Piracy.

[bluestarultor]

Well, everyone knows my old stance on piracy and some of you may have noticed my newer one before I mostly dropped out of this forum, but I think this video is worth a watch:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy

Now, the video doesn't cover all the points, but it makes some good ones and I find myself pretty much in agreement with it, which surprises the heck out of me given that I tend not to like their stances on some issues.

So, let's sit down and try to discuss this seriously. Watch the vid, consider it, and come back with what you have to add.



Personally, I think it's a good start, but I think it doesn't do enough to explore the reasons behind piracy so much as the justifications. Now, as a recap, my epiphany was in realizing you can't paint all pirates with the same brush. Some people are just not going to buy the game. Some people try and then really do buy. Some people buy, then download a cracked version to kill the DRM. I'll personally admit to having a small library of games from the 80s and early 90s that I just couldn't get elsewhere, but given the opportunity to buy them, I did, such as with Hocus Pocus, which is still sold by 3D Realms. This coming from a person who still self-identifies as anti-piracy.

At any rate, I hope this is enough of a starting point for a mature, meaningful discussion. I know tempers tend to flare on this, but this is something I'd really like to sit down and talk about, because watching this video really made me think.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

For some it's because said games have become so rare, finding them is near impossible.

[Krylo]

He's mostly got it right, except for two arguments. The demo one and the DRM one as being mere justifications that go up in flames as soon as you pirate the game.

Because, well, when you pirate the game, you're getting a full 'demo' (assuming you go on to buy it or uninstall it before beating it), and you're getting the game DRM free.

Which is to say, it's two justifications that only get stronger once you actually pirate the game. Because then you can point at it and say, either, "Well yes, I did pirate it, but then I bought it. Here's my legal copy because I liked the demo so much," or, "Yup, I pirated, and my version lets me actually play the game without checking into an online server or conflicting with other programs on my computer."

That said I'm both an avid defender of piracy as a method of objecting to and protesting current copy right laws/DRM in the same method as organizing a protest to drug laws and smoking pot on City Hall would be defensible, AND at the SAME TIME have never actually pirated a game.

I even paid for Spore. Off Steam. With most of its invasive DRM neutered.

[Specterbane]

Piracy is almost a non-issue for me when it comes to games. And this is all Steam's fault. I mean it's so cheep I feel like I'm waisting money if I don't just wait for a sale of a game. And it's so convenient that I can barely think of getting a game on any things with what time I have left to play games anymore. Heck, I even passed up the amazing humble bundle cause I felt I'd already spent too much money on Steam sales recently (also cause I felt bad paying very little for the humble bundle). Finally, with a constant internet connection it's so reliable that I don't even care about not having a physical medium.

But in all seriousness, I appreciate how they see both sides of the issue; and honestly I'm glad that they're so forward about recommendations for the consumer with very good things to do. But yeah, in short Don't be a Dick.

However Pirate Santa is awesome, and I would totally take a game from him.

[Azisien]

Even though I have a very loose morality when it comes to game piracy, I don't participate in it.

I have considered willfully pirating Ubisoft games and then emailling them to tell them I pirated their game and why, due to their heavy DRM.

That Extra Credits episode was pretty enjoyable, and it did bring up some good points. However, I do take a different stance on their "only one" good justification. That is, their one justification is an acceptable one, but I am ok with piracy as a form of protest, a metaphoric "fuck you" to developers. Years back pirating Spore? Okay with it. Me piriating Ubisoft hypothetically? Okay with it. Pirating StarCraft II, even? Okay with it (and in fact, they estimate as many people pirated as bought the game).

Of course, I also like their suggestion that people pirating the games instead voice their concerns harshly and directly against developers that support bad DRM/policies. Most good developers really do listen to their fan base. But "gamers" are not a very organized communal organism. It would take some leadership to spearhead a movement to better protest.

In the meantime, I am pretty happy with Steam. They offer all the games the big box stores offer, at much better prices. And they openly list the DRM on the game. If I don't like it, I don't buy it.

[Hatake Kakashi]

Meh. I couldn't view the video for whatever reason, and wasn't going to fuck around trying to get it to work.

So here's my stance: I believe in paying for a good product, but that's exactly what I want: a good product. It can have bugs, glitches, whatever, but if it doesn't come out feeling like the devs have some semblance of knowing what they're doing? I don't believe for a moment that I owe 'em a cent.

The games I like, I throw down the money and purchase a physical copy and do it right. The games I don't? I just saved myself a few bucks and made my opinion known by not buying their shitty shit. And their files? Gone. I need the hard drive space for the good stuff. These days, it's almost like game developers (and other media producers) have an attitude that the consumer owes them before they've proven themselves simply because they've chosen to put something into existence. I prefer taking my stance of letting the buyer bewarez. Sure, I could just listen to game critics, but even they are human, and sometimes our tastes just don't mesh. I would rather just take the time and review the games on my own, decide for myself if they're good enough, and if they are, I give the game companies what they're due. If they're not? The company should at least be grateful I gave them 10 minutes of my time to plead their case.

