[QUOTE=itisjuly;48907052]The artists do it to get publicity. From what I've read from various interviews and such, artists get such a little cut from song sales that it doesn't actually matter to them if you pirate or not. They get most money from live concerts and stuff, not from that tiny cut label leaves them. They need the big publishers to get fame so that they can profit from tours. Not to earn that almost offensive amount of money from album sales.[/QUOTE]
The increase in publicity and thus demand for their music more than makes up for the smaller cut of the profits that they get from being signed.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48907094]The increase in publicity and thus demand for their music more than makes up for the smaller cut of the profits that they get from being signed.[/QUOTE]
It also proves that "piracy makes musicians poor" statement is bollocks. Piracy only affects the label really. "affects" that is.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48907052]From what I've read from various interviews and such, artists get such a little cut from song sales that it doesn't actually matter to them if you pirate or not. [/QUOTE]
First off, do you know why this is? It hasn't always been the case that artists were forced to depend on tours and merchandise for income. Piracy is undoubtedly what killed music sales as a form of income and forced artists to turn to other revenue streams. Music is cheaper and more user-friendly than ever before, yet people don't buy because of piracy. It is what it is.
So really what you're saying is that piracy isn't harmful to artists because artists don't make money off of albums which in turn is because of piracy. That's circular.
Secondly, even supposing that it doesn't matter to an artist whether they get paid or not (and that's certainly not true of all artists), you're arguing that the label's primary purpose for the artist is popularity and fame. If the label is providing a critical function to the success of a band, doesn't that mean some income is warranted? How can someone accept that bands [i]willingly[/i] sign deals with record labels [i]for their own benefit[/i] through the fame and popularity that labels can provide, and then essentially call the labels leeches stealing from the artists?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48907312]It also proves that "piracy makes musicians poor" statement is bollocks. Piracy only affects the label really. "affects" that is.[/QUOTE]
How does it prove it? You're trying very hard to validate your desire to steal.
[QUOTE=bitches;48908750]How does it prove it? You're trying very hard to validate your desire to steal.[/QUOTE]I don't need to validate that, I just like free shit, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48908835]I don't need to validate that, I just like free shit, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.[/QUOTE]
Wrongo. You absolutely have to verify your claims. You pulled the "proves statements opposing mine to be bollocks" statement from nowhere, and now you refuse to explain it?
[QUOTE=bitches;48908857]Wrongo. You absolutely have to verify your claims. You pulled the "proves statements opposing mine to be bollocks" statement from nowhere, and now you refuse to explain it?[/QUOTE]The cut artists get from sales that are handled by their label is minuscule. What more is there to validate or verify?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48908878]The cut artists get from sales that are handled by their label is minuscule. What more is there to validate or verify?[/QUOTE]
The size of the artist's received cut is irrelevant to the fact that you're stealing from the artist. You're also stealing from the rights holder, even if that holder is a massive dick. These are undeniable truths.
[QUOTE=bitches;48909810]The size of the artist's received cut is irrelevant to the fact that you're stealing from the artist. You're also stealing from the rights holder, even if that holder is a massive dick. These are undeniable truths.[/QUOTE]
And? It's pretty much a victimless crime. God forbid label CEO won't be able to buy another summer villa.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48909829]And? It's pretty much a victimless crime. God forbid label CEO won't be able to buy another summer villa.[/QUOTE]
The artists signed up with the distribution company with the sole intent of making money out of it that they believed they otherwise could not have (even if it's still a small amount compared to what the distributor earns). You're refusing to give the payment that both the artist and the distributor demand for their work. It's theft plain and simple, and you cannot justify it.
[QUOTE=bitches;48909851]and you cannot justify it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not... repeating for second time now.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48909829]And? It's pretty much a victimless crime. God forbid label CEO won't be able to buy another summer villa.[/QUOTE]
If he can't afford something because you won't pay for it, then it's not a victimless crime.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48909885]I'm not... repeating for second time now.[/QUOTE]
I didn't ask you to. I pointed out that you've not made any valid arguments and that you don't refute claims made against yours.
Millions in damage. I can't understand how the music label would be damaged.
