PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Piracy PSA.....Appealing to the lil guy


Gentle Fury
07-29-2003, 01:48 PM
has anyone seen the new Anti-Piracy PSA with Sean Astin and Ben Affleck in it.......basically pointing out that its not the big stars getting paid millions that piracy affects, its the people working on the movie......the people that are making the lowest salary and doing the most work that are being affected the most.

Interesting concept for a guilt trip if you ask me.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030306_thu.html

http://www.nbc30.com/entertainment/2359196/detail.html

danteort
07-29-2003, 03:15 PM
Yeah I saw that on tv yesterday and thought it was pretty well done.

Hookflash
07-29-2003, 09:48 PM
Lol! If the "little guy" takes the biggest hit, then there's something wrong with the industry, not the consumer.

halo
07-29-2003, 10:16 PM
so in their moment of genius they thought they'd push their message to an audience made up of 100% legitimate paying viewers

this idea that copyright infringement is theft thing is wrong as well...if that was the case i'd have 2 clients behind bars now...

almost the same arguements apply as with the rest of it, mp3s etc...global release dates would help, multi region dvd's as well, and instead of the cinemas under investing they can rip out those 25 year old projectors and install some digital ones. The problem is with that is that it costs the cinemas to do it, but it saves the studios...so again its another industry that has to look to recalibrate their business model for the digital age.

I'm in no way advocating the mass dvd copying and sale of pirated dvds like in the far east, but then again, they aren't exactly aiming there are they.

So do you get more time and a larger fine for downloading a film than a song?

3danim8d
07-29-2003, 11:52 PM
As a graphic artist and hopefully someday maybe even working on some movies, I agree that piracy has a horrible effect on the entertainment industry.

Now, I haven't seen this spot yet, but I did see the the "Movies are Worth It" spot shown before Seabiscuit the otherday.

I don't want this to turn into anything ugly, I'm just stating my impression of the situation, based on my understanding of how "The System" of creating/financing a movie works. If I am wrong, please correct me, but please, let's keep this professional.

I know the Studios are trying to put real faces to the charge against piracy, but I have to wonder the truth of this situation of who is really crying foul about not getting their share.

As I understand it, when a movie starts to go into production a budget is generated and financing is secured to pay for everything on the picture, including all the set workers designers, painters, electricians, everyone working on the production. Everything is estimated base of off previous productions so that the finance office knows where every cent of the budget is supposed to go before the sets are even built. That plus any overages and minus any savings are added together to create the "Production Costs" of the movie. It think that is basically correct, right?

Everyone that is working should be getting paid weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or in parts (based on completion milestones) during the production. Their money comes out of the budget from the production office. Now, these production houses have enough money to give out to pay the budgets of these big pictures without having to go to banks or major lenders to get the money. So they have lots of liquid capital to spread around.

So when a movie grosses 3 times it's Production Costs, they have been payed back once and any interest the production companies Finance Office may have charged (though I think they opt directly for Proffit) and the rest goes to feed the companies 'overhead', and of couse, to fill the pockets of the Execs sitting up in thier glass towers. They get the huge annual 'Bonuses' and expensive "Perks".

The people actually working on a movie don't get paid (or even get bonuses) based on the ticket sales, or home video sales and rentals, they get paid out of the production costs and are paid (if I am correct) mostly on a Union scale. Now, if the union scale is extremely low, I don't think that is at all tied to the problem of piracy.

So, my question is, they put a real human face up on the screen saying piracy hurts the little guys. That they are lucky to put together 12 months of work a year. From what I've seen, the movie industry seems to have been putting out more and more movies every year. I would like to see the figures for the last 10 years showing how many movies have been produced each year and see if it is rising or it isfalling. But, my question is, is it really the Little Guys pocket that is being robbed or is it truely the Fat Cat Execs that are trying to play the guilt card for the little guy to they can keep their huge bonuses and perks?

halo
07-30-2003, 12:15 AM
i think its more the fact that studios dont expect to make mega amounts on every film they make and that the big bucks comming in from a blockbuster can offset the losses on a dead duck of a film. But I agree with you, films are made with budgets, its only the major players that take a %.

However theres are other factors, generally theres a downturn in the global economy, hollywood also puts out an incredible amount of crap, and they also assume that every download means lost revenue. I dont think the last point is true, fans and fanatics will watch a film, download it and then by the dvd etc, whilst its possible that people who download a film wouldnt have paid to go to the cinema either or possibly they might have watched a rental with a friend.

I think the real losses come from the professional piracy outfits that make and sell dvd's as if they were proper dvd's, however they dont seem to be aiming in that direction with this ad.

I just find that this seems to be driven more by money than social conciense, and they are now trying that as angle. It just seems a little disproportionate and misdirected in the grand scheme of 20th century life. It seems the dollar is driving the law and there seems to be a lot of psuedo enforcement companies these days chasing the dollars with the lawyers. I wonder how much they lose to them?

I do wonder if the internet has just opened their eyes to copying whereas before with taping music, copying tape games and lending and copying VHS's there wasnt anything quantifiable for them to actaully get to grips with and oppose.

Does anyone know if Bollywood has that same problems, given that its far bigger than hollywood?

Whylee
07-30-2003, 05:58 AM
I work in film, have friends in games and the music industry. Point blank bootlegging films like video games or music kills jobs. Starship Troopers lost some serious money at the box office yet they're now making a direct to video sequel. Why is that? Many films depend on video revenue (sales/rentals) to turn a profit.

The only difference between somone walking into a blockbuster and picking up a game/dvd to steal and downloading one is people are afraid of getting caught in a Blockbuster.

Theft is theft. Don't try to excuse it or mask what it is. Just because it's easy doesn't make it right.

Should hollywood put out stronger films? Should all the tracks bump on a CD and not just the two singles? Hell ya. But that isn't an excuse or justification to steal.

This isn't stealing bread do your starving child can eat philosophical debate. This is mere forms of entertainment which 100 yrs didn't even exist for us to dwindle our time away with.

www.peterdhunt.com

Jhonus
07-30-2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Whylee
The only difference between somone walking into a blockbuster and picking up a game/dvd to steal and downloading one is people are afraid of getting caught in a Blockbuster.
[/url]

There is a difference. If you stole the game/dvd from the blockbuster then the owner would have lost the material cost of the game/dvd and any future earnings to be made from it.

However if a copy was made the owner would retain the material worth of the game/dvd and retain any future earnings to be made from it.

Games have been pirated from the beginning of their existence. The industry has niether gone bust nor found a way to effectively combat it. On the contrary, the industry has grown to be bigger than film.

erilaz
07-30-2003, 08:01 AM
On the other hand, if people stopped fighting piracy the industry would be doomed, because everyone would accept it as a way of life and pay less often.

It's kind of like that whole balance of life thing.:p

Whylee
07-30-2003, 08:10 AM
Krugar,

I think you missed the entire point. Nothing you said changes the fact that it's theft. Your arguement is that theft has been around since the begining of video games and they've continued to expand so this makes it right. Theft has been around since the begining of civilization which has still continued to expand. I guess this makes me jacking you in the middle of the street for your watch and wallet ok as society will still like the games industry "grow."

If people want to steal have enough character to say "I am a thief and I have chosen to steal." Don't hide behind rhetoric lies attempting to convince yourself through a false personal and broad justification.

www.peterdhunt.com

noisewar
07-30-2003, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Lol! If the "little guy" takes the biggest hit, then there's something wrong with the industry, not the consumer.


HAHAHAHAHA truer words have never been spoken... everytime the people at the bottom proclaim damages we find cash cows at the top would could sustain those jobs easily with just a small of cut off their own paycheck. But no... go ahead... blame piracy. In fact, let's wipe piracy out all together, since that's the real bad guy right? Why, at the fabulous rate of .001% of gross profit they get, that's really the only injustice being done them.