[Ryong]

My only arguments:

Being Brazilian, most games are, indeed, very pricy. As I may have mentioned previously, the legal games market here is tiny, because of taxes and, well, piracy is much easier, isn't it? Now you get a whole country like that.

For actual numbers: I'll take PS3 Fallout 3 as an example: US$107~119, a very common price for console games here. Now, PC, I'll take Resident Evil 5: US$50~55. Oh well, that's not a lot much, that's only like 20 bucks more, right?

Yeah, how much do you guys make? 'Cause minimum wage here is US$1.90/hour. Lowest minimum wage in USA is US$7.25/hour, according to wikipedia.

As it is, Steam is the only place to buy games cheap and even then, thanks to the conversion, most are still a bit pricy without sales. So yeah.

I'd also like to add: The last console that had customer support in Brazil? Sega Genesis.

[Funka Genocide]

Guys... admitting to federal crimes on a public message board probably isn't a very good idea.

This has been a public service announcement.

[Fenris]

^

Illegal Things: Anything illegal, obviously. Especially links to ROM sites or comic book scans are something that keeps popping up. Copyright on the internet is a major grey area these days but there are things that are blindingly obvious. In the same vein, if you've downloaded a game or a movie, no one here cares to know you did - just avoid mentioning it entirely.

Emphasis mine.

Also, I'm fairly strongly opposed to piracy as I hope to one day make some sort of a living off of things sold on the internet, either in print or audio.

[Jagos]

Do what xkcd does. Give it away for free and then make books that people buy.

[Fenris]

Yes because I am a comic artist!

[Jagos]

Hey it worked for The Giant

[Fenris]

Yes because I am a visual artist!

[Geminex]

What are you anyway?
Or, rather, what are you aspiring to be?
Other than the world's wealthiest prostitute?

As for Piracy, yeah. I don't remember pirating anything big as usually, when I buy games, I buy older stuff that's great nonetheless, or I make sure that anything current I buy is worth buying.

Though I don't really think that piracy is hurting the industry as much as people say.
Yeah, lots of people pirate. But the question is, how many people would have bought the game had they not been able to pirate it?

I'd honestly be interested in this. Not really sure how you'd find out, but I don't think more than 10%. I have pretty much no idea what I'm talking about, though, so yeah...

[Fenris]

What are you anyway?
Or, rather, what are you aspiring to be?

I'm in school for music performance, composition, and education. Jazz, in particular.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

While I don't personally pirate anyhing (most of the shit I watch is easier to buy online anyway) I'm down with pirating until they get rid of our stupid copyright laws which just punish artists and help big corporations and not the artists they represent. So pirating old shit is all cool.

[Azisien]

Game piracy (specifically, the downloading of the torrent) isn't illegal in Canada last I checked (late 2010). So how does that one work on here?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It#s a major grey area, best to leave it alone.

[Jagos]

Look, I'm kind of known for being more radical in my approaches that make sense AFTER you understand them.

Piracy is a huge scapegoat. Nothing more. What it's actually being used for is to subvert thinking to one that believes everyone HAS to buy games from the developer.

Hear me out:
I was a console gamer for YEARS. The games had a beginning, middle and an end. I've enjoyed Illusion of Gaia, Secret of Mana and a number of older games that are no longer availabled nowadays.

When I got my laptop, I switched to Steam. Greatest decision of all time. I don't have to worry about my console breaking, or things such as the RRD. Steam has sales that have helped the industry far more than the time it takes to find the things I want.

Some games, I've downloaded more than once in wanting to play. Some games, I play for free on game sites (newgrounds, armor games).

Honestly, piracy has never BEEN the problem. People get all moralistic in it "killing the industry" that they don't look at the bigger picture.

There's Free 2 Play games: DFO, Maple Story, etc.

There's competition with other products.

Quite frankly, THAT is how it should be, not necessarily some belief that piracy is killing markets.

[Hanuman]

If you like a game, pay for it.

The big issue this doesn't cover is insight.

Pirating allows free 100% accurate insight into the product, it allows you to sample a game to see if it is worth your money. If you have X amount of money you have budgeted for games and are not going to spend more, then IMO put the money into the games most worth your time, and do more research to find games you want to support. Money is your support power.

[Krylo]

Also, I'm fairly strongly opposed to piracy as I hope to one day make some sort of a living off of things sold on the internet, either in print or audio.

But... Piracy is simply breaking copyright law by gaining access to and using something you shouldn't.

All art, all MUSIC is derivative. You need to gain access to and use parts of past works of art in order to create new things and advance the medium.

The only legal way to gain access to and use parts of past works in new works is to wait for them to fall into public domain.

