Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I have to admit, I'm an avid pirater; games, movies, mp3s and programs. Now personally, I do occasionally find I have to justify myself, these are my reasons.

So, you aren't opposed to committing Theft for your own entertainment?

If you're singing for the money, then you don't deserve it.

Why not? If someone's voice is their most marketable skill, why should they not be able to use it to earn a living?

Movies, again, similiar idea, most of the money goes to the production company rather than to the actual film makers. Production companies also rip off basically everybody left right and center (they hang theatres out to dry), so I figure I'm fighting back.

So, don't partake of their product.

Programs, I don't download many programs, and the pirate versions often don't upgrade (patch) themeselves, so I figure it's a fair trade. But you know, Microsoft Word, the basic word processor is over $100 instore, and I'm not gonna pay that much for a word processor.

So, design, create, and manufacture your own rather than stealing what someone else has created.

If companies want to survive, then they have to change the way they act.

Music companies are in business to make money. If their current behavior impedes their ability to turn a profit, they'll change on their own. The market is far more flexible than you give it credit for.

Music companies should move online, if I can't find a song on limewire, I'm happy to pay $1 for it on itunes, companies have to adjust to the customer, not the other way round, and these days the customer is online, not in the store.

Agreed, except for the Limewire part. I buy all of my music on iTunes. The music is the intellectual property of the artists and the music companies. They deserve to be compensated for my use of it. If they raise prices to the point that I feel I'm on the losing end of the cost/benefit continuum, I'll simply do without.

A product is only worth as much as the customer will pay for it, and right now, many media products are not worth the price, but they are worth the download.

So, it's "give it to me free, or I'll steal it?"

Firstly, I'm not taking their intellectual property, I still accept that so-and-so wrote and made this song/game/movie, and I'm not re-marketing it for my own profits.

So, don't partake of their product.

Normally I'd agree with you, but the problem with both the gaming industry and high-end program industry is that the market for both is tiny, there are about two major companies per-platform in the gaming industry, and Microsoft dominates the competition in programs. Now that's all well and good, they're companies, that's what they aim to do, except now they've thrown competition out the window, and have been escalating the price of games and programs, for no apparent reason. Would you, for example, pay hundreds of dollars for a crayon drawing that looked like a four year old had done it? No. But what if that was the only thing on the market? Now I'm not comparing games to four year old's drawings, but that's about as much effort goes into them in terms of cost/price ratio. If you wanted to decorate your house, you could of course just draw your own drawings, but you can't do that with games. So the decision is, buy games that are deliberately over priced by companies that have every intention of screwing the customer over, or borrow the game from a friend.

Music companies are in business to make money. If their current behavior impedes their ability to turn a profit, they'll change on their own.

Their ability to make money IS being impeded by their current behaviour, (hence the whining about cd sales). And they haven't adjusted quickly, or in some cases at all, to this change.

Why not? If someone's voice is their most marketable skill, why should they not be able to use it to earn a living?

I agree, but currently musical ability and money-making appear to be very separate things in many cases, (Britney Spears). Also, as I said, it isn't the cd sales that make artist's money, it's the concerts and endorsements.

Companies of all media have to change their behaviour in response to teh rise of the Internet. They'll never be able to stop the devout hackers and piraters, but they can stop people becoming them by offering products at resonable prices. They complain profits are down because of rising piracy, but they don't ask WHY piracy is on the rise. However, ultimately, the idea that single companies and media outlets control the media and infomation exchange in the modern world, just as they did 20 years ago, is false, and they, along with the law, will have to adapt to that.

I understand your point about profiteering by companies, but the naked truth is you're stealing a product that someone made. If you feel justified in doing so, fine, it's your conscience, but it is theft.

DCFGS3, your point about games costing a lot less to produce nowadays is flawed. Games cost substantially more to develop now that they ever did, and the format you referenced, the PS3, is the hardest platform to develop for. The reason as you say that there are only 2 or 3 big companies on each platform is that all the little indies are closing down. And why? Because of games piracy.

