So my friend thinks that internet piracy not only doesn't harm the music industry, but helps it

[beddo]

Your friend needs his head smashed against a wall repeatedely until some common sense and knowledge of what he's talking about seeps in there.

Yea, because violence is a good way of making argument over the effects of copyright theft. I mean, it's not like producing counter arguments would be an effective way to get your point of view across!?

I'm doing this more and more recently... Damn the internet and it's lack of facilities to communicate a semi-serious post, you may also want to actually read the thread and check page 1 for my elaboration before you get all high and mighty.

Hmm yea, communication via text would be more useful if you could display intent or emotion.

 

[Escapist_V]

You do realize that they get paid WHILE WORKING ON the game, right? They do get compensated. Game sales just ensure the company as a whole survives, and whether they get enough money to make a over-hyped and under-whelming sequel.

The point I was trying to make was the role of publishers who supply that money during development as a response to the general "labels/publishers do nothing" tone of the thread. Without them the developers would have very little finacial security. Companies like Blizzard, Bioware or Epic might be able to stand on their on feet and take an eventual loss, but very few start-up developers can. Someone needs to make an investment before A+ games can be produced, and as I'm sure you all know games can be an expensive deal. That, added with the risk factor of low success rate for games, scare away many private investors. Hence, we kind of need publishers.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

You do realize that they get paid WHILE WORKING ON the game, right? They do get compensated. Game sales just ensure the company as a whole survives, and whether they get enough money to make a over-hyped and under-whelming sequel.

The point I was trying to make was the role of publishers who supply that money during development as a response to the general "labels/publishers do nothing" tone of the thread. Without them the developers would have very little finacial security. Companies like Blizzard, Bioware or Epic might be able to stand on their on feet and take an eventual loss, but very few start-up developers can. Someone needs to make an investment before A+ games can be produced, and as I'm sure you all know games can be an expensive deal. That, added with the risk factor of low success rate for games, scare away many private investors. Hence, we kind of need publishers.

That's what banks are for.

 

[Escapist_V]

That's what banks are for.

Yeah, because banks are so famous for loaning out millions of dollars to extremely high risk projects without any real security, and at fantastic interest rates I might add. Owing more money in the future than you spend now is so much better than having somebody paying you a salary which you get no matter what the outcome of the sales are.

I should point out again that that I'm talking AAA retail games by relatively new developers, those up and coming. Those who don't have "last game we made grossed more than any movie in history" or are making smaller games in their spare time.

 

[razer17]

No, the music industry harms the music industry. The music industry makes record profits every year, yet less and less artists are actually really successful. Is this because of piracy? No, it's because of the music industry.

Piracy helps small artists, those who have no exposure. File sharing gives them exposure.
The music industry needs to change, the record companies soak up so much of the money that should go to artists it gets ridiculous. Artists do make most of their money on ticket sales and merchandising.

 

[hermes]

That only works if you are a small band that noone heard about before (and, then again, if you are, it probably helps more if you just buy their damn disc). Unless you lived in a Vault, no one will download the next Madonna album to know wheter they like that music or not...

Well one (like my friend) could argue that piracy just kills off record companies, not actually destroy the entire industry.

Then that person doesn't know that artists also need to earn something from their music to succeed.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

here's a thought: why dont we all pirate sea shanties?
Yar, har

 

[Dasher]

No offense to you, but your friend is a moron.

Or a socialist.

Wait, I already said "moron".

 

[mannaroth]

It can only help bands taht are unheard of so they can have their name out there.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Your friend is a thieving, stingy dick. Yeah, I download music on occasion, (illegally at that) but I don't pretend that it's perfectly harmless and acceptabl, I usually only do it for bands where the CD is really hard to find (like Machinae Supremacy) and I still buy the CDs if I can. From the sound of your friend's frantic protestations, I doubt he's bought a CD (or paid for a LEGAL download of a song) in years. I wouldn't be against him so much if he wasn't so blindly attempting to justify theft, but pretending there's NOTHING wrong with it just makes him full of shit.