Due to copyright law revisions, nothing falls into public domain.

Thus, there is no legal way to gain access to and use parts of semi-modern past works of art in order to create new things and advance the medium.

Ergo, artists, whether they plan to make money off of it or not, should support piracy, and, moreover, support the restoration, if not destruction, of most modern copyright law.

[Funka Genocide]

I think you just made a lot of, if not entirely inaccurate, then terribly misleading statements.

I mean, we all have access to the chromatic scale, music theory, ridiculous hairstyles and recreational narcotics.

You're acting like there's no conceivable method to obtain knowledge of prior artistic endeavors. Like you can't turn on an oldies FM station or pick up a vinyl record at a yard sale. Seems like an awful lot of absolutes that don't really exist.

[Krylo]

I think you just made a lot of, if not entirely inaccurate, then terribly misleading statements.

I mean, we all have access to the chromatic scale, music theory, ridiculous hairstyles and recreational narcotics.

You're acting like there's no conceivable method to obtain knowledge of prior artistic endeavors. Like you can't turn on an oldies FM station or pick up a vinyl record at a yard sale. Seems like an awful lot of absolutes that don't really exist.

Look up the Amen Beat.

See how many songs it is in.

Look up Pachelbel's Canon.

See how many songs it is in.

Etc. etc.

Edit: Actually, you know what, let me do it Pachelbel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPLp_gInC-o) and Amen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)

Art = Derivative.

[Funka Genocide]

Yeah I'm not disputing that art is derivative. I'm disputing your claims that somehow copyright laws magically make art impossible.

[Krylo]

If Pachelbel had worked for Disney do you think any of those songs he played could have existed?

[Funka Genocide]

I guess I get your point it just seems overstated. The basis is somewhat anecdotal, blah blah blah.

I just mean I can go pick up a guitar and crap out a pop tune if I wanted to.

[Krylo]

But you can't advance the medium without building on that which came before, and while perhaps ALL building doesn't have to be as heavily derivative as ripping a six second drum beat out of a song, some of it is.

It doesn't protect the artists, who are going to want to use stuff from ten, twenty, thirty years ago in their new things. It only protects the corporations, while at the same time stifling art.

Also: Crapping out a pop tune isn't advancing the medium. It's stagnating the medium.

[Funka Genocide]

Fair enough. If it gets to the point where any amount of repeated musical construction is ground for a lawsuit then I'll jump on the piracy boat, clutch a cutlass in my teeth and shoot a brace of pistols for justice.

[Krylo]

Fair enough. If it gets to the point where any amount of repeated musical construction is ground for a lawsuitWell, my point wasn't so much that it was impossible to make new music, as it was that current copyright laws don't really protect someone doing what Fenris would be doing. Indeed, they tend to hurt them.

Fun fact: Indie musicians tend to get a lot more listeners/sales after someone pirated them and got their name out that way. You don't hear about them on TV or on the radio or whatever. You hear them because someone--probably illegally--uploaded a song to youtube, or threw it in a mix of shit they threw up on pirate bay or whatever else.

There are even small time game designers who have found that their offerings with zero DRM, zero attempt to stop piracy, tend to get them more sales. There are cases where comic books have been pirated, ended up on the internet, and seen sales many many times higher than they had ever experienced BEFORE they got pirated.

And that's all just the practical money side for someone who's going to enter into it small--unless Fenris plans on joining the next N'Sync or something.

Past that you have all the art is derivative, art needs copyright laws that are looser than they currently are to truly thrive. If you want to see a musical, or any other kind of, renaissance, slash copy right laws back to what they were before Disney got involved. Maybe even cut them back further yet.

A large and healthy public domain fuels artistic creation and expression. Whether from making straight rips possible or from making it just easier to acquire new things to gain inspiration from.

Even then, I don't really intend to make Fenris go, "Oh shit, right, Piracy is pretty awesome," but wanting to make money on the internet from music in some way isn't a good justification for hating on piracy. Lots of the new kids coming into that realm are embracing piracy and making more money for it. And maybe I should have hit the music angle, but Fenris is kind of a 'srs artist' or wtfever so I figured that was a better appeal to his sensibilities.

I'll jump on the piracy boat, clutch a cutlass in my teeth and shoot a brace of pistols for justice.Awww, lookit you pretending like you haven't already.

[Funka Genocide]

Well not music.

<_<

[Fenris]

But... Piracy is simply breaking copyright law by gaining access to and using something you shouldn't.

All art, all MUSIC is derivative. You need to gain access to and use parts of past works of art in order to create new things and advance the medium.

The only legal way to gain access to and use parts of past works in new works is to wait for them to fall into public domain.

Due to copyright law revisions, nothing falls into public domain.

Thus, there is no legal way to gain access to and use parts of semi-modern past works of art in order to create new things and advance the medium.

Ergo, artists, whether they plan to make money off of it or not, should support piracy, and, moreover, support the restoration, if not destruction, of most modern copyright law.