I'll admit to having downloaded some music a while back, and having recorded the occasional sound file from YouTube and Napster (after it went legal) but otherwise I stay on the straight and narrow. As you mention, recording artists do make most of their money from live shows, but they'll get dropped from their label if the records don't sell. You may think that in the film/TV industry its all just stealing from the big guys who can afford to drop a few dollars, but its everyone down the chain that feels the effect. Tantal is right, it is stealing, and just because you can do it without leaving your room doesn't make it any less wrong.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

DCFGS3, your point about games costing a lot less to produce nowadays is flawed. Games cost substantially more to develop now that they ever did, and the format you referenced, the PS3, is the hardest platform to develop for. The reason as you say that there are only 2 or 3 big companies on each platform is that all the little indies are closing down. And why? Because of games piracy.

I'll admit to having downloaded some music a while back, and having recorded the occasional sound file from YouTube and Napster (after it went legal) but otherwise I stay on the straight and narrow. As you mention, recording artists do make most of their money from live shows, but they'll get dropped from their label if the records don't sell. You may think that in the film/TV industry its all just stealing from the big guys who can afford to drop a few dollars, but its everyone down the chain that feels the effect. Tantal is right, it is stealing, and just because you can do it without leaving your room doesn't make it any less wrong.

I agree entirety with the principal at stake here. Many of my friends are musicians after all. However I also agree with vegetarianism and eat steaks!

Yeah I am a dirty rotten tieving culprit, I know. I would only say in my defense that I have downloaded stuff and liked it so much I later bought the albums (Tool 10,000 days, for example)


Best Wishes

Hypocritical Nutter

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Yeah I am a dirty rotten tieving culprit, I know. I would only say in my defense that I have downloaded stuff and liked it so much I later bought the albums (Tool 10,000 days, for example)

That's a very good point, and a number of recording artists and record companies are (slowly) coming round to the view that illegal downloading can frequently lead to a sale which might otherwise not have been made. After all, if I downloaded an album I was unsure about and wouldn't normally have bought, then decided I liked it even at the reduced quality MP3s offer, I would go out and purchase it without hesitation - dare I say I have done just that in the past, more than once.

The other problem that I see is the monopoly that is effectively created in these areas. The reason that Microsoft can charge hundreds of pounds for a program that is actually very basic (Word) is because there is no competition whatsoever. I don't personally pirate games, because I figure that if a game is good enough for me to play it then it is good enough for me to reward the developers with £35 (I never pay more than that though). On music, I do pirate music, but only if the artist is dead or the music isn't particularly good. Music IS adapting, albeit slowly - the success of Spotify is strong evidence of a new way to listen to music.

Tantal, music companies etc are mostly just unnecessary middlemen. Their ONLY function is to take a fat profit and line their pockets. They really have very little use beyond that, so I fail to see how they deserve any of my money.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Tantal, music companies etc are mostly just unnecessary middlemen. Their ONLY function is to take a fat profit and line their pockets. They really have very little use beyond that, so I fail to see how they deserve any of my money.

Who 'deserves' money in the business world should be decided by the market, not a bunch of thieves. New record labels come out all the time, usually formed by a group of artists that grew tired of the old record label. The record label is responsible for management, production, and marketing. Do you honestly think that Amy Winehouse could manage her carreer on her own?

Originally Posted by Tantal

Who 'deserves' money in the business world should be decided by the market, not a bunch of thieves. New record labels come out all the time, usually formed by a group of artists that grew tired of the old record label. The record label is responsible for management, production, and marketing. Do you honestly think that Amy Winehouse could manage her carreer on her own?

Why 'should' it be decided by the market? It evidently makes the wrong decisions, since the people who are running the show are currently a load of fatcats who do effectively no work and roll in the cash made from the fruits of someone else's artistic labour.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Why 'should' it be decided by the market? It evidently makes the wrong decisions, since the people who are running the show are currently a load of fatcats who do effectively no work and roll in the cash made from the fruits of someone else's artistic labour.

Then the artists need to find new labels and management. If the market shouldn't decide compensation for performers, then who should?

