Jump to content

Time to start using some dodgy Russian sites?


Happy Face
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why does he relate everything to Chez's job? :|

Check out the NHS thread.

 

The drug industry operates in a very similar way to the music industry (economically and psychologically), and it's no surprise that someone that works in either would defend the others often iffy or down right illegal methods (as they are often effectively their own).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

 

But they don't. That would be crazy. ;)

 

That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

 

Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

 

I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

 

But they don't. That would be crazy. ;)

 

That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

 

Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

 

I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

 

Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i said, demented to think you know how something as complicated as that works when you demonstrate time and again that you dont.

 

I notice you've still never commented on the drug development issue (the commercial need to develop new drugs for the sake of it). ;)

 

 

A sure sign someone is losing an argument is when they start making up things like i wont admit there is iffy things about my field. Where did i say that? If you can see it in this thread i might re-consider your wanker status.

 

So, there are now more profits in the music industry are there? Demented mate, utterly demented.

 

You're just insulting and wandering now. We both know why. :razz:

 

 

 

No Fop, every single company that makes money does so because they hold scarcity power. I'm not going to argue about it anymore, i suggest you do some reading. Start with Adam Smith and finish with why dotcom companies failed.

Like a said 20th century thinking when it comes to the internet and music (and maybe other types of media).

 

I know that will be your Holy Grail due to the field you work in, and that as such you'll never admit otherwise, but it doesn't mean that it is everyone's Holy Grail.

 

I never commented on the DD issue as it was not part of the debate about the NHS and you were trying to steer it their to make some shit ill-informed political point that didnt relate to the debate. I also dont want to engage you in that debate, even though i went to Brussels yesterday to do just that with members of the European Commission. That debate is way above your head and i cant be arsed to start at the beginning and point out all the stuff you dont know. It would take me weeks. If you say what you do for a living i might consider engaging with you on it. However, you'll probably regret it.

 

This is about music and copyrights.

 

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

 

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

 

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

 

It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

 

But they don't. That would be crazy. ;)

 

That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

 

Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

 

I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

 

Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though.

 

I dont understand why the marketing process matters.

 

Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

 

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

 

It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week.

 

Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

 

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

 

With the correct cottage brand type footprint - fan loyalty direct to artist will counter that to an extent. Witness me paying £3 for an album I could have had free. There are millions like me (and you) out there. In the arenas I come into contact with it has actually transpired that little boutiques desginers/artists have bridged revenue gaps with the thing you keep mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

;)

 

Have you ever studied consumer and brand loyalty btw?

 

Take me for instance, I've never downloaded a pirated song, and I don't want to, I'm happy to pay for the music I like.

 

But one the other hand things like internet radio are being shut down now due to IP/royalty issues, yet it was a brilliant way of getting people to hear other music (again this in NOT 1950 with a few radio stations that you bought your records on to to sell) and then buy it.

 

 

In a similar way I've never bought another Foo Fighters album (even though I like them) after it tried to install a root-kit on my PC and wouldn't allow me to make a copy to play on a car CD (technically it could be gotten round by just using linux rather than windows, but still it's the principle).

 

In many ways the internet is encouraging music variety and helping bands that would never have got a contract in the 50's-80's or even in the 90's to make a living out of their music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

 

But they don't. That would be crazy. ;)

 

That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

 

Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

 

I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

 

Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though.

 

I dont understand why the marketing process matters.

 

Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples.

 

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know Chez making swimming pools full of money might just be seen as a wierd historical quirk 20-30 years from now. After all it used to be free or patronised in the past....

 

That's the ironic thing, in the case of music and the internet they still can, there's absolutely no need for the Stasi-esq tactics.

 

In the end they'll either evolve or die, no industry can wage war on it own consumers and survive, nor turn back time.

 

 

Fuck know how many more laws they'll break and rights they'll crush before the industry fully realised this though. :razz:

 

The good news is that on many significant levels this particular game is up. ;)

 

In 10 years from now no hip artist will belong to a major label and will be selling music direct with all the creative freedom that comes with that.

 

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

 

It has been the case for years, yet millions of CDs and downloads are paid for every week.

 

Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

 

I'm sure there are many. But there's also many who want the same right to try before they buy as you get with a chair or a greggs donut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the film industry retains the scarcity power over its core product. If the DVD rip quality version was made available, how many people would NOT go to the cinema. Not everyone is like Jonny man!

 

But they don't. That would be crazy. ;)

 

That's why I could never see why you made the Analogy.

 

Because they dont release the DVD, no one can rip it and put it up online. Access to the service / product is restricted and hence they make money. Thats why i brought it up, to contrast with the music industry situation.