That's not how it works.

[Jagos]

YAAARGH!!!

That's not how it works.

Ok... There needs to be more there doesn't there?

[Fenris]

Well I don't really have more to say than that. That's not how making new music works, at least outside of crappy pop circles. Canon in D? That's simply a chord progression that works. That's not ripping off Pachelbel. Amen break? That's just a drum groove that works. That's not ripping off whoever-the-fuck sat down at a trap set and shit out that groove.

[Jagos]

mmhmm...

I beg to differ.

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4BRLYlGjE)

[Fenris]

Not seeing your point! People use other people's ideas often. It's called quoting. It's a part of music. What's more important is how people use other people's ideas. That has nothing to do with my beef with piracy.

[Seil]

Fenris made this point ages ago. (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=38241&highlight=diablo)

[Sithdarth]

That's not ripping off Pachelbel. Amen break? That's just a drum groove that works. That's not ripping off whoever-the-fuck sat down at a trap set and shit out that groove.

Unfortunately that is not how copyright lawyers see it. The Amen break is used as large portions of songs, I remember this from music history when we discussed this very thing, and its use would be difficult to justify as not infringement if it wasn't public domain. Even though it is only 5 seconds it is looped to be a large portion of most of the songs that it is in. Of course the problem with infringement is that it is essentially up to case law to determine what constitutes infringement and that can really stifle creative recycling of past works.

Not seeing your point! People use other people's ideas often. It's called quoting. It's a part of music. What's more important is how people use other people's ideas. That has nothing to do with my beef with piracy.

Depending on how much you quoted and how much of your work it makes up as well as how zealous the lawyers are that can get you in big trouble.

[Fenris]

Well I guess my view is that I dislike piracy but I also dislike lawyers who make money for people who have stupid views about which parts of music they own.

An entire song, a la Kanye West rapping over daft punk? Not okay. A 5 second drum groove? Go nuts.

More importantly, I feel that people should pay for music if the creator of that music asks for a price for it. If the creator wants to give out some for free in order to get their name out, that is their choice. If they don't, that is also their choice.

[Krylo]

An entire song, a la Kanye West rapping over daft punk? Not okay. A 5 second drum groove? Go nuts.

Not how it works.

[Fenris]

You're right! But it's how it should work.

Basically I kind of agree with you but I still think that people should pay for music if the creator asked for compensation. You don't enjoy a delicious steak at a fancy restaurant without paying for it (unless you skip out on the bill).

[Seil]

I think think most of us agreed at least a little with Fenris. (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=36962)

[Marc v4.0]

Running out on a steak doesn't cost you 1.5million dollars

A steak that actually costs more then the music/CD you downloaded without paying for

[Fenris]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/NuklearFenris/Thepoint.png

[Marc v4.0]

Thanks for posting that for me, it saved me the trouble of digging it up to use on you.

[Fenris]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/krylo/Thepoint.png
Thanks for the pic, krylo!

[Marc v4.0]

I...I don't even...you have lost....why would...

[Jagos]

You're right! But it's how it should work.

Basically I kind of agree with you but I still think that people should pay for music if the creator asked for compensation. You don't enjoy a delicious steak at a fancy restaurant without paying for it (unless you skip out on the bill).

There's a lot more to it than that.

Music piracy at least has an added benefit of allowing artists to connect with people on different levels. Some want songs, some want to go to concerts. More will pay for different items put up for purchase by their favorite band.

With songs being "free" that actually does a lot more to allow for concert tickets and other items to be more expensive and allow artists to actually make more money.

The point of my article is to show that musicians aren't necessarily the most original bunch. At the end, for one diddy, the musician, who was inspired by other artists won a case of copyright infringement. That's wrong given what culture is based on, a sharing of ideas and compilations.

[Hatake Kakashi]

You're right! But it's how it should work.

Basically I kind of agree with you but I still think that people should pay for music if the creator asked for compensation. You don't enjoy a delicious steak at a fancy restaurant without paying for it (unless you skip out on the bill).

Nor would most people pay for a steak cooked incorrectly. They'd send it back, minimally. Most people would raise a stink and demand refunds/gift certificates/etc. The point is, piracy is not nearly the devil the media industries have painted it to be.

There are so very many pirates out there who simply take without any intention of paying, yes. They've been doing that since before MP3s or Torrents were ever heard of. But there are also people who are absolutely sick and tired of having to accept the same regurgitated crap (yes, Kanye definitely counts here) from companies who are determined to not listen to the interests of anyone but their own. This is where you'll find the rare honest pirate who is willing to fork over some quid, but won't do it before they've made damn sure they're getting what they want to pay for.

I mean, really, do we actually want to keep reassuring music/movie/game studios that their precious projects that totally suck aren't really crap (I'm looking at YOU, Disney/Jonas Sisters), or do we want to begin making more informed choices about the directions we send our money in?