Wake up people, piracy has more forms than just free copies.

Jhonus
07-30-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Whylee
I think you missed the entire point. Nothing you said changes the fact that it's theft.

I was trying to point out that material theft and digital theft are not analogous.

Your arguement is that theft has been around since the begining of video games and they've continued to expand so this makes it right.
I was arguing that piracy has not destroyed or inhibited the gaming industry. I said this in retort to claims of anti-piracy pundits that piracy kills jobs, when infact if you look at the example of the gaming industry you will see that it has maintained growth and usurped the film industry in the process.

By saying that I do not by default say that piracy is "right". And I don't. You'll also notice I didn't say it was "wrong". I'm just pointing out what has happened, and it has not been all doom and gloom, loss of profits, loss of jobs. That is a line i'm not swallowing.

halo
07-30-2003, 11:00 AM
copyright infringment IS NOT THEFT...its plain and simple...theft is when you steal someone, copyright infringment is when you go against someones copyright.

like i say if copyright infringement was theft i would be able to go down to my local police station and get my clients arrested everytime they decided to use my artwork more than they had agreed to. I also would be able to get the printers, the bureau that handled it and the couriers arrested for handling stolen goods...it would be one hell of a sting. But it isnt theft, thats just a word that the RIAA and MPAA have attached to it. Your not prosecuted for theft at all in court, your prosecuted for copyright infringement or if you sell them fraud...if your prosecuted for the former its a completley civil matter (unless your government makes it a federal offence, in which case i'll get a CEO of a international games company listed on the stock exchange arrested tomorrow...)

MooseDog
07-30-2003, 12:35 PM
copyright infringment IS NOT THEFT...its plain and simple...

thank you for calling a spade a spade:thumbsup: if they want to target a criminal/civil problem affecting their business, at least have the intellectual honesty to specifically identify it.

it points out very graphically the weakness of the entertainment industries' blusterous public campaigns. to wit: they are fighting the last war.

life has changed such that their once very successful business models of production and distribution are in danger of becoming obsolete. life changed outside of their control. so instead of investing their tremendous resources on re-configuring/re-inventing/benefiting from an electronic/internet economy, they are spending tremendous amounts of money legally targetting kids and their parents' computers.

ultimately this will all peter out as life races ahead, and they eventually figure out how to keep up with it, unfortunately some unable to afford the fight will be hurt.

Gentle Fury
07-30-2003, 02:23 PM
ok, good, i thought this would bring on some thoughtful insites (as this site is known for).

So, lets touch on the idea of once again, who really IS being affected here.

When a movie is produced it needs people to produce it. A person can not (legally) step onto a set anymore unless they are in a union. Unions are built to protect the workers from getting screwed.

A film needs a crew. So regardless of whether the movie make 300 million or 300 dollars it still needs to be made to make anything!

That crew (the little people, this sympathy ploy is reaching out to) are going to be paid regardless. The only people that rely on ticket sales are the executive producer (who's ass is in the biggest sling, because he procured the funding for the picture), the producer (because if he screws up the exec prod looks like crap and he wont work again), the director (basically the fate of the film lies with him.......and he occasional will get a cut of sales), and sometimes (not often.....mostly in lower budget films) the actors.

The people that the psa is directly saying.....dont worry about these highly paid people, worry about the lil guy with the family :)

If you want the truth. The war on Piracy is basically the same as the war on drugs. The government "fights" the war on drugs, but sells them to other countrys to in turn bring them back here to in turn confiscate and sell them off again....an endless and very profitable cycle.

In the world of loss due to piracy, movies are the exception to the rule....with the music industry out there still trying to sell cd's and not music they are getting hit hard.......video game companys that are generally not multi-million dollar conglomarates are suffering...........but the movie industry is different.

People download movies for a different reason than anything else. Did you know that Spiderman was one of the most widely downloaded movies of all time, AND one of the highest grossing movies of all time!

Listening to a cd is something that can be done in another way. You can't replace the movie going experience! People pay their 10 bux to see a movie (some do so many times over.....see lord of the rings) then they go home and download it to watch it again and again, until the dvd comes out and they buy it to see all the special features.

In a way, if you think about it, movie piracy is a form of advertising and filtering. The really good movies end up making even more money, because people are sure they wanna spend the money in the theater......and crap like tomb raider is dl'd and discarded, never to be heard of again.

What's the solution?

Make better films!

The really good ones flourish in the face of supposed adversity, and the crap fails! Time to rethink things guys!

And actually even the ones that fail dont really totally fail.....ever notice how much product placement is in a crappy movie as opposed to a good movie? You are basically dling a big advertisement for coke or taco bell......lol

but, like someone else had said, continue to fight the "good fight" and it will scare enough people into not doing it, therefore balancing it once again.

Chewey
07-30-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury
ok, good, i thought this would bring on some thoughtful insites (as this site is known for).

So, lets touch on the idea of once again, who really IS being affected here.

When a movie is produced it needs people to produce it. A person can not (legally) step onto a set anymore unless they are in a union. Unions are built to protect the workers from getting screwed.

A film needs a crew. So regardless of whether the movie make 300 million or 300 dollars it still needs to be made to make anything!

That crew (the little people, this sympathy ploy is reaching out to) are going to be paid regardless. The only people that rely on ticket sales are the executive producer (who's ass is in the biggest sling, because he procured the funding for the picture), the producer (because if he screws up the exec prod looks like crap and he wont work again), the director (basically the fate of the film lies with him.......and he occasional will get a cut of sales), and sometimes (not often.....mostly in lower budget films) the actors.

The people that the psa is directly saying.....dont worry about these highly paid people, worry about the lil guy with the family :)

If you want the truth. The war on Piracy is basically the same as the war on drugs. The government "fights" the war on drugs, but sells them to other countrys to in turn bring them back here to in turn confiscate and sell them off again....an endless and very profitable cycle.

In the world of loss due to piracy, movies are the exception to the rule....with the music industry out there still trying to sell cd's and not music they are getting hit hard.......video game companys that are generally not multi-million dollar conglomarates are suffering...........but the movie industry is different.

People download movies for a different reason than anything else. Did you know that Spiderman was one of the most widely downloaded movies of all time, AND one of the highest grossing movies of all time!

Listening to a cd is something that can be done in another way. You can't replace the movie going experience! People pay their 10 bux to see a movie (some do so many times over.....see lord of the rings) then they go home and download it to watch it again and again, until the dvd comes out and they buy it to see all the special features.

In a way, if you think about it, movie piracy is a form of advertising and filtering. The really good movies end up making even more money, because people are sure they wanna spend the money in the theater......and crap like tomb raider is dl'd and discarded, never to be heard of again.

What's the solution?

Make better films!

The really good ones flourish in the face of supposed adversity, and the crap fails! Time to rethink things guys!

And actually even the ones that fail dont really totally fail.....ever notice how much product placement is in a crappy movie as opposed to a good movie? You are basically dling a big advertisement for coke or taco bell......lol

but, like someone else had said, continue to fight the "good fight" and it will scare enough people into not doing it, therefore balancing it once again.

That's a very insightful way of viewing it.

So bascially when I steal your Gap clothes it''s just a cool way of advertising for Gap?

omg lmao!!:scream:

erilaz
07-30-2003, 02:41 PM
I think we should just open a new section on the forum called "Fruitless debates about piracy and social reform":surprised

Gentle Fury
07-30-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Chewey
That's a very insightful way of viewing it.

So bascially when I steal your Gap clothes it''s just a cool way of advertising for Gap?

omg lmao!!:scream:

no, actually it would kinda be like going and buying a $1.00 plain cotton t-shirt and screen printing the Gap logo on it for your own personal use and never intending to sell it.

