the filesharing debate
 

at dinner tonight, i had a rather interesting discussion with my father about file sharing. his opinnion is that if its out there, you let it out there and since information security is your job, then its your fault, deal with it. i happen to agree with his stance, and, since the lawsuits for the MPAA began recently, i was wondering what the nice people out here thought. i have dial up so it dosent really matter... *DAMN YOU NARROWBAND INTERNET!!!*

anyway, what do you think? frankly i think that the RIAA should fuck off and deal with what is happening and not what has.

I really think it might not be too much of a bad thing in music.
The industry shifted massively with the introduction of recording, and I'm pretty sure they'll survive now.
Artist's could use recordings as publicity for concerts and such, making them like minstrels again.
Failing that, they could get sponsorships from foundations for art, or ask for donations, like webcomic artists.
While I intend to make a decent career in the visual arts, and I've come to the sad realization that every artist needs to sell himself out at some point, I do think music is becoming too commercial.
(Kidz Bop Float On, for Christ sake?! What were you thinking, Modest Mouse?)
Regardless, there is almost no way to stop it.
Everyone wants music, no one wants to spend money, and one can find ways around anti-piracy software.

I'm pretty firmly against pirating movies, though, as it is much harder to make a movie than an album.
And as horrible as some movies are, I still think they're one of the better things to happen to society.
Also, I haven't ruled out working as a grunt-level creative designer in the film industry, so I have some prospects there.

In conclusion, yarrrrr...

ya id say so. music has gotten to the point that you have to buy an entire cd of sucky music to get one good song. although on your movie thing, id have to agree. but then again, whose going to pay 8 bucks to a movie that was a steaming pile of shit?

Not necessarily. With iTunes, you can buy a single song for 99 cents.

That may apply to leaked copies of as-of-yet unreleased material, but after that, it's impossible for an artist [or anyone] to control what people do with the art. At that point, it's no longer your fault.

File sharing can be beneficial for bands. A lot of indie bands have expanded their fan base by distributing free music files and videos. There's a lot of groups I never would have gotten in to if it hadn't been for file sharing. But, undeniably, it does damage record sales, and hurts the up-and-coming or just-getting-by music groups. Hopefully, though, those struggling artist types have a loyal enough fan base that will opt to buy their CDs as well as download their music.

I couldn't tell you whether or not the effect on super popular groups is even worth discussing, because I just don't know. I think there's something inherently wrong with file sharing against a group's will, because I know I wouldn't appreciate someone distributing my work for free. However, I think if more artists tried to find a way to embrace it, it'd turn out for the better.

well, filesharing got started, now people dont want to pay. unless its good, we dont want it. with movies, take catwoman for example. warner owes them however much they paid for the ticket. if they had had filesharing, then they could have deleted it. with a regular movie your chained to it.

I heard a program called limewire was legall, is it really?
i'd like to know......not that 'll downlaod it either way.......

The program itself is perfectly legal. It's basic software. It's purpose, to share files, can be used for more then merely sharing mp3s, mpegs, and the like. It's a neutral program, neither benign nor malignant. It's kinda like a gun. In the right hands, it protects and enhances, in the wrong ones, it harms.

As far as filesharing music and the like goes, the public is voicing their opinions loud and clear. It's not that people don't want to pay for music overall, but we're all tired of buying regurgitated, recycled, useless crap. Listen to the majority of songs put out today. They're about the same old crap we've been hearing about for.. oh, anywhere from 4-20 years. Bands and groups with an actual message of import are rare these days, and those who do find said message are quickly emulated by all the other wannabes in the industry.

And those who believe downloading songs directly harms the artists, meh. In the most minute of fashion are you even hoping to make an impact. The cartoons at www.campchaos.com explain it well (click camp chaos cartoons, look for the napster bad series). The music industry is loaded up with leeches and swine who snap up the profits for any song, lining their pockets on the work of others. It's mainly they who bitch about the filesharing systems... god forbid the public finally refuse to let them have a free lunch.

It's simple, really. The average public expects anywhere from 75-90% of anything put out by the movie/music industries to suck ass. If they didn't suck so bad, filesharing would be an incredible source of free advertising.... but as most of the content they wish to sell is so sickeningly dull/overused/lame, people download, find what they like, discard the rest and never bother to pay for the crap we're expected to consume. And all the more power to fileswappers for it.

Definately against it for movies... I really don't know why, because its sort of splitting hairs and seems sort of contradictory, why is it ok to download one media but not another? I mean normally I'd say all or none, because eventually all that this 'barrier' will do is dilute itself so that pretty much everything can be downloaded anyways, but for some reason I just really disagree with downloading movies, but downloading music really doesn't bother me too much...

One advantage to file sharing, is that you can save a lot of money (buying it for 99 cents or using one of the free programs :/ ) Last week I downloaded the album by The Who, Who's Better Who's Best.. Love it, but I had essentially 2 options since it's so old (and I've bought a lot of even older cds too) either pay for it on itunes for (correct me if I'm worng since I don't remember) $7... or I could but it from the distributor, for $14...+shipping and handleing... +$5 since it's an out of production cd...so $7, or about $24... damn that's a hard call...

But yea, filesharing helps you find songs that are much older, and therefor much harder to find, and sometimes it would cost oh so much to find it by other means...

Napoleon if you get a chance, clean up your post. With so many spelling errors it is very difficult to read. Not trying to be nitpicky here but that's alot of errors.

For myself I have a rule. If the original creator no longer offers it (i.e. the only other source is a compilation CD like WoW thats what I call music, or any other 3rd party) to you (i.e. you have to try to special order it) then go ahead and download it. Since they're not offering it, and instead making me go and ask them to "please send me a copy of an old cd that cost less than $3 + shipping to make for $20+ shipping for disturbing you." I have the same stance on all media, I don't download new songs, movies, games etc. The only 'new' thing I download is anime because I hate american distributers (but thats a different thread,) but I will download older NES games, songs from the early 90s, or really old movies.

But overally I have to say I'm pro file-sharing, mainly because I hate the RIAA's attempt to make all file-sharing programs illegal. The software is legal even though some people abuse it and use it for illegal purposes.

Yea sorry... sick as hell so my posts are even less coherent than usual...

I mostly have only older stuff on my pc, I'll download the occaisional new song, but just to see if I like it, then I'll normally go buy the cd if I like a majority of the songs on it or then again just buy the cd from itunes...