[akaSM]

Actually, "piracy" as in "people share stuff that doesn't belongs to them" made me buy the 3 CDs I own (yeah, just 3), and no, I don't have all of my music pirated or something but, I'm extremely picky when it comes to music. A friend sent me a song from a disc, I loved it, then I looked around the web and found the whole album, I liked every bit of it and bought it as soon as I found it.

Another song, was posted in a (dead now) website, I liked it and tried to get the CD for a long time, and finally found it a couple years ago. Really, without those 2 pirates, I would not have those CDs. As for games, my situation was kinda like Ryong's, except not as bad. Buying pirated games was the "normal" thing to do. As soon as I found it was bad, I stopped doing it.

Yeah, right now I download some stuff before buying it after a couple games, one being a Inuyasha game for the DS, I thought, wow I really liked watching Inuyasha, I'll get that game. Shittiest RPG I've played. The other one is LEGO Batman, I got it through Steam only to find that the damn game only works if I dumb down the graphics a lot (my laptop can play Batman AA on medium/high at 720p), even then, I'm lucky because the game doesn't work in most of the Win 7 PCs (just look at the Steam forums and see what others have to say about it).

So, I don't really support piracy as, there's people out there whose work is making this music/game/whatever I enjoy so much, but I also don't want to support lazy devs/companies/people by buying some half assed product.

If I like something, I'll get it through any means possible to me, just like my 2nd CD, it was released in 1997, I heard a song of that album after year 2000, I lost the song, the page that song was in, was dead, and then I found the song again around 2007, looked all around the web and bought the CD, over 10 years after it was released. If I don't like something I'll just ignore it.

[Osterbaum]

I'd like to get back to the Extra Credits episode Blues linked to in his OP. I thought that they dismissed the "not enough money to buy all games" just a bit too easily, without actually giving it enough thought. It is a fact of life that some people don't have enough money to buy all the games they know they would enjoy, not to mention every single game they think they might possibly enjoy a bit maybe.

They claim that if you have enough money to have gotten a console in the first place then you should have enough money to buy games for it. Really? That's a pretty shaky argument. Maybe the console was a present? Maybe you USED TO have that kind of money, but don't anymore? Maybe you own a PC or a MAC that you didn't aquire primarily for gaming but would still enjoy playing one every once in a while.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My mum is an author and makes her living of it and all her associates are authors and they all unanimously want to just scrap copyright laws because they just shit over artists. Once you've actually dealt with publishers/production company and copyright laws its fairly clear what purpose they serve and why they are there.

[Fifthfiend]

Excellent Bluesposting, Fenris.

[Nikose Tyris]

I actually quite like Brian Clevinger's take on the whole thing. (http://www.atomic-robo.com/2010/12/22/internet-piracy-of-the-19th-century/)

I'm a fairly limited funds kind of guy. I don't get to buy myself a lot of games or music or DVD's. I mostly just get what I get for christmas and have to deal with it. I try to avoid downloading something just because "I want it, but can't afford it."*

That said, if I've bought it once, I feel no remorse of downloading another copy of my disc goes missing or gets damaged. I can't afford to replace that shit.


*This isn't going into DRM issues. That's another bag of worms that's specific for games, which I don't pirate.

[Funka Genocide]

Video games, music and various other entertainment media are luxury items.

What I'm hearing is "Piracy is ok because I am poor."

Ok, if you were talking about pirating a loaf of bread and some cheese to feed your starving family right on. If you're talking about pirating Mass Effect 2 because you really need to see what happens to Shepard but spent your roll on coke then no.

I'm not saying it makes you a bad person, just that its pretty obviously amoral and illegal and using flimsy justification doesn't make it any better.

As for overly restrictive copyright laws, yeah they do benefit financial interests more than artistic interests.

Something of interest is that there is nothing stopping media providers from offering their products for free. When you create a song, its yours to do with what you will. Musicians have the option to give their music freely to the world or to sell out to the man and get filthy rich. I mean come on, if someone throws a briefcase of hundred dollar bills at you and says "let me handle that distribution thing for you." what are you going to do?

Some bands, like Metallica for example, really take this shit to the extreme. Acting like you're taking food out of their children's mouths by not paying for their most recent audio fiasco. That's annoying and presumptuous and all kinds of stupid shit. Musician's should probably be content with the millions of dollars they happen to make off of the thing they love doing. Should being the operative word. Some people just care more about money than art, in fact I'd wager that most people do.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's not like artists have a choice of non-evil and evil distribution companies. They all pretty much awful. You can self-publish but hat is a very new method and of questionable working. You can't really blame the artists for joining with the production companies when other options are hazy and not really working.
And the vast majority of them don't get suitcases of money, they get like $10 and told to go on their way.