 

I see that they're contrastable, but not comparable.

Music and film are comparable! Both industries started by business not artists for one.

 

Music could not be marketed in the same way as film though.

 

I dont understand why the marketing process matters.

 

Its just like pirate copies of DVDs being on the market. Or fake jeans, designer bags, fake cigarettes. Its the same as re-printing a book without permission. Or copying it into digital format and distributing it online. Its like taking research from a journal and copying it and putting it online for free. There are countless more examples.

 

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

 

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity.

 

You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output.

 

The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

 

And it's all those innocent law abiding people whose rights that the recording industry want to violate (and already repeatedly have) over the actions of a few (action that don't even economically harm them when they update their business model.

 

So it's "wrong" to steal from an "artist" (or actual the record company who will own and take the lions share), but "ok" fuck over the entire human race over in any way you want to try stop it?

 

 

Aye, right. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

 

And it's all those innocent law abiding people whose rights that the recording industry want to violate (and already repeatedly have) over the actions of a few (action that don't even economically harm them when they update their business model.

 

So it's "wrong" to steal from an "artist" (or actual the record company who will own and take the lions share), but "ok" fuck over the entire human race over in any way you want to try stop it?

 

 

Aye, right. ;)

 

A tad dramatic, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

 

The film industry has to some degree moved with the times.

 

Reducing the rigorous draconian hold it use to have on releases (cinema and video), and raking in the ridiculously huge profits to be had from cheap massive turnover/sale DvD's.

 

It's manage to very quickly sell the same product twice, premium (cinema) and economy (DvD), and it has also reduced DvD piracy at the same time. Again win win. ;)

 

 

 

 

Fact is make something cheap enough and it is no longer becomes economically viable to pirate in any scale, and yet the companies themselves still make huge profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

 

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity.

 

You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output.

 

The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other?

 

It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciously by many who dont believe you should steal from an artist.

 

And it's all those innocent law abiding people whose rights that the recording industry want to violate (and already repeatedly have) over the actions of a few (action that don't even economically harm them when they update their business model.

 

So it's "wrong" to steal from an "artist" (or actual the record company who will own and take the lions share), but "ok" fuck over the entire human race over in any way you want to try stop it?

 

 

Aye, right. :lol:

 

A tad dramatic, don't you think?

 

No more than:

To one person, then it will be available for free to all.

 

:razz:

 

 

 

But in all honesty if you think it's not effecting most everyone in some way then you simply don't understand the methods they are pursuing, it is or will be effecting you, whether you know it yet or not.

 

So no, not a tad dramatic at all, pretty much the truth. ;)

Edited by Fop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

 

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity.

 

You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output.

 

The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other?

 

It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery.

 

We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation.

 

This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue.

And is illegally installing spyware, internet usage monitoring and other invasions of privacy some how NOT an moral/legal issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because films aren't distributed to cinemas on DVD's that can be ripped and find there way online the day it's released. The film industry is able to time a dvd release to maximise profit from both the cinema run before the DVD release is rolled out.

 

Right, so why is it ok for them to do that and not the music companies? Why should the music company or the artist not be afforded the same opportunity.

 

You say that the musician tours but thats another thing entirely, thats a performance, which the artist quite rightly should expect to be paid for in addition to any media output.

 

The film industry gets to release the DVD and make money again, the artist gets to tour to make money again. Your view is that this is ok for one industry but not the other?

 

It's not a case of being ok for one and not the other. It's just a fact that the formats are different and the opportunities afforded to one aren't afforded to another purely on the mode of delivery.

 

We're in agreement on that but the music industry could change the way it distributes its products (not sure how and neither are they) in which case they would be afforded the opportunity to make money on the file output. If people go up in arms about it, then you could just say well look at the film industry and it would be justified. You're not making a legal or moral argument for the film industry retaining that power, nor one against the music industry having it. You're just pointing to the practicalities of the situation.

 

This is about producing something and having copyright on it, which is a moral/legal issue.

 

That moral/legal issue hasn't changed in the decades from the cassette tape through minidisc and on to digital downloads. Of course stealing from the artists wasn't an issue back in the day because the record companies always had the next superior sounding format to push. Now they can see the gravy train slowing they're all worried about the welfare of their artists?

 

Bullshit.

Edited by Happy Face
Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed, its no different to sitting infront of the radio on a Sunday night waiting for Bruno Brooks to read out the charts with a C90 cassette ready to tape your favourite tracks.

 

When I was a lad anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.