Now let's say you were able to do that for very cheap and it is indistinguishable from the real garment.....but you never made a profit, you just got to wear a woredrobe of clothes that look like designer labels.

technically the gap could sue you for copyright infringement.....but you made no profit and you are advertising their product for them for free.

But, thanks chewey once again for not thinking before responding and contributing nothing to the discussion......it's always appreciated.

3danim8d
07-30-2003, 03:43 PM
Okay, this has gotten away from the topic that was originally started.

Piracy is wrong.

The question I am asking is, are we being fed a lie in these PSAs perpitrated by the Studio Executives, that the Little Guys are truely suffering, so that the Executives can continue to increase the size of the annual bonuses and their regular Perks?

Has a studio or production company ever not paid an entire staff or subcontractor (in the case of effects work) solely becuase ticket sales were low? I would think that those bills would have to be paid well before the films start showing in theaters considering the time between the completion of the editing, foley, music and the time it actually starts it's theatrical run.

Do little people (and the subcontractors) get bonuses based on overall ticket sales?

It is also my undertanding that Hollywood accounting practices are more akin to significant acts of legerdomain and voodoo than real math, especially in their 'reporting' of proffit numbers. As I recall, Titanic is supposed to be one of the biggest grossing films of all time, and yet, I think the studio still says it has taken a loss on that movie?

Is there any site that has a list of movies, their production budgets, production costs, and intake (including ticket sales, home video rental and sales, cable/payperview runnings, etc)?




Jeff

halo
07-30-2003, 03:53 PM
http://www.boxofficeguru.com/

http://www.imdb.com/

:)

Chewey
07-30-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury
...


But, thanks chewey once again for not thinking before responding and contributing nothing to the discussion......it's always appreciated.

Not a problem. It got precisely amount of thought it deserved.

As Erilaz remarked I think we should just open a new section on the forum called "Fruitless debates about piracy and social reform"

:thumbsup:

Meaty
07-30-2003, 06:45 PM
Who knows exactly what is going on with the movie finances, really? The actual numbers are kept VERY close to the hip on big films. Yes we know big names take a percentage at the end, but other than that, how does the film budgeting effect little people getting paid?

-Actors and actresses are grossly overpaid. Their agents know exactly how much the budgets can afford for them on a particular film and they go for as much as they can. Increasing revenues would not help the little guy nearly as much as it helps the big fish. Some Executive Producer "Actor Salary Price Fixing" would help. Like maybe not paying anyone more than 5 million for any one role. Saving $5 to $15 million on a $60 million venture is significant. Not everyone is as magnanimous as Keanu Reeves (he gave a ton of money to the effects people who worked on the matrix seqeuls).


-Moral Philosophies - Whether or not the advertisement about the little guy is true or not, doesnt mean that watching a pirated movie isnt getting something that you didnt pay for. That is simply fact. What is important is how you handle that fact. This begs the question, do you believe something is wrong because it 'is wrong' or do you believe something is wrong simply for the effects it has? These two moral philosophies find little area to reconcile with each other. Which one you choose is up to you. Just don't pick one based on circumstancial convienience.

- I think that saying that you won't pay for crap movies is a pretty rediculous excuse. Someone in one thread described it very well... "Worth my time, but not my money." Seems like a fairly unprincipled basis for decisions. Aside from that, it is one damned slippery slope.

anyways... just a few things to think about

noisewar
07-30-2003, 08:43 PM
So in summation...

A) Piracy is wrong regardless who it hurts
B) Piracy is critically wrong when it hurts the little guy

Fact:
1) Little guys doesn't make much off a movie.
2) Little guys need unions to protect them.
3) Little guys get paid for their work, not based on %
4) Big guys make lots, commonly a percentage.
5) Big guys risk the most money in a movie too.

Person 1:
If you argue B) then you are ignoring the fact that most union workers are paid a flat rate regardless of how the movie does. They do not usually (or ever) make a percentage (i.e. they do not get points). Which will lead you to eventually argue A).

Person 2:
If you argue A), you ignore the concept that when piracy hurts the little guy, it's not doing so on a linear scale, and that big guys should reform just a little (which would mean alot ot the little guy). Unions keep the little guy from being screwed, but don't make him rich either.

Diasgnosis: The two camps of people are separated by the follwing question...

Is piracy the main issue hurting the industry, and if so, who in it?

Answer: We need statistics on how much damage is done by piracy, and how much of that could be repaired through a reform of how big guys make money. We also need an act of God to put love in the hearts of big guys so they'd be willing to enact these reforms and help out the "honest man" down below.

Ergo: If you have accurate quantities of each of the three elements above, you can help solve the problem. If you don't, continue to argue as Person 1 against Person 2, or Person 2 against Person 1.

Derlaine
07-31-2003, 10:02 AM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

Jackdeth
07-31-2003, 06:45 PM
This piracy crap hurts lots of people. I direct music videos, and I have seen so many people layed off in the last two years that it is scary. Most of you kids have no idea what so ever of how these industries work.

I own a post company that used to do over 2-3 million a year in music video effects (3-4 years ago). The average total budget for a video was 350-500 thousand dollars. Now the average budget is 200 thousand, with no budget for effects at all! So guess what, I lay people off (the little people) and they are now all un-employed. That is what music theft has done to me. Lucky for me our movie division is rocking and has made up for all of the lost
money from music video.

If movie theft starts hurting me, I fire people again to cut my loses. Again, the little people get hurt.

And most of you cheap bastards try to find any way you can to justify what you do. Thanks so much....Or acually, my laid off employees thank you too...

Gentle Fury
07-31-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
This piracy crap hurts lots of people. I direct music videos, and I have seen so many people layed off in the last two years that it is scary. Most of you kids have no idea what so ever of how these industries work.

I own a post company that used to do over 2-3 million a year in music video effects (3-4 years ago). The average total budget for a video was 350-500 thousand dollars. Now the average budget is 200 thousand, with no budget for effects at all! So guess what, I lay people off (the little people) and they are now all un-employed. That is what music theft has done to me. Lucky for me our movie division is rocking and has made up for all of the lost
money from music video.

If movie theft starts hurting me, I fire people again to cut my loses. Again, the little people get hurt.

And most of you cheap bastards try to find any way you can to justify what you do. Thanks so much....Or acually, my laid off employees thank you too...

ok, just so you know, i am not advocating piracy.......i am not saying i think it is right. If you saw my cd and dvd collection you would understand that. :)

I'm talking about the way they are trying to fight the problem.....it seems like they are more advocating it than anything. Has noone learned, if you say its naughty to do something it will be more intriguing.

Am i wrong that there were actually tons and tons of people out there that had no clue that you could actually dl movies.......now that they are advertising it on a massive media scale don't you think there is more than one person saying......whoa, you can dl movies???? I'm gonna go research that!

Once again, i'm not saying that it is right.......i'm saying that the way around it is to not fight it and threaten to imprison people, but to try and profit from it!!!!

If music and movie companys started their own service.....say a monthly fee for a certain amount of music/movies a month.......sure that wouldnt stop piracy, people will always be cheap......but i bet that would make the people that do it for convinience (and ill bet there are more of them than the hardened criminals everyone seems to want to think.) would be all over that idea.

Now to be fair there is actually talk of a legit dl system for movies (which there should be!), if that really flys and the music industry goes along with it.......things would change.....there would be less "theft".

So, why do people dl intellectual property? Is it because they are cheap? Well, in some cases yes. Of course it doesnt help that your average cd is about 18 bux and now has a running time of about 37 minutes. It also doesnt help that most dvds range from $15 (a brand new release they know they will sell in abundance) to upwards of $30 (movies that don't sell everyday but are really popular) and there seems to be NO standard for calculating these prices!!