Also by keeping say music as a luxury item you are just impairing the cultural development of your culture, creating underclasses who are uneducated and further dividing rich and poor. Education and a steady access to the culture of ones time is as important as food and shelter.

[Funka Genocide]

I see what you're saying, but thats kind of the deal you make with the devil. I mean honestly, should people become multi-millionaires for writing a catchy tune?

Its a weird, over saturated market place fueled by excess, vanity and fetishism. No one really deserves the kind of material wealth successful musicians have.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No but they should be able to live off it. And the vast majority of artists aren't making multi-millions, they are barely scrapping by. These are the ones that we sohuld focus on, not the Metallicas.

[Funka Genocide]

They should get day jobs, and be more responsible then.

Nothing says you're guaranteed the right to rock out. If it really were about the art and not the fame or money, people could just create music in their offtime, or wait until they retire. If there's no market to support your livelihood you move on. Like fishermen.

[Fenris]

Funka, you are my least favorite kind of person.

[Osterbaum]

Video games, music and various other entertainment media are luxury items.

What I'm hearing is "Piracy is ok because I am poor."
That's not what I'm saying though. In my post I really just wrote how I though that the argument in this Extra Credits episode was flawed and that they over simplified the whole issue of not having enough money.

All of this is also very dependant on how much you think that our current system is justified or even actually working.

They should get day jobs, and be more responsible then.
Really? You're going with this argument?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

They should get day jobs, and be more responsible then.

Nothing says you're guaranteed the right to rock out. If it really were about the art and not the fame or money, people could just create music in their offtime, or wait until they retire. If there's no market to support your livelihood you move on. Like fishermen.

So people can't make a living becaue of arcane byzantine copyright laws that shuffle billions to publishers and pennies to artists and instead of changing the laws the artists should find something else to do?
Got it.

[Fenris]

So people can't make a living becaue of arcane byzantine copyright laws that shuffle billions to publishers and pennies to artists and instead of changing the laws the artists should find something else to do?
Got it.
Really? You're going with this argument?

This is what I was going to say but instead I just went with "least favorite person."

Mostly because if you think that I don't deserve to make a living off of the thing I love because of corporate greed and outdated laws, well, go fuck yourself.

[Funka Genocide]

No one "deserves" to make a living off of anything.

You do what you can to fulfill your basic needs, anything else is icing on the cake. If you want to make a living off of music, you'll need to rock pretty fucking hard because there are some hard rocking mother fuckers out there that will outrock you any day of the week.

[Fenris]

You do what you can to fulfill your basic needs, anything else is icing on the cake.

Really? You're going with this argument?

[Funka Genocide]

Well yeah. I mean if I deserved to get paid to do what I loved I'd be a millionaire with a sore right wrist and a chafed...

well you get the idea.

[Jagos]

Fen, last I checked it was "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness"

Not "Life, liberty, and pursuit of handout"

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

No one "deserves" to make a living off of anything.

You do what you can to fulfill your basic needs, anything else is icing on the cake. If you want to make a living off of music, you'll need to rock pretty fucking hard because there are some hard rocking mother fuckers out there that will outrock you any day of the week.

The thing is though what everyone is telling you isn't that everyone deserves to be a rock star, it's that everyone deserves to try and be a rock star and they deserve to be able to do so without a multi million dollar corporation shitting all over them for the effort.
Least, that's how I read it.

[Kim]

This is the Worst Thread.

Congratulations, everyone! You all worked so hard to make this possible! None of this could have been accomplished without you!

[Funka Genocide]

Nobody is stopping you from scrabbling for gigs at your local coffee shop or high school graduation.

No one but the people who don't want to hear you play music.

Not really sure what this has to do with the main topic of the thread. If you can't create music without sampling then you're not much of a musician. If someone tries to sue you because your g chord sounds exactly like theirs then we have a problem.

If you want to be able to rip off a drum loop for free then I guess it sucks for you, not really a crisis of creative apocalypse though.

[Pip Boy]

Nobody is stopping you from scrabbling for gigs at your local coffee shop or high school graduation.

No one but the people who don't want to hear you play music.

Not really sure what this has to do with the main topic of the thread. If you can't create music without sampling then you're not much of a musician. If someone tries to sue you because your g chord sounds exactly like theirs then we have a problem.

If you want to be able to rip off a drum loop for free then I guess it sucks for you, not really a crisis of creative apocalypse though.

So what you're saying is that all the people we have making things should be people who've never seen what that thing is before and have almost no idea what they're making? Its genius.

While musicians shouldn't be ripping off of each other and just stealing direct bits from someone else's music, its possible to get a lot of influence from styles that you like. You'll find almost no successful musicians that haven't, at some point, claimed that they got a lot of influence in their musical inspiration from at least one older artist.

However, I don't think this is a valid argument for "Being a struggling musician justifies pirating music".

[Jagos]

So what you're saying is that all the people we have making things should be people who've never seen what that thing is before and have almost no idea what they're making? Its genius.

