84 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

Heheheh, my mind has been down the gutter for years and years now, oopsie doodles~
But I prefer your library example!

Also Kami please try to remember that receiving a copy of something is... well, receiving a copy, not stealing. How am I stealing something which is still there? It would be like saying saving my signature image without my permission would be theft

Receiving a copy of a book is paying the author for his intellectual output. You're not just paying for the paper and the binding. You're paying for the service of the writer giving you a story. Just like when you buy a DVD. You're not paying for the disc, you're paying for the material in it. Do you think it'd be fair for the creator of a film if people got a blank CD and burned the movie into it instead of paying for the film? How would he make money off his hard work when people refuse to pay for it?

[Bone]

Receiving a copy of a book is paying the author for his intellectual output. You're not just paying for the paper and the binding. You're paying for the service of the writer giving you a story. Just like when you buy a DVD. You're not paying for the disc, you're paying for the material in it. Do you think it'd be fair for the creator of a film if people got a blank CD and burned the movie into it instead of paying for the film? How would he make money off his hard work when people refuse to pay for it?

Movies are entirely different than music. Most of a musician's revenue is from live performances, merchandise, etc. Most of the profit a movie brings in is from people seeing it in theaters and buying the DVD. Moreover, music is played on the radio, internet, etc nonstop, unlike movies.

[Turnip]

Receiving a copy of a book is paying the author for his intellectual output. You're not just paying for the paper and the binding. You're paying for the service of the writer giving you a story. Just like when you buy a DVD. You're not paying for the disc, you're paying for the material in it. Do you think it'd be fair for the creator of a film if people got a blank CD and burned the movie into it instead of paying for the film? How would he make money off his hard work when people refuse to pay for it?

What if you couldn't buy it in the first place, whether it's from it no longer being in print or is not available in your country or whatever other reasons are stopping you from getting it? You aren't answering my question here. The creator isn't going to get your money anyways :V
Also I thought all library services were free (well, at least for books)? That's exactly why libraries exist, so you can read a book without paying for it. Well they do get paid for, but only once, and that was by the person who bought it. And then it's shared into oblivion forever until the book is either actually stolen and never returned or is deemed useless because of graffiti or whatever.

[8143FF763271]

Movies are entirely different than music. Most of a musician's revenue is from live performances, merchandise, etc. Most of the profit a movie brings in is from people seeing it in theaters and buying the DVD. Moreover, music is played on the radio, internet, etc nonstop, unlike movies.

And? Why should the fact that you have other sources of revenue prevent you from having another one? I am the owner of my music. I sell it how I want to. If I make a piece of music, people shouldn't have it for free unless I decide to give it away for free. Just because you make money with a job doesn't mean you shouldn't make money with another. Nothing entitles YOU to the work of another human being.

What if you couldn't buy it in the first place, whether it's from it no longer being in print or is not available in your country or whatever other reasons are stopping you from getting it? You aren't answering my question here. The creator isn't going to get your money anyways :V
Also I thought all library services were free (well, at least for books)? That's exactly why libraries exist, so you can read a book without paying for it. Well they do get paid for, but only once, and that was by the person who bought it. And then it's shared into oblivion forever until the book is either actually stolen and never returned or is deemed useless because of graffiti or whatever.

If you couldn't buy a diamond, would it be right to steal it from someone just because you can't buy it? Of course not. Not having access to something isn't a rationale to steal it. I sympathize with your situation, it just isn't a justification. Copyrighted property is copyrighted property. If an artist sells his music to make 30 cents per digital copy, you having a free digital copy is taking money from the artist. Simple.

Libraries aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not like authors willingly give their books for free to libraries. The government pays authors for their work with people's taxes. So, yes, you're paying for libraries.

[Mishelle]

She didn't copy Madonna and that's just misunderstanding her art. Every pop artist after Madonna copied Madonna, mainly, Madonna's "sexy"/femme fatale persona. Lady Gaga didn't do that, she subverted sexy by clouding it in the robotic and the grotesque. She's a deconstructionist pop star. The only reason people compare her to Madonna is because both of them have used religious symbolism (albeit very differently).

Kanye West's sampling was revolutionary to hip hop. Do you recognize half of the things that he samples and the people he features in his projects? Kanye West is responsible for single handed destroying the low brow/high brow binary that existed in hip hop by featuring the work of relevant contemporary household names in the art world. It's the whole gestalt of his ongoing project as a musician. That's why he gets perfect score with the critical establishment and with mainstream radio.