I for one probably spend $150 a month in cd's and dvd's.........and unfortunatly that doesnt buy a whole lot! I can understand people that are freakin broke though dling them......i mean honestly, they wouldnt have been able to afford it in the first place.....so there really isnt any loss....as there never would have been a gain ;)

BUT, if you were able to dl your music and movies without the pretty packaging and paid a reasonable price there would be a substantial increase in profits for all involved.

But what am i talking about, this is only logic.......the real way to solve a problem is to point fingers and place blame, not to figure out how to turn the problem into the solution right? :surprised

igorstshirts
07-31-2003, 08:00 PM
DVDs should be free. If a movie looks good enough, I'll pay to see it on the big screen. Cameron Diaz should make just about as much money as I do... Which is about 90k a year... I work just as hard, sorry. If I can get it for free, I will because I am not Ben Affleck. When I break into the Hollywood industry, I will obide by the same rules... As long as I am doing something that I love, the 90k will suffice. Those ads are proof that the actors' sallary will suffer, sooner or later.

izzylong
07-31-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
[B]This piracy crap hurts lots of people.
I'm so sick of this weak excuse.
Show us some published, non-biased, proveable evidence that this is true please.

Because if you cannot cite SPECIFIC titles, location of crime, ip addresses, names, etc. then I'm affraid that you are just another employer with no idea how to make money in a down market.

We keep hearing of companies complaining about piracy in some form or another that cannot be proven, yet...
why is it only NOW that they speak of this horrible crime to thier bottom line???

However, if you can provide 4+ years worth of SPECIFIC info pertaining to your departments' demise, (you said 3-4 yrs ago, so from 1999 to present) then we will be happy to refrain.

I ask because if you can provide the specific info, (i.e. the "magic bullet), I'm sure the US supreme court, the RIAA, and MANY other groups would only be TOO happy to speak with you on how you were able to obtain that info.

I own a post company that used to do over 2-3 million a year in music video effects (3-4 years ago).
SPECIFICLY explain to us why you failed to keep up the high sales with everyone else?
So what REALLY happened???
Did your MV team suck?
I really don't mean any offence, but you said you made MILLIONS in the past doing such great work, why does our industry now all-of-a-sudden shun you??
Did you piss someone off?
Was your management bad?
All you did was blame something you cannot prove. (yet)

Other shops seemed to have no problem during those "hard music-piracy times" making more and more cash for the work they do, and they are making even more now. (?)

It is plain and simple, if you offer a customer killer work for less than the other guy, for less time, then they are going to go for you.
If you believe otherwise, then it seems that YOU are the one with no idea how our industry really works:) ....kid.

So guess what, I lay people off (the little people) and they are now all un-employed.
Thanks for telling us that you are an uncaring, unproductive employer!
I'll be SURE to RUSH my reel right out to YOUR consistently productive shop!

You obviously must have been sick the day that our president himself asked you (employers) "nicely" to support the economy and help America by helping to aviod that situation, by creating and/or helping to maintain a profitable, and competitive AMERICAN workforce.

I mean seriously, have you used this poor "piracy" excuse to folks a LOT?
Do your investors buy into it?
If so, I'd LOVE to ask them for money:)

If movie theft starts hurting me, I fire people again to cut my loses. Again, the little people get hurt.
And, thus proving our point to this thread, the fat cats like you get richer by making excuses, and laying off the very "little" people that put you where you are today, instead of helping the situation with proper employee and money management, and forward-thinking business models.

And most of you cheap bastards try to find any way you can to justify what you do. Thanks so much....Or acually, my laid off employees thank you too...
Keep in mind, YOU are the one who publicly screwed your employees, NOT those so-called "pirates" you fear so much:)

Hookflash
07-31-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth

If movie theft starts hurting me, I fire people again to cut my loses. Again, the little people get hurt.


Yes... Poor you, being "forced" to hurt the little people. Wouldn't want to have to give up the Jag, right? :rolleyes:

Meaty
07-31-2003, 09:46 PM
wow. ragecgi and hookflash... you guys need to get a grip on what small business owners are like. your minds have been spoiled by watching lifestyles of the rich and famous and mtv cribs... most small business owners are some of the most thrifty people around, they dont spend lots of money on material goods. In fact most poeple you see out driving BMWs and Mercedes cant even afford their cars. (by afford i mean, being able to pay for it and plan a comfortable retirement)

neither of you know the specifics of what happened to jackdeth's company... lots of things can go wrong... yeesh! I am not saying Jack is right, but good grief, the contempt shown for a small business owner being a Jag driving uncaring fatcat is just retarded.


edit: Ragecgi - this is economics bud, it isnt an exact science. You ask two economists the same question and you will likely get two answers. Just like the social sciences, i doubt you will ever be able to prove a causality, just demonstrate relationships.

Whylee
07-31-2003, 09:54 PM
Agreed Meaty.

To be honest reading those replys with out of left field content on the guys business makes it hard for me to take any of the other opinions which may be more grounded seriously.

Phunt

Hookflash
07-31-2003, 11:31 PM
Meaty: Sorry, I've just been jaded by the managers I've had to work for (bunch of jerks, every last one). However, it's in a completely unrelated industry, so perhaps my comments were uncalled for:blush:

Jackdeth
07-31-2003, 11:32 PM
Ragecgi, that was the most amazing post ever. Are you 12? Maybe 13?

There is no "high sales" in the music video effects industry. The only big budget effects jobs that come in are the ones my brother and I direct. Have you been watching MTV or M2? Hmmm? The last massive effects video made was one that we worked on, the MIB2 video for Will Smith. That was it, and that was over a year ago. That is a real stat,or hard data as you would call it.

The fact of the matter is that when you own a business (30 employees), times are tough and we are not a charity. We take good care of our people, but as the markets shrink, so does our staff.

And to be so blind to think that stealing music doesn't hurt anyone, is the weakest excuse ever. Its so shallow and lame I cant even try to debate you.

Why blame people who bust thier asses off and make lots of money. Maybe it should be a lesson to all of you to try harder. Don't be bitter, be agressive. Start something, make something, do something. This is nothing but a case of lazy people wanting everything for free.

If you have never owned/created anything, than you can never understand why people get mad over copyright theft.

Jackdeth
07-31-2003, 11:48 PM
Also...

The beauty of this country is that you can charge any price for anything. Thats called a FREE market.

If you cost too much, then people don't buy it. But you don't steal it. And making a copy is stealing. Its called revenue loss. And that hurts people and companys.

A Benz cost 140 grand because it can... but not because it's worth that. Its thier choice to charge that, and its my choice to buy it.

If you enjoy Ben Affleck, then pay to see his movies, and let him make millions of dollars a year. Whats the problem? You like using Windows on you PC to listen to you stolen MP3s. then you are helping make Bill Gates the richest man ever. Whats wrong with that?

Think more...steal less...work harder....quit whinning.............

Whylee
07-31-2003, 11:59 PM
*applause*

That is the real issue people. Also keep in mind that mainstream internet usage is still new, broadband is still new, being able to pirate media in the comfort of your home is still new. These abilities being as new as they are all already damaging, how much is arguable. How bad will it be in 5, 10, 15 yrs as it is more and more accessable. How will children brought up from early age on a computer just able to click and listen to a song/video file with no concept that they are stealing and it is wrong. This kind of mentality will raise a generation of thieves who don't even know they are thieves until adulthood.

Phunt

Hookflash
08-01-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
Also...

The beauty of this country is that you can charge any price for anything. Thats called a FREE market.

If you cost too much, then people don't buy it. But you don't steal it. And making a copy is stealing. Its called revenue loss. And that hurts people and companys.