While musicians shouldn't be ripping off of each other and just stealing direct bits from someone else's music, its possible to get a lot of influence from styles that you like. You'll find almost no successful musicians that haven't, at some point, claimed that they got a lot of influence in their musical inspiration from at least one older artist.

However, I don't think this is a valid argument for "Being a struggling musician justifies pirating music".

Yeah... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KKnVFlhkP8&feature=related) Downloading a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF-k0QmSwik), is the same as "ripping off" another musician (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If-iHrVlKaA&feature=related)

(more or less piggy backing off what you said with examples)

[Funka Genocide]

Musical influence and similarities in musical construction within the same genre are not the same thing as sampling, or "song stealing" as I like to call it.

[Pip Boy]

My mistake. I was confused about the definition of "sampling". It seems to suggest listening to other music, but now it seems clear that you meant literally ripping off pieces of someone else's work.

[akaSM]

Don't worry Pip, I didn't know that sampling is actually stealing using parts of another song either

[Azisien]

I think we can all just be glad this turned out a mature, meaningful discussion about...

Well it started as piracy...

But...

Hrm.

[Marc v4.0]

This thread contains so many major fucking opinions.

:D

[Archbio]

Is it ironic that in a thread somewhat about music one person would strike the same note so many times in a row?

[bluestarultor]

This snowballed, didn't it? >.@;


I'd try to bring it back around, but I think that point is long past, unless someone wants to surprise me.


On music, really all music is just playing math. There are sequences and chords that are mathematically pleasing to human beings and we've known this since the 70s or something when a guy wrote a program so good at making music that that death threats and harassment forced him to delete all versions, source code, and notes on the thing for the sake of his own well-being.

Frankly, the idea that you can copyright bits of that math strikes me as about as wrong as wrong gets, like, say, copying a word or phrase (also been done several times), copyrighting natural resources (yep), or copyrighting colors (probably done by Crayola).

We quite frankly have a FUBAR copyright system, but that wasn't really what I was hoping to talk about, since we already had that down pat.

[Si Civa]

Let's listen song on youtube about the subject of singers' suing other singers. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUkACDSIZY)

edit: Goddammit. Well now this is fixed too, but click Nikose's link if you prefer it still.

[Nikose Tyris]

Let me fix that link for you, Civa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUkACDSIZY)

[DarkDrgon]

Funka: A band I was in was in a legal battle with Victory records, over their band Emmure. we were set to open up at a show they were playing, when we got a notice. We were getting sued by victory for one of our songs, that we wrote a year beforehand, had a similar bassline to Emmure's newest single. When talking to the Victory legal team about how they had no case, what they told us ammounted to "pretty much.... but we have a sharp legal team, money, and time. we could tie you up in court and lawyer fees for months, maybe a year. can your small time band take it? Didn't think so."

Now, that story has nothing to do with piracy, but everything to do with how the music industry makes its living fucking over artists.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Not really sure what this has to do with the main topic of the thread. If you can't create music without sampling then you're not much of a musician. If someone tries to sue you because your g chord sounds exactly like theirs then we have a problem.


You do realise by this argument pretty much no artist or writer in the entire history of the world is any good. Probably musicians too but I;m not that down on my musical history.
Every artist in the history of anything takes shit from somebody else, repackages it, modifies it. Part of being good is reckonising what you should borrow from others.
There is a large school of thought in writing that you should use passages direct from other people and that only oudated victorian sensibilities prevent people- Conrad wrote really good jungle descriptions, if you need to be in the same jungle what is wrong with using them?
The entire history of creation is taking the same old ideas an dputting them in new packets. That is what sampling is, it is taking old music and putting it in a new context, it requires as much creativity to do well as writing new bits.
Now you can argue "I don't like sampling and think it's not good art", that's fine, but to say it is creatively null is like saying the Pictures generation is creatively null. People have made that argument but it is one that requires massive arugments not just "They stealing so it bad".


And I'm not sayiing everyone on earth should be a millionaire rockstar, I'm saying the music industry is stupid and is based on nepotism and backscratching and not on musical talent and even if you do succeed all your money will go to the industry and nothing to you despite you doing all the work.
Like holy shit, you're adamently against people stealing songs or parts of songs but what about the musical industry stealing all the artists money. You can't do it both ways.

E: Like I'm saying we could make laws based upon what you feel is musical artistry or we could not do tha.

[Doc ock rokc]

Like holy shit, you're adamently against people stealing songs or parts of songs but what about the musical industry stealing all the artists money. You can't do it both ways.
Actually its two different things entirely. Company stealing songs for Profit (<--key word) is down right wrong. People downloading songs from company (that could be stealing the songs anyway) and Not making a profit, is OK. the difference is that pirates are not committing plagiarism. They are in effect abusing the right of ownership Which in law means that any digital item that is bought may be used in any way shape or form for non-profit (aka-Copying a OS desk to reboot your computer, burning your CD's to MP3s, etc). If we went with what you say is stealing then Music stores playing tracks over it's intercom is in effect stealing. EVEN WORSE IS THEY MIGHT MAKE A PROFIT FROM IT UNLIKE PIRATES.