Originally Posted by DougieG

Tantal, music companies etc are mostly just unnecessary middlemen. Their ONLY function is to take a fat profit and line their pockets. They really have very little use beyond that, so I fail to see how they deserve any of my money.

Sorry to just pick up on one point Doug, but I did mostly agree with the rest. Until everyone has the ability to print and manufacture CDs I think the record companies do still have a function. Yes, its changing with downloads and ipods and Spotify, but there are still a lot of people out there who like to actually own the complete product, sleeve and all. Promotion, marketing and development is all done by the labels too. I'd agree that music used to be overpriced, but that balance has adjusted and the industry is finally waking up.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Sorry to just pick up on one point Doug, but I did mostly agree with the rest. Until everyone has the ability to print and manufacture CDs I think the record companies do still have a function. Yes, its changing with downloads and ipods and Spotify, but there are still a lot of people out there who like to actually own the complete product, sleeve and all. Promotion, marketing and development is all done by the labels too. I'd agree that music used to be overpriced, but that balance has adjusted and the industry is finally waking up.

A great many people still demand high quality music to listen to, myself included, and whilst the current online music services might well be providing a very wide range of material, and whilst an increasing number of people can burn their own CDs, quality suffers to a considerable extent. I know it's subjective to a degree; if all you've ever listened to are MP3s played on cheap equipment you probably wouldn't agree, but to listen to music of any kind as it should be heard, authentic CDs played on a high quality audio system are a must. I don't think that the market for commercially produced albums from the record companies, the only source of this material, will go away any time soon.

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't think that the market for commercially produced albums from the record companies, the only source of this material, will go away any time soon.

I disagree, MP3 quality will inevitably improve, and it doesn't make a lot of difference to the main customers (young people) how good the quality is. Having said that, I believe that some cd manufacturers will inevitably remain, if anything to provide for clubs and other music events requiring that higher audio class, after all, vinyl's still around.

At its very heart, it's a supply/demand issue. Large companies are not supplying the customer with reasonably priced goods, especially for the quality of stuff today, so the customer inevitably either goes without, or turns to the black market, and with the ease that they can do that, why would you go without to save the profits of a company that screws you over?

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Games cost substantially more to develop now that they ever did, and the format you referenced, the PS3, is the hardest platform to develop for.

It's relative, admittedly GTAIV cost roughly $100 million to make, but twenty years ago, a game that would have to take the top of the market like GTA did (where almost every next Gen console owner has it), would cost substantially more. Also, today the games industry isn't short of talent, how hard pressed would you be to find a programer 20 years ago?

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I disagree, MP3 quality will inevitably improve, and it doesn't make a lot of difference to the main customers (young people) how good the quality is. Having said that, I believe that some cd manufacturers will inevitably remain, if anything to provide for clubs and other music events requiring that higher audio class, after all, vinyl's still around.

I'm sure the quality will improve, however when you consider two things:

1. that the cost difference between a (legally) downloaded album and a CD is minimal, and with the latter you have a permanent copy, playable anywhere and which is far superior in quality and usually contains a considerable amount of sleeve detail, and
2. that as today's youngsters grow up they are almost certain to want better quality music for playing in their homes than even the best MP3s can offer - I've seen it happen with my own and friend's kids

The demand for CDs will remain high, much higher than it ever was for vinyl.

At its very heart, it's a supply/demand issue. Large companies are not supplying the customer with reasonably priced goods, especially for the quality of stuff today, so the customer inevitably either goes without, or turns to the black market, and with the ease that they can do that, why would you go without to save the profits of a company that screws you over?

Given the minimal price difference between CDs and (legally) downloaded music, why are record companies screwing you over? As a consumer if you're happy to pay say £10 for an album, why does a middle-man's profit margin matter to you?

I was actually talking about media as a whole, however in Australia it seems, perhaps not in Europe, that albums and cds are WAY overpriced in comparison to legal MP3s. And I suppose it's a personal choice, whether or not you choose to buy music, or download it illegally. Personally I'm much less inclined to reward large companies for profit taking. But I'll certainly buy a small artist's songs, and go to see my favorite bands. I choose to support the artist, rather than the company.