Again, what sells isn't the same sound. What sells is finding things people like. Groups of people like different things, it's about finding a niche large enough to be profitable and keep refreshing the niche's interest by finding new music they'd like. It isn't that complicated. You may like rap music, we find things people like in rap music, we give them a song they like, let them get tired of it, give them another once they do. It's a process of tapping into what the audience wants and finding new things they want to keep the money coming. Of course it's about profit, but you yourself acknowledge that playing new things will lead to a decrease in profit. Do you honestly think that labels don't know that?

Lady Gaga has copied Madonna, Grace Jones, Roisin Murphy and multiple other female artists if you really think there's anything revolutionary about Gaga I understand why you really believe there's variety on the radio.

[Turnip]

If you couldn't buy a diamond, would it be right to steal it from someone just because you can't buy it?

Except that's actually taking it from someone and leaving them without their original product dude :V I don't understand how you're not getting this



It's a bit hard to compare digital file "sharing"/sending and receiving exact copies of files to physical item theft considering they aren't the same thing. I can't wait for the day when we can create exact clones of physical items! That'll be neat.
And I agree, Lady Gaga is hardly anything special or revolutionary :V She's just yet another female artist doing pop music things. Wow.


But Kami please answer me this:
How can you get an album which is no longer sold and will never be available for sale again by means which isn't piracy. Said album was never sold in your country leaving options such as second hand stores or friends out of the question. Please don't have your answer as "you can't".

Or, better yet, please give me a link showing me a link to where I can purchase (C79)[Sounds of Liberation] 異聞幻双譚
The catalogue number is SLCD-0012. I've been looking for this album since the single day it was sold, almost two years ago.

Edited by Turnip, 16 August 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[Bone]

And? Why should the fact that you have other sources of revenue prevent you from having another one? I am the owner of my music. I sell it how I want to. If I make a piece of music, people shouldn't have it for free unless I decide to give it away for free. Just because you make money with a job doesn't mean you shouldn't make money with another. Nothing entitles YOU to the work of another human being.

By creating music and sharing it with anyone but yourself, it's accessible to the public. Is it stealing if someone hums the tune of your song? Anyways, as I said before, file sharing increasing exposure to an artist's music, leading to higher show attendance and more $profit$. I'm not endorsing music piracy or file sharing, but they aren't depriving musicians of revenue.

Libraries aren't free. They're paid by taxes. It's not like authors willingly give their books for free to libraries. The government pays authors for their work with people's taxes. So, yes, you're paying for libraries.

Yes, the authors are paid when a library purchases a couple of their books. But each person who checks it out is accessing a copy of their work at no cost. Most libraries even offer CDs for people to check out and do with as they please. It's exactly the same as music piracy. The information is being copied, but was paid for in the first place.

[8143FF763271]

Lady Gaga has copied Madonna, Grace Jones, Roisin Murphy and multiple other female artists if you really think there's anything revolutionary about Gaga I understand why you really believe there's variety on the radio.

It's called referentiality and she herself alludes to it when she calls her art "the lie". She's obviously subverting the referentiality of post-modernity by adopting the flashy aesthetic of post-bowie artists a la Roisin Murphy and merging them in the asexual and the taboo. That's why she calls herself the lie, she represents the dilemma of post modernity: What happens when an image or text has no intended meaning? But she also gives us the answer: We are free to create meaning ourselves. The lie can become the truth once aesthetic value is determined on an individual basis. She is, essentially, telling people to fabricate culture as they see fit.

Obviously, I don't expect you to understand literary theory enough to get the work of lady gaga and its academic puns, noting that you're still at that stage of adolescent record label critiques.

Except that's actually taking it from someone and leaving them without their original product dude :V I don't understand how you're not getting this



It's a bit hard to compare digital file "sharing"/sending and receiving exact copies of files to physical item theft considering they aren't the same thing. I can't wait for the day when we can create exact clones of physical items! That'll be neat.
And I agree, Lady Gaga is hardly anything special or revolutionary :V She's just yet another female artist doing pop music things. Wow.


But Kami please answer me this:
How can you get an album which is no longer sold and will never be available for sale again by means which isn't piracy. Said album was never sold in your country leaving options such as second hand stores or friends out of the question. Please don't have your answer as "you can't".