[Fifthfiend]

Not really sure what this has to do with the main topic of the thread. If you can't create music without sampling then you're not much of a musician.

How do people with views like this end up on this forum (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/03/02/episode-001-were-going-where/)?

[krogothwolf]

How do people with views like this end up on this forum (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/03/02/episode-001-were-going-where/)?

Or Watches Movies, TV shows, Plays, Reads any sort of novel, plays video games

Shit, Shakespeare's stuff was all derived from other crap.

[Kurosen]

How do people with views like this end up on this forum (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/03/02/episode-001-were-going-where/)?
To be fair, your link proves his point.

Real content: the victory of short term corporate interests over long term health of society/culture is what they've done to the perception of copyright.

Copyright was meant to do two things.

1) Encourage people to make art, books, etc. by giving them the guarantee that they could profit from them FOR A LIMITED TIME so they'd be further encouraged to create more new things.

2) Encourage people to re-appropriate previous works.

Today, you have to be worried about getting sued over trivial things like, well, 8-bit Theater.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Actually its two different things entirely. Company stealing songs for Profit (<--key word) is down right wrong. People downloading songs from company (that could be stealing the songs anyway) and Not making a profit, is OK. the difference is that pirates are not committing plagiarism. They are in effect abusing the right of ownership Which in law means that any digital item that is bought may be used in any way shape or form for non-profit (aka-Copying a OS desk to reboot your computer, burning your CD's to MP3s, etc). If we went with what you say is stealing then Music stores playing tracks over it's intercom is in effect stealing. EVEN WORSE IS THEY MIGHT MAKE A PROFIT FROM IT UNLIKE PIRATES.

You realise that part of my post was not my view right? I'm of the opinion you can do pretty mcuh whatever you want and it should be fine.

[Jagos]

Actually its two different things entirely. Company stealing songs for Profit (<--key word) is down right wrong. People downloading songs from company (that could be stealing the songs anyway) and Not making a profit, is OK.

At the root, I don't see why people are so afraid of a "business" profiting off a song.

Come on... If a bar plays your song, that does NOT mean you're owed money. If your song is played through an ad, I would actually want the company to REQUIRE they put the name of my band + the name of the song.

Seriously, this entire "Dey took er jebs" mentality is beyond ridiculous...

[Funka Genocide]

Clarification: I wasn't implying that sampling is indicative of a complete lack of artistic talent, just that if you can't possibly fathom a method of producing art without sampling (and by sampling I mean exact duplication of a previous work, in part or in whole.) then you're probably not a very talented artist.

Of course one must understand what has come before to create that which comes after, this is pretty much the basis of human civilization.

More to the point, I didn't think this was a thread about copyright law per se. I see the connection of course and understand how the thread has veered off on this admittedly interesting tangent. I do not, however, see how overly restrictive copyright laws lend any credence to piracy as a morally correct action.

Unless you're specifically talking about piracy as a form of protest, in which case I'm sure a viable case can be made.

As for "how I ended up on this forum" and the supposed irony inherent, I think its a fair assessment to say that the author of 8BT did some wholly original writing before, during and after the publication of that work.

Which is kind of an odd thing to say considering the dude is posting in this thread and all.

[Kurosen]

piracy as a morally correct action
It isn't.

But we can't stop it.

But that's okay. It's not nearly as damaging as the MPAA and RIAA and the congresspeople they've purchased would like you to believe.

[Jagos]

Morality is used in the Copyright Wars as a way to cover up the inability to justify expansion of rights on economic grounds. (http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/copyright-and-morals/)

Just sayin. It's an economic question but the morality is used more or less to make everyone feel bad about the action.

[Doc ock rokc]

At the root, I don't see why people are so afraid of a "business" profiting off a song.

Come on... If a bar plays your song, that does NOT mean you're owed money. If your song is played through an ad, I would actually want the company to REQUIRE they put the name of my band + the name of the song.

Seriously, this entire "Dey took er jebs" mentality is beyond ridiculous...

...You misunderstood. I agree with you The bar probably Bought the song so in effect you made your profit and they are using to entertain the bar patrens not really to attract a crowd (mostly if they do it to attract a crowd they would have gotten the band or put all the bands albums on their jukebox), so it's ok.
The Company is using it to make a profit by using the song to attract a crowd (sometimes Not attributing to the band at all) Apple actually got in trouble for this recently when they didn't say the instrumental version of the song they used on their iPhone commercials the band contacted and so they both displayed it in big letters in one and then put it in small text at the bottom near the end ever since.(and probably payed a hefty sum)