just take a copy of the book, put it to PDF and distribute it for free? The people that were involved in the production of the book have essentially abandoned it, but they will definitely jump out of the woodwork to try and cash in on it if someone were to 'make it profitable again' (which includes suing a person for distributing it). I see these as the moral equivalent of submarine patents. (Patents where you wait until something becomes popular, and then pop out of the woodwork to sue the biggest companies that you can find for millions or billions of dollars)

praptak 17y ago

> ... and on the other freetards that don't provide a realistic revenue model for artists. Gee, I didn't know this "intellectual property" war has gone this far! Is it now a crime not to provide a realistic revenue model for artists? Just in case it's actually true (I haven't been following the news recently) I am hereby providing a realistic revenue model for artists: get a job. No, really. I don't believe that being an artist (or an author in general) entitles you to anything. Copyright is a privilege, not a god-given right. Its original purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", a social contract designed to provide fair compensation for contributing to the public pool of ideas. Then the suits came and fucked this up with their concept of intellectual "property" and perpetual copyright term extensions. Copyright doesn't serve its original purpose anymore, we should just drop it. If you don't like it, don't publish. It had been this way for most of human history and it worked fine.