Or, better yet, please give me a link showing me a link to where I can purchase (C79)[Sounds of Liberation] 異聞幻双譚
The catalogue number is SLCD-0012.

It doesn't matter, bro. If you go to the gym and you don't pay for your time there you're stealing. Whenever you get something you're supposed to pay for for free, you're stealing. There doesn't have to be a physical product. It can be a digital product or a service. Again, that a director has a copy of his film does not mean you're not stealing his work if you get a copy for free. He's the owner of the content that you're watching. If he wants to charge you for having access to that content, then not paying him said charges is theft.

There's only one copy of the Mona Lisa in the world. I really like it. Does that mean I should steal it? No. I'll have to live with not having the Mona Lisa on my wall. That you do not have access to something does not justify you stealing it. SMH.

[Turnip]

theft
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another


copy
noun
1.
an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original: a copy of a famous painting

Please note how these are two different things!

Edited by Turnip, 16 August 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Bone]

There's only one copy of the Mona Lisa in the world. I really like it. Does that mean I should steal it? No. I'll have to live with not having the Mona Lisa on my wall. That you do not have access to something does not justify you stealing it. SMH.

Not really.

TURNIP STOP BEING A NINJA

[8143FF763271]

By creating music and sharing it with anyone but yourself, it's accessible to the public. Is it stealing if someone hums the tune of your song? Anyways, as I said before, file sharing increasing exposure to an artist's music, leading to higher show attendance and more $profit$. I'm not endorsing music piracy or file sharing, but they aren't depriving musicians of revenue.

It is theft. You're copying someone's material and distributing it against his will. I doubt someone will prosecute you for it, but it is intellectual theft regardless. File sharing increases exposure for the artist so he has the CHANCE if he wants to to use it as a marketing device. He also has the chance to charge for digital copies. That's why some artists give their songs for free and some don't. The artist has the right to decide since it is his property and he's the one selling it.

Yes, the authors are paid when a library purchases a couple of their books. But each person who checks it out is accessing a copy of their work at no cost. Most libraries even offer CDs for people to check out and do with as they please. It's exactly the same as music piracy. The information is being copied, but was paid for in the first place.

Listen. You own something. You decide how to sell it. Most authors/publishing houses actually have contract with libraries where they allow libraries to lend their books for a limited amount of time and they have to renew said contracts to continue lending. This is referred to as public lending right. It's not in place everywhere and in some nations (like the US) you actually just further lend a copy. However, even that copy is a physical product that you cannot reproduce and further lend. Libraries can't make a copy of a copy and lend it to people, but that is essentially the way file sharing functions.

So: A) You're drawing a comparison between an outdated mode of library keeping and piracy. That mode of library keeping is being progressively abandoned. Libraries today in most developed nations need to buy rights to lend a book.

B) Even that comparison is poor.

[Turnip]

TURNIP STOP BEING A NINJA

I'm just editing grammar mistakes and stuff like that~
I-I swear!

[8143FF763271]

theft
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another


copy
noun
1.
an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original: a copy of a famous painting

Please note how these are two different things!

http://en.wikipedia....ectual_property
Intellectual property, yo, it exists. It's why you can't plagiarize your homework

Edited by kami12, 16 August 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[Mishelle]

Yeah because copying a file is totally the same as printing out someones work and passing it off as your own.

[Waser Lave]

Intellectual property, yo, it exists. It's why you can't plagiarize your homework

You certainly can plagiarise yourself with how much of the marking is done on reports these days.

[Turnip]

Yeah because copying a file is totally the same as printing out someones work and passing it off as your own.

Pretty much this! I honestly don't see a problem until it gets to the point where someone is ACTUALLY copying your work word by word, note by note, stroke by stroke, whatever and claiming they made the original product then making a profit from it. Now that's definitely something to get upset about.

But..... Wow some 15 year olds are sharing some music files between themselves

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

who the fuck cares

The artist is still making money through plenty of other means. It's not like these two kids are driving that artist straight into bankruptcy and leaving them without food for weeks on end and literally stealing every physical item that s/he owns!

Edited by Turnip, 16 August 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[8143FF763271]

Don't think too much just bust that dick, I wanna take a ride on your disco stick.

I've never heard anything so profound and insightful.