[QUOTE=bitches;48911806]I didn't ask you to. I pointed out that you've not made any valid arguments and that you don't refute claims made against yours.[/QUOTE]
Are you just looking for an argument? Your past few post have contributed nothing to this discussion...
This discussion shouldn't be about the legitamacy of stealing music. Instead I feel like we should be talking about how wrong it is for a large organization to use their legal and monetary stature to ruin peoples lives with baseless claims. The RIAA [B]cannot[/B] prove that this service has caused those damages and are only filing suit because it's good at scaring people away from downloading music illegally. This isn't the first time they've done it and it won't be the last.
There are reasons music artists are moving away from large record labels. I'm almost sure that musicians don't sign labels only for the publicity; they sign labels for production, distribution and sales of their music. More and more artists are realizing that the best way to make money off your music is to sell it yourself, the internet is a useful tool for someone with very little public recognition to have a front for their art and their fans. Not to mention I bet most artists don't care about money as much as they care about creating music for people to enjoy. Also piracy is a form of advertisement in a way, the more people who listen to your music the more people will buy it. The people who download music illegally aren't any different than the people who use youtube to listen to music for free. This is only a copyright issue because someone isn't making money and it's damn for sure not the artist I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=reedbo;48912894]The RIAA [B]cannot[/B] prove that this service has caused those damages and are only filing suit because it's good at scaring people away from downloading music illegally.[/QUOTE]
Yes it can. The service exists in a form where a primary reason to use it is how it facilitates music piracy. Are you saying that Aurous doesn't exist as a means of gaining copyrighted music without paying the price? If you do agree with this obvious concept, how then, if they can prove that people have used this program (obvious), can they not prove that theft has occurred?
[QUOTE=bitches;48912951]Yes it can. The service exists in a form where a primary reason to use it is how it facilitates music piracy. Are you saying that Aurous doesn't exist as a means of gaining copyrighted music without paying the price? If you do agree with this obvious concept, how then, if they can prove that people have used this program (obvious), can they not prove that theft has occurred?[/QUOTE]
They cannot prove that theft has occurred because the service isn't stealing anything. That argument is the same justification for the removal of torrent trackers. How is providing a list of torrents any different than Aurous providing a means to listen to those torrents? Should we start litigating against P2P torrent applications now?
P2P applications themselves such as utorrent do not brand themselves specifically after piracy nor do they provide trackers.
On the other hand, providing trackers and offering a service like Aurous both serve explicitly to aid others in conducting illegal actions. It is legally indefensible.
[QUOTE=bitches;48913105]P2P applications themselves such as utorrent do not brand themselves specifically after piracy nor do they provide trackers.
On the other hand, providing trackers and offering a service like Aurous both serve explicitly to aid others in conducting illegal actions. It is legally indefensible.[/QUOTE]
I fail see how a piece of software can steal music. Just because something can aid someone in doing illegal acts does not mean that it causes them to do those illegal acts. Unless Sampson is providing the music files then he's not doing anything illegal. Giving someone a set of lock-picks isn't illegal, using those lock-picks to trespass is. By using your argument I can claim that owning a computer with an internet connection is illegal as it provides a means to steal copyrighted information.
[QUOTE=reedbo;48913163]I fail see how a piece of software can steal music. Just because something can aid someone in doing illegal acts does not mean that it causes them to do those illegal acts. Unless Sampson is providing the music files then he's not doing anything illegal. Giving someone a set of lock-picks isn't illegal, using those lock-picks to trespass is. By using your argument I can claim that owning a computer with an internet connection is illegal as it provides a means to steal copyrighted information.[/QUOTE]
The key difference is that Aurous exists as a service, self-aware, to pirate music. Torrent technology [I]may or may not[/I] be used illegally, but Aurous [I]explicitly facilitates illegal actions, existing specifically to make illegal actions easier[/I], [B]which is quite literally illegal[/B], and you cannot argue in legal terms that it isn't.
