Yes. I'm already annoyed about concerns with other nations that need aid when more Americans are dying every year from cattle than sharks.
Today's Piracy report
- Thread starter Gindil
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They aren't.GiantRaven said:
I'm not sure where it is, but there is on Youtube a 45 minute with an woman, discussing just that. She's made a book saying that the US really should stop the aid, since it keeps them tied to the US for the subsidy and they don't learn how to depend on their own lands or needs for themselves.Anarchemitis said:
If you notice, it's about things that are a grey area. Things such as music that is mixed together in newer ways, fan made games, or news regarding a newer outlook on copyright piracy that should help to show people that perhaps the word "piracy" is more of a loaded term than it should be.BonsaiK said:
Can't touch this battery. Amazing how JMixer combines them to really sound as if they were meant to be together.
Look, I know how tempting it is to be trendy and fight the man, but lets face it, in any other system you would not be able to do what you like and support your family. I'd take the risk to fail and the monetization of work over my neighbors dictating what I do with my life. It's my life.arragonder said:
Besides, expression is free, it's painfully easy to express yourself using other people's work, provided you don't make money off of it. Distribution is the only thing that's tough.
Take the Chrono trigger thing, you can still get it, just have to look harder, and those videos he's posting, obviously no trouble with expression there.
I mean, look at Teamfourstar, Toei pulled their videos and they just put it somewhere else.
As an added observation, none of these things really consist of piracy. The layman's definition of piracy is basically taking a copy of software that costs money without paying someone. Remixes and fan based sprite manipulation is actually less of a big issue. Heck, remix cd's go to market all the time.
I don't have the time to watch that video now but I will later.Gindil said:
I highly doubt it will change my opinion towards the idea that (in bold, for emphasis) taking something for free that you would have to pay for in a shop is not a bad thing.
I mean seriously, how do you justify that as morally right?
But yeah, I'll watch the video later and see what I think then.
Fair enough, but my point is essentially that free exchange of ideas and free exchange of expression aren't really at odds with a capitalist society, it's the free exchange of produced goods that's protected. The copyright system has its flaws and can be wielded wrongly, but that constitutes a need for reform rather than the complete, forced change of an economic system in the hopes that people will no longer want things they cant get.arragonder said:
Your problem with capitalism has no bearing here because capitalism isn't the emotion called greed. It's the economic system where an individual decides the price of what they provide and the consumer decides whether or not it's worth that. There's nothing evil about that.
I'm sure you know of DJ Danger Mouse:BonsaiK said:
What works better to show what people are capable of than exposing the music that people create for free OR through various means?
Since the rules on copyright law are so complex, it would be a good idea to expose exactly what copyright law prohibits. While I can go into the law and statutes that actually prevent this, think about it for a second. Whether we download one thing or stream another, how is that so different from wanting to experience culture and share in an experience? To me at least, that's what I feel "The Law" is covering up.
DeadMau5 is really getting a following... Starting to like his remixes a lot.
You realise, of course, that this is the tried-and-tested "research" excuse, the same one favoured by pedophiles when they get busted with a hard drive full of child porn. "Oh it's just research for a book I'm writing on the evils of child exploitation", they say to the judge... "I'm just trying to expose this filth for what it truly is, and to do so, I need examples", they say as they're escorted away in handcuffs...Gindil said:
Copyright law isn't that complicated, and can basically be summed up with "if you didn't create it, you need permission to use it". There's a few grey areas here and there but most people who are infringing are extremely well aware of this fact.
...BonsaiK said:
That is a really bad analogy...
Copyright law is quite complicated when the artist doesn't have control of a work, labels can shut down innovations and when DVD streaming from Netflix [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-execs-privately-netflix-71957] becomes too expensive for the numbers thrown around, piracy will be a competitor.
In regards to music labels, Mulve [http://torrentfreak.com/after-police-raid-mulve-file-sharing-app-operator-cleared-of-wrong-doing-101129/] is the most recent example of the complexity of copyright law, allowing people to be arrested for filesharing.
Last I checked, music was meant to be enjoyed, along with movies with friends. The remix culture IS a grey area. I don't think we disagree on that. Fan made games are just that. Fan made and not considered canon. It builds on a story already in place.
I would like to think that this is more about spreading those aspects of enjoyment for all.
I will strongly suggest the video for a few reasons:GiantRaven said:
Copying has been something that people have done since humans have been born. We've copied art to find out where herds went on the plains or in cold weather. We copied songs to give ourselves a common voice. We copy a number of things for culture and to add value to things that we enjoy.
What you say in bold, I would highly suggest that you reconsider on the grounds that there is more to the story than what you see in bold.
The video is worth the 18 minutes in finding out what can happen when people look at the opportunities given to them. Enjoy.