See? You don't even understand context. Tracy Emin's Everyone I Have Slept With devoid of context is just a tent full of names, within the context of her career and her person, the installation is a mockery of her own status as a celebrity. Post-modern art is characterized by context and intertextuality. It's not about Lady Gaga's lyrics but, rather, her lyrics and the imagery in them within the context of the commentary she's making on pop culture with her persona and her art as a whole. Being a celebrity itself can be used as a medium for art depending on the persona you are creating and its implications. This is the field that Andy Warhol specialized in, for fuck's sake.

You people need to stop watching youtube videos on EVIL BIG CORPOS and educate yourselves so you can better understand the relevant art of today.

Pretty much this! I honestly don't see a problem until it gets to the point where someone is ACTUALLY copying your work word by word, note by note, stroke by stroke, whatever and claiming they made the original product then making a profit from it.

Wow some 15 year olds are sharing some music files between themselves

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

who the fuck cares

The artist is still making money through plenty of other means. It's not like these two kids are driving that artist straight into bankruptcy and leaving them without food for weeks on end and literally stealing every physical item that s/he owns!

BRO... If you steal something, it doesn't mean the person you're stealing from will go into bankruptcy.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. What is so hard to understand about that?

Dude. You're a film director. You make a straight to DVD film.
People don't buy it because they can download it and burn it to a DVD. You never see a penny even though you worked on that.
Is that fair? NO. It's your content and you should be the one to charge for it. The fact that they want to see it does not mean that they SHOULD see it for free. If you're a teacher, you don't work for free. If you flip burgers, you don' work for free. If you're a lawyer, you don't work for free. You charge people for giving them what they want. Why should artists give you what you want for free? You are NOT entitled to people's work. Get over it.

[Bone]

Humming a tune you heard on the radio?
THIEF.

Listening to your friend's CD?
THIEF.

Influenced by another musician?
THIEF.

Watch an unauthorized music video on youtube?
THIEF.

Your definition of thievery seems to be all-inclusive.

[Mishelle]

I always thought Chris Brown stans were the worst and Gaga stans were close second but this Kami chick just pushed them into 1st place.

[8143FF763271]

I always thought Chris Brown stans were the worst and Gaga stans were close second but this Kami chick just pushed them into 1st place.

I don't even listen to Lady Gaga. I just know my shit. Don't be pissy that some have made it beyond thinking that immortal technique is the deepest artist on earth.

[Mishelle]

Lol you're talking about how copying is stealing then you turn around and try to defend Lady Gaga blatantly ripping off other artists and calling it art. Im over this. Welcome to my block list.

[8143FF763271]

Humming a tune you heard on the radio?
THIEF.

Listening to your friend's CD?
THIEF.

Influenced by another musician?
THIEF.

Watch an unauthorized music video on youtube?
THIEF.

Your definition of thievery seems to be all-inclusive.

An artist has a right to how his work is distributed. Of course there are difficulties, of course it isn't going to be cut in stone, of course it's hard to define because information is easy to share and putting limits on the sharing of information can be difficult. There's nothing to deny there. However, information does have authors, and authors do provide a valuable service that should be compensated. Those that are authors of information have a right to determine their price and mode of distribution, just like everyone has a right to determine their price. If an artist doesn't want you to hum his song or sing it or watch it on youtube, he has a right to that. Regardless of how much of an asshole that might make him.

[Turnip]

Dude. You're a film director. You make a straight to DVD film.
People don't buy it because they can download it and burn it to a DVD. You never see a penny even though you worked on that.
Is that fair? NO. It's your content and you should be the one to charge for it. The fact that they want to see it does not mean that they SHOULD see it for free.

Eh, I'm not dumb though and I'm aware that media piracy is something that exists and cannot be controlled or stopped, so I would prepare for that and have a plan if the movie fails. Not sure what, but if I was in that industry obviously I'd have ideas etc since I would know a little bit more with what I'm dealing with Also, aren't direct to dvd/vhs usually bundled with other things which tend to sell well? So if those don't sell then I guess you're just plain out of luck.

Or maybe they're not buying it because it's shit lol

[8143FF763271]

Lol you're talking about how copying is stealing then you turn around and try to defend Lady Gaga blatantly ripping off other artists and calling it art. Im over this. Welcome to my block list.

There's always going to be influences and copying within the artistic world. If you emulate the work of another artist, you should do it with his consent. No one has sued Lady Gaga for copyright infringement and she's pretty fucking famous so I doubt any of the artists in question care. They probably respect what she's doing and appreciate the homages that she pays them.

[Sweeney]

They probably respect what she's doing and appreciate the homages that she pays them.

You misspelled "royalties".