[QUOTE=bitches;48913276]The key difference is that Aurous exists as a service, self-aware, to pirate music. Torrent technology [I]may or may not[/I] be used illegally, but Aurous [I]explicitly facilitates illegal actions[/I], [B]which is quite literally illegal[/B], and you cannot argue in legal terms that it isn't.[/QUOTE]
None of that has ever stopped copyright claims produced by the RIAA and MPAA. Look at Kim dotcom, that man's entire life was put on hold because some bigwig decided that his service "explicitly facilitates illegal actions". Which in Kim's case was a simple file sharing service. Besides, at what point is something considered facilitating illegal acts? Is owning a gun facilitating murder?
I understand that pirating music is illegal, I understand that providing the means to explicitly pirate music is illegal as well. My point is that the laws need to change.
[QUOTE=bitches;48913276]The key difference is that Aurous exists as a service, self-aware, to pirate music. Torrent technology [I]may or may not[/I] be used illegally, but Aurous [I]explicitly facilitates illegal actions, existing specifically to make illegal actions easier[/I], [B]which is quite literally illegal[/B], and you cannot argue in legal terms that it isn't.[/QUOTE]
[B]Bolding things[/B] and then [I]making them italic occasionally too[/I] doesn't make you [B][I][U]right[/U][/I][/B].
There's a reason companies like the EFF exist, and it's solely to fight bullshit like the RIAA. And I'm willing to bet that there is in fact a way to argue that in legal terms, I'm just not educated enough in the law to do so myself. I have taken classes in Music Business while going to school for Audio Production though, and we literally had two days focusing just on why to never sign with a label, and how the RIAA is literally the spawn of Satan and Saddam's child who hooked up with Hitler. That's not an exaggeration. That's written down in my notes copied down directly from the board. You're defending something that literally EVERYBODY in the music industry loathes with a passion by taking the grounds that it's illegal. You know what's fucking illegal? Conning easily MILLIONS of people into signing contracts they didn't have to by lying to them and strong arming them, and doing whatever they could do make a buck by taking advantage of the stupidity, gullibility, whatever you want to call it of people talented enough to make music.
[QUOTE=reedbo;48913308]I understand that pirating music is illegal, I understand that providing the means to explicitly pirate music is illegal as well. My point is that the laws need to change.[/QUOTE]
Why should the laws change, in regard to the specific case of Aurous?
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=CjienX;48913351][B]Bolding things[/B] and then [I]making them italic occasionally too[/I] doesn't make you [B][I][U]right[/U][/I][/B].
There's a reason companies like the EFF exist, and it's solely to fight bullshit like the RIAA. And I'm willing to bet that there is in fact a way to argue that in legal terms, I'm just not educated enough in the law to do so myself. I have taken classes in Music Business while going to school for Audio Production though, and we literally had two days focusing just on why to never sign with a label, and how the RIAA is literally the spawn of Satan and Saddam's child who hooked up with Hitler. That's not an exaggeration. That's written down in my notes copied down directly from the board. You're defending something that literally EVERYBODY in the music industry loathes with a passion by taking the grounds that it's illegal. You know what's fucking illegal? Conning easily MILLIONS of people into signing contracts they didn't have to by lying to them and strong arming them, and doing whatever they could do make a buck by taking advantage of the stupidity, gullibility, whatever you want to call it of people talented enough to make music.[/QUOTE]
I didn't defend the RIAA. I said that Aurous, an illegal service, is also morally wrong. They can both be wrong.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
Why not try responding to arguments I actually made instead of imagining new ones? That goes to all three of you.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
"I steal food from restaurants and supermarkets because the employees receive unfair wages"
[QUOTE=bitches;48913563]Why should the laws change, in regard to the specific case of Aurous?
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
I didn't defend the RIAA. I said that Aurous, an illegal service, is also morally wrong. They can both be wrong.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
Why not try responding to arguments I actually made instead of imagining new ones? That goes to all three of you.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
"I steal food from restaurants and supermarkets because the employees receive unfair wages"[/QUOTE]
The food is a physical item that is actually tangibly lost. The music is data that was unfairly signed over to various shady lawyers. If you want to compare the music to food, the artist is somebody at a Farmers Market selling their baked goods, and then along comes some guy in a suit saying "Hey we actually sort of have a say in what happens in the baked goods industry, if you sign this contract saying every single pastry you make legally belongs to us even though you made it, we'll sell it for you! You'll sell millions, but we get all the money, because we're better than you. Also I'm a lawyer, so you should probably sign this otherwise I might accidentally trip in your tent because there's a loose cable on the ground. Oh also, you have to keep pumping those out otherwise you're in breach of our contract."