A Benz cost 140 grand because it can... but not because it's worth that. Its thier choice to charge that, and its my choice to buy it.

If you enjoy Ben Affleck, then pay to see his movies, and let him make millions of dollars a year. Whats the problem? You like using Windows on you PC to listen to you stolen MP3s. then you are helping make Bill Gates the richest man ever. Whats wrong with that?

Think more...steal less...work harder....quit whinning.............

So, what are you saying? If I don't think actors deserve to make millions of dollars per movie, I should stop watching movies altogether? Or, if I think music cds cost too much, I should stop listening to music? What if cds cost $100 each? Would it be unreasonable for me to "whine" and complain about the price? The free market has it's share of problems, as I'm sure you are aware.

Jackdeth
08-01-2003, 12:10 AM
That IS what I'm saying!!

You want a Benz...then work your ass off to get one. But if nobody buys them, then the price WILL go down until people start buying again.

As an owner of a company, we have the right to price ourselves out of the market if we want to. If you dont like that, then dont stuff from them. That is how America works.

If you like, and can afford it, then buy it.

I want a Gulfstream 5, but at 40 million, it might take me dozens of years, and it still might not happen. THATS LIFE. And is sucks sometimes, but I'm going to try my hardest to get there. So should you...

Hookflash
08-01-2003, 12:58 AM
Jackdeth: Your car analogy doesn't really work, since high-end car manufacturers don't target the average consumer. If I can't afford a Benz, I can just buy a cheaper car (iow, I'm not obligated to stop driving cars altogether). Also, this whole "Americans have the right to be greedy" capitalist/opportunist crap that's constantly being spewed on these forums is getting old. I wish we could all just make enough money to be comfortable (and we could, if it were distributed more evenly), but that's a whole other can of worms. In the meantime, I'll shed a tear or two for the poor, poor music & movie industries... *sob*. Those unfortunate idols... If these trends continue, how will they be able to afford their drugs, prostitutes, cars, etc.? Ok, now I'm really off on a tangent...;)

Jackdeth
08-01-2003, 01:19 AM
Boo Hoo. Life is so bad for you. If you don't like, move away.

Just like kiddie porn, downloading songs is against the law.

But unlike you, I won't shed a tear when people start going to jail, or are sued for copyright theft. That day can't come soon enough....

Hookflash
08-01-2003, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
Boo Hoo. Life is so bad for you. If you don't like, move away.

Just like kiddie porn, downloading songs is against the law.

But unlike you, I won't shed a tear when people start going to jail, or are sued for copyright theft. That day can't come soon enough....

Life is bad for everyone (except a select few) under this type of economy. Maybe those few who exploit the system are the ones who should move away.

The fact that you can compare kiddie porn to copyright infringement is rather disturbing. I don't think I even need to elaborate.

As for people going to jail or getting sued, do you really think that's a just punishment for someone who downloads say $100 worth of music? I mean, Jesus... think about it.:thumbsdow

igorstshirts
08-01-2003, 01:53 AM
Underground hip-hop artists have known all this for years. Make an album, give it out for free, and make money on the stage... Hard work. Also, cutting VINYL is still a good alternative... Hard to scratch mp3s on an SL1200M3D.

Jackdeth
08-01-2003, 02:01 AM
Kiddie porn and MP3 theft are the same. The only difference, which you so perfectly pointed out, is that people think one is okay, and the other really wrong. The fact is that they both against the law.

People think that just because they are at home, they can't commit crimes. They will find out the hard way. Steal 100 dollars of CDs from a store and see what the cops do. But the fact is most kids steal thousands of dollars of music, not hundreds.

Jail time and fines is the only way to scare people straight. I dont steal because I like my life, and dont want ot go to jail. It keeps me in line. That is why they have laws.

You don't own the music. It isn't yours. The holder or the copyright sets the terms, NOT YOU! If you don't like thier rules, dont play the game. Make your own music and then give it out for free. Its your choice as the creator, not the buyer.

Hookflash
08-01-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
Steal 100 dollars of CDs from a store and see what the cops do.

I'm getting tired of having to use this argument in every single piracy debate that I am unfortunate enough to get involved in, especially when everyone ignores it in favor of flimsy, holier-than-thout logic:

The albums a person steals from a store can no longer be purchased by others, therefore there is a very obvious loss of revenue. However, if someone who never would/could have purchased the album in the first place decides to download it, there is no loss of revenue. It's very simple logic, and no amount of whining can refute it.

As for kiddie porn and mp3 theft being the same: No, you are wrong. Is j-walking the same as first degree murder just because they're both against the law? Of coarse not, and it wouldn't be appropriate to deliver the same punishment for both. Right?

Jhonus
08-01-2003, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
They will find out the hard way. Steal 100 dollars of CDs from a store and see what the cops do. But the fact is most kids steal thousands of dollars of music, not hundreds.


As Hookflash pointed out, that is a pretty bad comparison. It is a completely different set of equations involved. Trying to pass them off as the same is... well.... as you said, "think more...". Honestly.

Well, on second thoughts... i guess you could consider them the same in an ethical sense, but there is little point in debating that (fruitless as erilaz said). But economically and physically they are completely different.

Chewey
08-01-2003, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Krugar
As Hookflash pointed out, that is a pretty bad comparison. It is a completely different set of equations involved. Trying to pass them off as the same is... well.... as you said, "think more...". Honestly.

Well, on second thoughts... i guess you could consider them the same in an ethical sense, but there is little point in debating that (fruitless as erilaz said). But economically and physically they are completely different.

In one aspect they both effectively cut out the midddle man/retailer from his cut.

izzylong
08-01-2003, 05:29 AM
Good points as usual Hookflash and Krugar:)

posted by Chris "Meaty" Moschella:
... you guys need to get a grip on what small business owners are like.
I AM one, and have worked for dozens.
My current empoyer has made "only" 2 million this year so far, drives a Benz, owns a 3/4 mill mansion.
BUT, he hasn't had to lay off ANY of his employees in over 14 years.
So please, no offence, but don't gimme this "feel bad for the rich guy" sob story.

neither of you know the specifics of what happened to jackdeth's company...
He said specificly that his own company made "over 2-3 million a year.. (3-4 years ago)"
So yes, I would say that is pretty specific.
And when he keeps making threats to ruin the livelyhood of "the little guy" as he repetedly puts it, simply because he cannot take care of his company in a down market, I find that VERY offensive and VERY MUCH like the musings of the "Jag driving uncaring fatcat".
I mean really, my current "millionare fat cat" boss saw his post,
and he said it almost sounds as if he enjoys firing people. (His words, not mine)
But, tho it pains me to say it, he's got every right to do so as this is America, and we are not in a "Right to work" country.

Ragecgi - this is economics bud, it isnt an exact science.
My gf has a BA in Econ, and teaches at the UofM here, and yes she says, it IS an exact science.
"Economics is exact, markets however are not. Be carefull NOT to confuse them." She tells me this all the time.
Sadly, the US has a market-driven economy, and that is just ONE of the many reasons we are in the situation we are in.

Just like the social sciences, i doubt you will ever be able to prove a causality, just demonstrate relationships.

The RIAA have, the US gov has, and so can he, and you, and I:)



..........and now for my replies to you Jackdeth:

Ragecgi, that was the most amazing post ever. Are you 12? Maybe 13?
Um, I'm 39, thanks for asking.
Lets see, you've needlessly called us "kids", "lazy", "whiners", "shallow and "lame".
Who's the child here man?
Can't back up your claims with hard facts, so you resort to namecalling.
VERY adult, and educated.

There is no "high sales" in the music video effects industry.