Ok, I'm watching the video now and typing about it as I hear stuff.Gindil said:
The first thing that pops out to me is that Trent Reznor has had a successful 18 year career with Nine Inch Nails before all of the stuff talked about here. If he was an artist starting off now in the manner shown in the video, would he be able to achieve the same level of fame? To me it seems all the artists who are successfully making this transition away from record labels have had long careers under said record labels. This doesn't seem to offer any suggestions about how new artists operate.
Also, I find it hard to take issue against the whole USB debacle because it was before the album came out, it was done by the artist himself and, in this case, I believe the RIAA behaved like a bunch of idiots. This isn't a particularly good way of defending downloading music. For all intents and purposes, music is paid for. That is why it is in shops (be that physical or internet based). That is the way the world currently works. If you download music without paying for it, you are denying these companies the money they deserve for making and providing a product. I call that stealing. How do you defend that? There are more people in the music industry that matter than just the artists themselves.
I notice that this video seems to be solely using Trent Reznor as an example. If this was a truly viable route for any artist, why are we not seeing more of this? I don't think using a single example as proof of something is a particularly bad idea.
Trent Reznor distributed his own music for free. This isn't a particularly good defence of downloading music. The artist himself is providing the distribution, which is perfectly acceptable as he own the rights to the music (not being connected to a record label anymore). This is a unique example that cannot be applied to the conventional model of music ownership, release and distribution and falls flat in explaining why downloading music is fundamentally a bad thing.
All that being said however, I do think Trent Reznor has had some great ideas with his music. It's just...can this really be applied to other avenues of music? Is it feasible for any artist to go down this path? It would be nice if it was but as of now, we have no idea. I guess we'll see what the future brings. It was an interesting video showing some very interesting ideas but I don't think it really applies to what you're trying to argue. This is more a commentary on how to work around illegal downloading rather than justifying it.
Finally, the guy giving the presentation states that this works for bands big and small. Where are the examples of the smaller bands?!
This is going to be a long post so I'll warn you in advance.GiantRaven said:
We'll go with the last question first. There are examples.
Jamendo [http://www.jamendo.com/en/]
Severed Fifth [http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/01/open-source-music-business.html]
Ok Go [http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgi]
You remember them from "Here it Goes again" right? Well, their newest.
And of course, blancoynegro:
Think about this really quickly... blancoy there? He remixed a song that was even older and brought it to a newer audience. The current standing is 31 million plus views. And I've seen it played on the radio here in the US. That's just from a youtube remix...
Finally, there's this [http://ocremix.org/info/OC_ReMix:_Super_Street_Fighter_II_Turbo_HD_Remix_Official_Soundtrack].
Granted, with Super SF II Turbo, Capcom didn't HAVE to work with these guys. But I feel that people miss the point. When this was coming out, these artists were unknown except for making remixes to games they love. It's the same with ocremix itself. People make remixes, donate to the site and everyone profits so to speak. We get more music, we can use it as need be and then people use it as they see fit to adapt to themselves.
Severed Fifth [http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/01/open-source-music-business.html]
Ok Go [http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgi]
You remember them from "Here it Goes again" right? Well, their newest.
And of course, blancoynegro:
Think about this really quickly... blancoy there? He remixed a song that was even older and brought it to a newer audience. The current standing is 31 million plus views. And I've seen it played on the radio here in the US. That's just from a youtube remix...
Finally, there's this [http://ocremix.org/info/OC_ReMix:_Super_Street_Fighter_II_Turbo_HD_Remix_Official_Soundtrack].
Granted, with Super SF II Turbo, Capcom didn't HAVE to work with these guys. But I feel that people miss the point. When this was coming out, these artists were unknown except for making remixes to games they love. It's the same with ocremix itself. People make remixes, donate to the site and everyone profits so to speak. We get more music, we can use it as need be and then people use it as they see fit to adapt to themselves.
-------------------------------------
Now for the rest.
From what you're telling me, you have yet to hear about Spotify [http://www.spotify.com/int/], which isn't available in the US. There's a LOT of reasons for it [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23021911645/if-spotify-is-making-labels-so-much-money-in-europe-why-are-they-still-demanding-crazy-upfronts-in-the-us.shtml]. Basically, it's the fact that the US music industry kills off upstarts it doesn't like with a "sue for better negotiations" deal. They have ultimate power through copyright actually. That is a severe problem. Link [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090618/0011185272.shtml]
The problem comes in that the labels actually overvalue their content. It kills the innovative startups that are coming out. Just recently if you google "Mulve" you'll see that they harassed someone for being a programmer on a "filesharing" site. It wasn't really one but imagine the fact that the programmer is arrested in the UK on bogus charges. How is that morally justified?