[QUOTE=CjienX;48913753]The food is a physical item that is actually tangibly lost. The music is data that was unfairly signed over to various shady lawyers. If you want to compare the music to food, the artist is somebody at a Farmers Market selling their baked goods, and then along comes some guy in a suit saying "Hey we actually sort of have a say in what happens in the baked goods industry, if you sign this contract saying every single pastry you make legally belongs to us even though you made it, we'll sell it for you! You'll sell millions, but we get all the money, because we're better than you. Also I'm a lawyer, so you should probably sign this otherwise I might accidentally trip in your tent because there's a loose cable on the ground. Oh also, you have to keep pumping those out otherwise you're in breach of our contract."[/QUOTE]
"Unfairly signed over"
It's a contract and they know their alternatives. The RIAA can still be a huge dick and offer a sour deal, but it's up to the content producer to agree to it.
You're still making an argument that the RIAA is bad, but I didn't contest this. You're still not responding to [i]my actual argument[/i].
Also it doesn't matter if it is physical, at all, for the sake of analogy. It is still a product taken without the demanded recompense of those who have the right to demand it.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/kM52i/e39fb165b8.png[/IMG]
God fucking damnit, i didn't even get the chance to try it :frown:
Hey guys, piracy may not be right but it's still not stealing. Insisting on pretending it's theft makes your argument look really silly, for future reference.
[QUOTE=CjienX;48913351]You're defending something that literally EVERYBODY in the music industry loathes with a passion by taking the grounds that it's illegal. You know what's fucking illegal? Conning easily MILLIONS of people into signing contracts they didn't have to by lying to them and strong arming them, and doing whatever they could do make a buck by taking advantage of the stupidity, gullibility, whatever you want to call it of people talented enough to make music.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
I like how we go through this same sequence, like, three times in the same thread.
'omg wtf how can the RIAA do this this is an illegal lawsuit'
'no, the website is illegal'
'no it's not!!1!1!'
'yes, it's illegal, here's why'
'well the RIAA is still ~evil~ anyways'
Yes, the RIAA is terrible. So's Wal-Mart. You'll still get arrested if you steal from Wal-Mart. The fact that Wal-Mart is terrible does not justify illegal actions against them. Aurous, if the allegation that they use pirate trackers is true, commits copyright infringement, which is illegal, making this is a totally justified lawsuit. Them's the facts.
[QUOTE=CjienX;48913753]The food is a physical item that is actually tangibly lost.[/QUOTE]
And this is why sometimes we have to [B]bold[/B] and [I]italicize[/I] the point, because otherwise you miss it by miles. Like how he pointed out that your argument at this point is 'piracy is ok and aurous is legal because the RIAA is a bunch of dicks', when that argument doesn't fly for any other sort of crime, like stealing from a store because you don't like how they treat their employees- and you want to quibble on the utterly irrelevant fact that copyright infringement isn't traditional theft.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48914647]Hey guys, piracy may not be right but it's still not stealing. Insisting on pretending it's theft makes your argument look really silly, for future reference.[/QUOTE]
Whether you want to call it 'digital theft' or just plain old copyright infringement instead doesn't matter to me, but 99% of the time when people object to the term 'theft' being applied to what is fundamentally an act of unlawfully taking something without permission, it's because they want to euphemize it with a different term that doesn't make it obvious that it's an illegal and harmful act.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48914647]Hey guys, piracy may not be right but it's still not stealing. Insisting on pretending it's theft makes your argument look really silly, for future reference.[/QUOTE]
Arguing that it isn't theft makes it obvious that you get a hardon not paying for products.
[QUOTE=bitches;48916081]Arguing that it isn't theft makes it obvious that you get a hardon not paying for products.[/QUOTE]
It seems like you get a hardon from accusing people you disagree with of shit all the time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.