Um, you just contradicted yourself then.
You said you made millions in "music video effects".
Are you now claiming that you lied?
Or are you saying that those millions just weren't enough?
I've been in this biz for a long time too, and I think we can all agree that even half a mill is a HUGE amount of cash.
If you don't, then you, again, have some MAJOR issues with your money management skills.

The only big budget effects jobs that come in are the ones my brother and I direct.
The last massive effects video made was one that we worked on, the MIB2 video for Will Smith.
That was it, and that was over a year ago. That is a real stat,or hard data as you would call it.
That's not a "stat" that I/we asked you repetedly to produce.
That was "namedropping" as we call it in the industry.
Your making it seem that your company is called, (Quoting Anthony Hopkins) "Operation Grasping at Straws".
Is your company really being hurt this bad by the "pirates"?
Because that is what you claimed in your first post.

But, since you think it is the way to do things, I'll just have to ask YOU to also please:
"...stop whining".


The fact of the matter is that when you own a business (30 employees), times are tough and we are not a charity. We take good care of our people, but as the markets shrink, so does our staff.
That is a shame you have a problem with making money in a down market, as well as employee retention.
However, I must sadly agree, that not everyone knows how to effectivly retain, and grow thier profits.

And to be so blind to think that stealing music doesn't hurt anyone, is the weakest excuse ever.
Its so shallow and lame I cant even try to debate you.
That's good because I never, EVER, claimed it does.

Why blame people who bust thier asses off and make lots of money. Maybe it should be a lesson to all of you to try harder. Don't be bitter, be agressive. Start something, make something, do something.
This is nothing but a case of lazy people wanting everything for free.
There you go again! hehe... man... my boss is right.
If you keep claiming that you are consistently making "lots of money", why is it then that you have to lay off the people that helped MAKE you that money??
It is an economical FACT that if you have to lay off employees to claim higher returns, then you aren't making "lots of money" at all.

The beauty of this country is that you can charge any price for anything. Thats called a FREE market.
If you cost too much, then people don't buy it. But you don't steal it. And making a copy is stealing.
Its called revenue loss. And that hurts people and companys.
I can only agree partly to that.

Econ lesson number 2:
Revenue loss is DIRECTLY equated to a DOWNTURN in demand.

The music and movie industries are afraid NOT because of a
DOWNTURN in demand, but because that demand has SHIFTED to
an almost, uncontrollable, free, and infinite SUPPLY.

And in THIS case, the demand is still there in full force.
(otherwise folks would not be downloading)

The industries have just not figured out yet how to SHIFT that demand back into the folds of thier business model.

That soon may change.


A Benz cost 140 grand because it can... but not because it's worth that.
Its thier choice to charge that, and its my choice to buy it.
Yup.

You like using Windows on you PC to listen to you stolen MP3s. then you are helping make Bill Gates the richest man ever. Whats wrong with that?
LMFAO!!!
Well, I'll be HAPPY to tell you what is wrong with that statement. hehe...
By your words, you are saying that the ONLY motivation for buying a computer is to download illegal content???
C'mon man! Do you really believe that? If so, then that is very sad.
Then by that you are claiming that this whole "pirating" thing is just another ploy designed by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, and any other computer "fatter cat" that you can implicate.


Just like kiddie porn, downloading songs is against the law.
WOW!
Where in the heck did that statement come from?


Anyway, I'm done with this thread. hehe...

Again, good points as usual Hookflash and Krugar.

Eeyow
08-01-2003, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by ragecgi
Good points as usual Hookflash and Krugar:)


I AM one, and have worked for dozens.
My current empoyer has made "only" 2 million this year so far, drives a Benz, owns a 3/4 mill mansion.
BUT, he hasn't had to lay off ANY of his employees in over 14 years.
So please, no offence, but don't gimme this "feel bad for the rich guy" sob story.


He said specificly that his own company made "over 2-3 million a year.. (3-4 years ago)"
So yes, I would say that is pretty specific.
And when he keeps making threats to ruin the livelyhood of "the little guy" as he repetedly puts it, simply because he cannot take care of his company in a down market, I find that VERY offensive and VERY MUCH like the musings of the "Jag driving uncaring fatcat".
I mean really, my current "millionare fat cat" boss saw his post,
and he said it almost sounds as if he enjoys firing people. (His words, not mine)
But, tho it pains me to say it, he's got every right to do so as this is America, and we are not in a "Right to work" country.


My gf has a BA in Econ, and teaches at the UofM here, and yes she says, it IS an exact science.
"Economics is exact, markets however are not. Be carefull NOT to confuse them." She tells me this all the time.
Sadly, the US has a market-driven economy, and that is just ONE of the many reasons we are in the situation we are in.



The RIAA have, the US gov has, and so can he, and you, and I:)



..........and now for my replies to you Jackdeth:


Um, I'm 39, thanks for asking.
Lets see, you've needlessly called us "kids", "lazy", "whiners", "shallow and "lame".
Who's the child here man?
Can't back up your claims with hard facts, so you resort to namecalling.
VERY adult, and educated.



Um, you just contradicted yourself then.
You said you made millions in "music video effects".
Are you now claiming that you lied?
Or are you saying that those millions just weren't enough?
I've been in this biz for a long time too, and I think we can all agree that even half a mill is a HUGE amount of cash.
If you don't, then you, again, have some MAJOR issues with your money management skills.


That's not a "stat" that I/we asked you repetedly to produce.
That was "namedropping" as we call it in the industry.
Your making it seem that your company is called, (Quoting Anthony Hopkins) "Operation Grasping at Straws".
Is your company really being hurt this bad by the "pirates"?
Because that is what you claimed in your first post.

But, since you think it is the way to do things, I'll just have to ask YOU to also please:
"...stop whining".



That is a shame you have a problem with making money in a down market, as well as employee retention.
However, I must sadly agree, that not everyone knows how to effectivly retain, and grow thier profits.


That's good because I never, EVER, claimed it does.


There you go again! hehe... man... my boss is right.
If you keep claiming that you are consistently making "lots of money", why is it then that you have to lay off the people that helped MAKE you that money??
It is an economical FACT that if you have to lay off employees to claim higher returns, then you aren't making "lots of money" at all.


I can only agree partly to that.

Econ lesson number 2:
Revenue loss is DIRECTLY equated to a DOWNTURN in demand.

The music and movie industries are afraid NOT because of a
DOWNTURN in demand, but because that demand has SHIFTED to
an almost, uncontrollable, free, and infinite SUPPLY.

And in THIS case, the demand is still there in full force.
(otherwise folks would not be downloading)

The industries have just not figured out yet how to SHIFT that demand back into the folds of thier business model.

That soon may change.



Yup.


LMFAO!!!
Well, I'll be HAPPY to tell you what is wrong with that statement. hehe...
By your words, you are saying that the ONLY motivation for buying a computer is to download illegal content???
C'mon man! Do you really believe that? If so, then that is very sad.
Then by that you are claiming that this whole "pirating" thing is just another ploy designed by Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, and any other computer "fatter cat" that you can implicate.



WOW!
Where in the heck did that statement come from?


Anyway, I'm done with this thread. hehe...

Again, good points as usual Hookflash and Krugar.

That is one fugly avatar. Is that your teacher gf?

Jackdeth
08-01-2003, 06:07 AM
Ragecgi, you do the most in-depth, complety inaccurate breakdowns i have ever seen. Not only did you miss all of my points, but your logic is so far twisted that I'm unable to continue this in any adult manner.

izzylong
08-01-2003, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Eeyow
That is one fugly avatar. Is that your teacher gf?

LOL!

Nope, it was a pic of your mom that I took last night:)

Grow up m8.

Jhonus
08-01-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Chewey
In one aspect they both effectively cut out the midddle man/retailer from his cut.