Regardless, Spotify continues to try to push a freemium model.
Here's my view. It's short sighted to see every download as a loss. Spotify exemplifies everything that the industry actually needs:
Added value for content
Service
Competitive pricing
The same thing can be done in any industry. What does Steam do so well that gives it 70% of the digitial distribution market?
It gives people options. It gives free upgrades. It's based around service, not higher stocks.
The problem comes in that the labels actually overvalue their content. It kills the innovative startups that are coming out. Just recently if you google "Mulve" you'll see that they harassed someone for being a programmer on a "filesharing" site. It wasn't really one but imagine the fact that the programmer is arrested in the UK on bogus charges. How is that morally justified?
Regardless, Spotify continues to try to push a freemium model.
Here's my view. It's short sighted to see every download as a loss. Spotify exemplifies everything that the industry actually needs:
Added value for content
Service
Competitive pricing
The same thing can be done in any industry. What does Steam do so well that gives it 70% of the digitial distribution market?
It gives people options. It gives free upgrades. It's based around service, not higher stocks.
Compare that to Activision who has just signed on to COICA [http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110118/12431012712/companies-who-support-censoring-internet.shtml].
Now for basic details, the Attorney General gets to seize a domain then put up a gawdy sign that says "We took yo shit son, what?!"
For background on that, look into the ICE takedowns of 9 websites in July, then the 82 before Thanksgiving. Through a lot of legal BS I won't post, they took down some sites through a questionable legal process. One thing is, the sites had 60 days from their takedown to contest (they didn't tell anyone about the July takedowns until AFTER the November takedowns how to block such a thing. Would have went on even further had the Torrent-finder site not said something)
And all this comes because the RIAA has spent $90 million on changing the laws [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=riaa+lobbying+%2490+million&cp=25&qe=cmlhYSBsb2JieWluZyAkOTAgbWlsbGlvbg&qesig=lT0Wji7wjiRz3lqWedRugA&pkc=AFgZ2tnICmb-qUmse9b-36rILrXg-M7DxQUOMvLWiRJ9Dz6f0xYDuU5nwHTC5wUgrXKjKaMsOB1V1t3FOM0a65_nggyCwDhmvw&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=riaa+lobbying+%2490+million&pbx=1&fp=1c17b3f8c846554b] to fit their business model. Take your pick of the sites.
Now for basic details, the Attorney General gets to seize a domain then put up a gawdy sign that says "We took yo shit son, what?!"
For background on that, look into the ICE takedowns of 9 websites in July, then the 82 before Thanksgiving. Through a lot of legal BS I won't post, they took down some sites through a questionable legal process. One thing is, the sites had 60 days from their takedown to contest (they didn't tell anyone about the July takedowns until AFTER the November takedowns how to block such a thing. Would have went on even further had the Torrent-finder site not said something)
And all this comes because the RIAA has spent $90 million on changing the laws [http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=riaa+lobbying+%2490+million&cp=25&qe=cmlhYSBsb2JieWluZyAkOTAgbWlsbGlvbg&qesig=lT0Wji7wjiRz3lqWedRugA&pkc=AFgZ2tnICmb-qUmse9b-36rILrXg-M7DxQUOMvLWiRJ9Dz6f0xYDuU5nwHTC5wUgrXKjKaMsOB1V1t3FOM0a65_nggyCwDhmvw&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=riaa+lobbying+%2490+million&pbx=1&fp=1c17b3f8c846554b] to fit their business model. Take your pick of the sites.
After looking into so called piracy, I really come to one main conclusion. The fact of the matter is that copyright law actually hurts the industry far more than the individual players know. If I download a song, am I hurting Dolly Parton, who made her success through the deals with the industry? With anything, I find a good band, I've been sharing them. Something I'd like to reiterate here. The smaller bands are getting bigger, they're just doing it without the labels.
If I hear a song and tape it, is it killing the industry? How about the radio? Through each generation of music, we have hit a snag that we've come through. With all the research above, I'm sure that the people will adapt. The industry has to change in order to remain relevant.
On a personal level, with all of the experiences of things like Napster, which actually made the pie bigger by introducing more bands to people, the cat is out of the box. Individual songs really never should have been what the industry is about. The industry should instead be about how to introduce artists to the public.
Something I'm doing here.
If I hear a song and tape it, is it killing the industry? How about the radio? Through each generation of music, we have hit a snag that we've come through. With all the research above, I'm sure that the people will adapt. The industry has to change in order to remain relevant.
On a personal level, with all of the experiences of things like Napster, which actually made the pie bigger by introducing more bands to people, the cat is out of the box. Individual songs really never should have been what the industry is about. The industry should instead be about how to introduce artists to the public.
Something I'm doing here.