And seriously: merchandise? I own several hundred CDs for countless bands and the only merchandise I've EVER acquired are 3 DVDs of the music videos for Metallica, The Offspring and Meat Loaf and that only because they were selling at a reduced price. I've been to 2 live concerts in my life (OK, I know I'm the unusual one in that regard) but have spent hundreds of dollars on CDs. Even if I'm not exactly typical, your douchebag friend's stupid claim that album sales make up an irrelevant proportion of band/record company profits (and it's therefore A-OK for him to steal whatever he wants) is a steaming pile of crap.

 

[Dasher]

No, they are morons for having a view of reality that asserts any validity whatsoever to socialism.

Of course, they may be morons on other counts as well, just as any capitalist who thinks bringing back Sony Beta videotape format will change the home entertainment industry.

Stupid is as stupid does, and any willing acceptance of a refutation of reality - which is at the heart of socialism - is just

plain

stupid

No offense to you, but your friend is a moron.

Or a socialist.

Wait, I already said "moron".

Socialists are morons for having their own view of life?

No, they are morons for having a view of reality that asserts any validity whatsoever to socialism.

Of course, they may be morons on other counts as well, just as any capitalist who thinks bringing back Sony Beta videotape format will change the home entertainment industry.

Stupid is as stupid does, and any willing acceptance of a refutation of reality - which is at the heart of socialism - is just

plain

stupid

 

[Rolling Thunder]

No offense to you, but your friend is a moron.

Or a socialist.

Wait, I already said "moron".

Didn't you already get banned? You're avatar and username is familiar.

 

[Dasher]

Don't think so.

 

[Dasher]

Wow... Well, there's really only one reason needed to point out the stupidity of SDocialilsm, and that is that it's utterly irrational.

There is no possible validation for claiming that each person should produce to their ability and each be provided for according to their need, when a moment's objective observation reveals that exactly the reverse procedure is how everything in the universe actually works:

All systems, living or otherwise, produce according to their need (I grow crops or I hunt), and acquire according to the best of their ability (I work hard and save my money, and when I can afford it, I buy a new car).

Some Hard Truths follow:

Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

Any claim that people have a "right" to something means that their access to it cannot be denied for any reason.

If the thing being claimed as a "right" is a service provided by other people, then those providing the service may not decline to do provide it, they must provide it whether they are compensated or not.

That's Socialism.

It's also Slavery.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Depends on how you define what is 'good' for the music industry.

If you think "radical and substantive changes to the entire structure of the industry; ranging from the artists' relationship with the audience to how artists earn their money, via the consumers' diminished need for massive record labels" is a 'good' thing then your friend is correct.

If however you are one of the very wealthy men sitting at the board meetings of a multinational record label then you might think that piracy is the end of your world.

Piracy isn't good for most muscians though, it's so hard for new bands to make money now and piracy puts so much more pressure on them.

Sit down and let me tell you about how the music buisness works kids.

-Record label signs a band and loans said band £500,000 to make an album
-The album gets to number one, selling 500,000 copies at £10 a pop, probaly about 20p of that goes to the artists, which then goes to the record company as the artist is in debt to the record company by £500,000 (20p times 500,000 = £100,000)
-So now the band still has to pay back another £400,000, which means they spend the next year and a half touring their asses off and trying to sell enough merchandise to make up that amount
-By the end of that crazy stint the band are back to where they started, just more famous

And that only happens in the best of cases, if the album doesn't make it number 1 it will leave the artist with an even heavier load of touring and stuff to do in order to pay back the record label, and if they then don't get the turn out they need at shows, they're pretty much fucked.

Of course the record companies are partly to blame for trying to curb the blow delt by piracy by aiming most of their music at 10 year olds who don't know how to pirate, this just means people are going to loose faith in mainstream music and care even less about the record companies and what not.

I understand what edinflames was saying about it being good for the artists because they can go a whole new way and there can be a whole new buisness model, but no one knows what this new buisness model is yet. Like them or not record companies are needed to in the majority of cases to help knew bands get their album recorded and book big tours.

There's no doubt piracy has a negative effect on album sales, just look at how many albums/singles it takes to get to number one now and compare it to how many it used to take.

Also, think about all the rich rockstars you know, now what one word can be used to describe them all? Old.

That said, I'm not saying if you download music you're evil and should be executed, because I do download myself and I will continue to, it just annoys me when people don't realise what they're doing does actually have an effect on muscians and just sit there like 'Durr down with record companies'.