True, but in addition to cutting him out, phsyical theft also means he has to replace the stock, meaning he has incurred a tangible loss. Downloading a track doesn't necessarily mean a retailer has lost a sale. Since there is no money for enjoyment exchange taking place, you may download a track which provides you with a small amount of pleasure that under normal circumstances you would not be prepared to pay retail cost for.

You can argue that you have no right to download something for free, but fact is that it happens and people download alot of music they would never actually buy.

3danim8d
08-01-2003, 06:28 AM
People, People, Please... Let's act like professionals here.

This thread has moved way beyond the scope of the initial topic.

Can we please get it on track and back to the point?

izzylong
08-01-2003, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
Ragecgi, you do the most in-depth, complety inaccurate breakdowns i have ever seen. Not only did you miss all of my points, but your logic is so far twisted that I'm unable to continue this in any adult manner.

Wait a minute.... you were being adult???
Hm, ok.
So you admit you have trouble discerning between useless namecalling and point-by-point rebuttal.
Now the healing can begin.

But with your post above, you are just being plain rude and in fact, flame bait.

You SERIOUSLY cannot be as dense as you are making yourself out to be.

All quotes are taken directly from your posts, and ALL points are valid "logical" responses to your quotes.

But I guess I still have to keep in mind that it was you that associated Kiddieporn with the morality of mp3 distribution.

That one just made me laugh:)

Jackdeth
08-01-2003, 09:03 AM
Ragecgi... Again, you miss the points entirely. Based off of looking at your web site, we are at two totally different ends of the biz. Perhaps its your limited range of expierence that might help explain your opinons. I'm not being a dick., but if you have't been in the "shoes," its hard to understand my side. This is like someone in high shcool football talking that they know the inside outs of the NFL.

I called you a child because your logic is that of an infant. "If I can't see it with my own eyes, then it must not exist." is not a slogan to base your life around. If you dont want to belive anything, well, thats your choice and I will have to firmly disagree.

I never compared the morality of kidde porn and MP3 theft. I only said that they were both illegal, and can be punished with jail time or fines. Again, you miss the point.

And my point about the budget of music videos holds true. We used to do millions of dollars of work, and now that MP3 theft is crushing the biz, we do almost no music video work at all. I didn't see any music video work in your resume or web site, so that must explain you ignorance on this topic.

How many employees have you ever hired/fired? How many millions in hardware/software have you bought with your own money? (No investers at all) Have you ever seen a seven figure check before? ...I doubt you have. Running an effects company is a really tough thing that most people cant understand. Maybe it just looks simple from the outside.

To say I "enjoy" firing people is beyond an insult. This shows how warped your mind must be. If the market dries up, people get laid off. Thats life. There is no sick pleasure from it. But you are right, my Italian sports and Benz gets paid for every month no matter what. Does that make me a dick? Or is it my payback for 10 years of slaving away and taking risks that no one else would? I work hard and deserve everythin I ever got...and so does the artists that are fighting to protect thier copyrights. Its their hard work, and they deserve money if you enjoy it, and listen to it. Radio isn't free, they get paid for every spin. Don't rip them off, or punish them for being more suscessful than you.

Only 1 percent of the people in the world can get off thier asses and take a giant step into the unkown. There is a reason why some people own compaines and other people just work at them. That doesn't make either group better or worse than the other, but it means that sometimes there is a total misunderstanding of each others point of views.


On another point, Krugar, you are totally wrong. Just because it is already happening doesn't make it okay to keep happening. And why should you get the benifit of the music without paying for it. Just because you have never created anything in your life, it doesn't give you the right to take away someone elses ability to control thier art, thier copyright. And, the percent of people that acutally BUY the songs that they steal is ultra low. No BS lies can cover up that fact.

Just have the balls to admit its wrong. Atleast then you might gain a little bit of respect.

halo
08-01-2003, 10:21 AM
just as a point of balance, my friend is a director of commercials, usually for international agencies...talking about things the other day he also said that budgets have dropped over the past few years.

What seems strange though from mine and his own experience is that despite the advertising budgets seemingly to be a little flat, the games industry which does have a serious piracy problem actually seems quite fruitful.

Perhaps mp3's aren't the sole problem of your budget drops? I think thats the common scapegoat at the moment, and although it may have an effect its certainly not the only contributing factor in the western world.(it seems to me the US isnt interested in proper piracy in th far east, it prefers soft targets at home). Remember we are in a global economic downturn as well, the stock market is shot away and we've just had a little war, it all doesn't add up to large corporate companies doing well.

Chewey
08-01-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Krugar
True, but in addition to cutting him out, phsyical theft also means he has to replace the stock, meaning he has incurred a tangible loss. Downloading a track doesn't necessarily mean a retailer has lost a sale. Since there is no money for enjoyment exchange taking place, you may download a track which provides you with a small amount of pleasure that under normal circumstances you would not be prepared to pay retail cost for.

You can argue that you have no right to download something for free, but fact is that it happens and people download alot of music they would never actually buy.

Businesses purchase insurance to cover theft/conversion. I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of folks that would have likely purchased a cd here and there if they didn't have the mp3 download option available.

Sorry, but I find these uber rationalizations laid out in these tail chasing, warez/mp3/video downloading threads just plain redundant and typically laid out by folks that aren't gainfully employed in any affected industry.

Mouser
08-01-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by halo
just as a point of balance, my friend is a director of commercials, usually for international agencies...talking about things the other day he also said that budgets have dropped over the past few years.

What seems strange though from mine and his own experience is that despite the advertising budgets seemingly to be a little flat, the games industry which does have a serious piracy problem actually seems quite fruitful.

Perhaps mp3's aren't the sole problem of your budget drops? I think thats the common scapegoat at the moment, and although it may have an effect its certainly not the only contributing factor in the western world.(it seems to me the US isnt interested in proper piracy in th far east, it prefers soft targets at home). Remember we are in a global economic downturn as well, the stock market is shot away and we've just had a little war, it all doesn't add up to large corporate companies doing well.

I'm not going to jump into an obviously heated debate about the morality of theft... but I have to agree with Halo's point.. I work on local advertising unrelated to the music industry, and we've seen a downturn in budgets over the past few years.. I doubt it has anything to do with intellectual piracy.

halo
08-01-2003, 05:58 PM
Sorry, but I find these uber rationalizations laid out in these tail chasing, warez/mp3/video downloading threads just plain redundant and typically laid out by folks that aren't gainfully employed in any affected industry.

well your wrong there...read my post...i am working in an industry affected by piracy, and despite that promo budgets haven't dwindled, they have infact increased...some companies are tighter, others are positively throwing cash around...

Piracy is an easy target, i havent seen many reports from the music and film businesses stating that they could be also to blame....

Chewey
08-01-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by halo
well your wrong there...read my post...i am working in an industry affected by piracy, and despite that promo budgets haven't dwindled, they have infact increased...some companies are tighter, others are positively throwing cash around...

Piracy is an easy target, i havent seen many reports from the music and film businesses stating that they could be also to blame....

So you' re the exception. Nonetheless I still doubt that very many cg professionals condone ip theft and even fewer of those spend their time posting their arguments defending it on forums such as this.

halo
08-02-2003, 12:32 AM
in a professional capacity i dont think anyone will, but thats not the whole truth is it? I've worked with enough studios and professionals to know that the attitude to piracy varies enormously both in individual and corporate terms.

I dont think you can justify it, but I think that the business models need to adapt to the immediacy of the net, and once they can do that the only difference will be wether you pay for it or not.
As long as the powers that be aren't rediculous with pricing (which apples service doesnt seem to be out of wack to far), then it will be a clear cut choice. Hopefully then the businesses will develop a better attitude to where they are making losses like in the far east, not in cinemas full of paying customers.

Amongst people i know that have movies, getting them for free isnt the main driving force, i'd say 99% of them watch the film in the cinema, rent it, buy the dvd...the download just fills the gaps between the international release dates...of course there are some people that never pay for a thing, but then you get people avoiding paying tax, you dont seem to see adverts in banks though saying how it hurts the person on the dole...

in short its the strategy i think that needs a lookover and there needs to be some lessons learnt on both extremes

Goon
08-02-2003, 12:48 AM
WTF is the problem here?
If you dont buy their product, but use their product as if you had bought it, you have stolen it. They are denied the profits of that sale. The middleman is denied the profits of his service. And the company has less income with which to pay its employees.

Does the employee suffer? Yes. For the film industry a major bought of piracy will mean less dvd sales, which means less profits, and which means that some films wont even break even.

Does that make it more difficult for a studio to support itself? To take risks and make huge movies like LOTR? Yes!

They need financial backing, be it from their previous sales or from investors. You cannot make a movie on nothing (ok blair witch is an exception, xcept that movie blew). With this backing they can afford the massive production costs. If they dont have it they cant pay their employees, the material costs, or get it published.

This means fewer jobs because of fewer movies, and more work for fewer employees because of smaller budgets.

That means you the CG artist are given a smaller budget to work on. The grip is given jacksquat. Only the stars and bigshots can still be paid such great amounts because they are seen as critical to the success and hence profitability of the film.

So if you want a job in this industry, dont steal from it.

Applying that to the music industry is more difficult as production costs are fairly low. While there are a large number of people involved in the production of each album, there can be no comparison between it and a film crew. At prices around a dvd's with less costly materials, etc. they really are ripping you off. The prices should go down. But demand brings no need for it. They have the demand. All you need to do is look at what is being pirated. A lot of it is the same crap they play on the radio. That could have been their profits.


Dmn gotta go finish post tommorrow

Jhonus
08-02-2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Chewey
Businesses purchase insurance to cover theft/conversion. I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of folks that would have likely purchased a cd here and there if they didn't have the mp3 download option available.

Sorry, but I find these uber rationalizations laid out in these tail chasing, warez/mp3/video downloading threads just plain redundant and typically laid out by folks that aren't gainfully employed in any affected industry.

Hmmm, I actually work in the games industry.

And Jackdeath, i'm not talking about right or wrong... i think i've mentioned that once or twice or thrice. I'm talking about how much it actually affects an industry.

But anyway, enough of this thread for me.

richcz3
08-02-2003, 08:07 PM
Here's a little trip down Entertainment paranoia lane.

Paranoid One:
The Audio Cassette was introduced to replace the 8-Track many in the recording industry feared rampant theft of recording of vinyl (albums). People would buy one album and make 10-100"s of copies for free or sale to friends/family. Never happened.

Well guess what. You couldn't play a record in a car or in portable stereos at the beach. Cars stereo systems would adopt cassette players. Well in time the recording industry woke up and learned to capitalize on the cassete as another means to make sales.

Parnoid Two:
The Video Casette. The video cassette ushered in a new fear for the movie executives. People would buy one and make 10-100's of illegal copies for friends and family. Never Happened.

In fact after much attempts at HW copyright protection the studios finally rellented. (The 1st Back to the Future Video release was HW copy protected and it played terribly in VCR's)

By the 1997 the movie and entertainment industry was reaping unhearalded profits from Video tape sales domestic and internationaly. Video sales in many cases exceeded movie ticket sales. This prompted the direct to video in which studios saved millions in theatrical release costs.

Paranoid Three:
Audio CDs and DV Tape: Repeat Paranoid one and two: Some paranoia still exists.

The recording industry reaped millions of dollars selling $1 CD's at $14.99 starting in 1984. Promising to reduce the cost in two years, they never did until retailers brokered $$$ deals in 1999.
The millions of baby boomers replaced all the Vinyl albums for CD's were almoat a license to print money.

Now that Baby boomers are buying much less CD's, the bulk of sales are made by a much reduced 19-35 year old market.
There are an Avg 2 children born to families since 1984 not the 4-5 per household 1955-70. So now, CD purchases are greatly reduced by far less youth. The recording industry knew this and never prepared for it. Apply all scapegoats and pray for the best.

Paranoid Four:
The Internet. Lesson is simple. Adjust your business practices and reap the rewards. Apple is on the right track with i-Tunes...congrats.

The economics of the current times and the history of the entertainment business industry shows that entertainment will once again reap the Millions or Billions once they embrace the technologies as opposed to fighting them.


richcz3

gmask
08-02-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by richcz3
Paranoid Four:
The Internet. Lesson is simple. Adjust your business practices and reap the rewards. Apple is on the right track with i-Tunes...congrats.

The economics of the current times and the history of the entertainment business industry shows that entertainment will once again reap the Millions or Billions once they embrace the technologies as opposed to fighting them.


Obviously the record industry must be embracing the technology on some level because Apple has to license the music it offers from the record labels. If the record industry refused to license music to such services they would be insane. I think they have been more than approachable for this kind of transaction. I don't get the "business model" of giving it away and hope people buy stuff approach since it mainly appeeals to those who don't really wish to buy anything ever. It would have made alot of sense for them to do this directly themselves but then people would probably claim that record lables were charging too much for something that costs them nothing to manufacture.... that is unless you include the overhead of maintaining a band, their image and recording costs.

It's all the various file sharing software makers and users who aren't licensing content that they have a contention with an dno so much the technology itself otherwise tyhey should sue the US governement for funding the internet in the first place.

Although given that Apple's service provides reliable and quality content if it becomes more widespread than the illegal downloads then perhaps the record industry will cease to pursue lawsuits against file sharing software companies and those individuals who make copyrighted material downloadable.

Oh and I heard today that Napster is coming back and this time they are providing licensed music downloads for a fee... yippee!

halo
08-02-2003, 09:45 PM
If the record industry refused to license music to such services they would be insane

Unfortunately "?" Radiohead and Metallica have both disallowed Apple to distribute their music as Apples setup allows the download of single tracks from an album. One can only guess that they think people will only download what they actually like and leave the rest. With a common mainstream approach to have 3-4 good well polished tracks and leave the rest as filler, it could be construed that the best bits of an album could be had for far less money than the whole thing. However I see Radiohead more as an album group than a single group so I'm not so sure why they have the hump, i can see it for other artists though. Howvere it seems daft not to embrace a service which could provide them with revenue when they can do little about a service that doesn't.

I heard the Napster thing was that you gained credit for hosting licensed content and letting people download it (all using DRM i guess) and once you built up enough credits you could download things as well. I guess its away of having a huge available bandwidth available for multiple indentical sources for less than it cost in the normal manner....i figure there's gonna be some advertising in there as well.

SheepFactory
08-02-2003, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by halo
Unfortunately "?" Radiohead and Metallica have both disallowed Apple to distribute their music as Apples setup allows the download of single tracks from an album.

Both Metallica and Radiohead has streaming full versions of their new albums weeks before they came out. I remember listening to Hail to the thief over and over at mtv.com.

This might be a case where they dont allow you to download which makes sense. Streaming should be enough for anyone to make a decision on whether the album is worth purchasing or not.

gmask
08-02-2003, 10:48 PM
>>>Unfortunately "?" Radiohead and Metallica have both disallowed Apple to distribute their music as Apples setup allows the download of single tracks from an album.

Well that is certainly interesting.. but not representative of the entire record industry. What's funny is that in another thread here it was stated that some think the success of Radiohead's current album is due to fielsahring.. however considering how long the band has been around and that it is a good album I'm more likely to acredit the success to the talent of the group.

If Radiohead is more of a album band then they must have a problem with radio stations only playing a few tracks off their album but I think they have less control over what radio stations do since there are mechanical royalties involved. Maybe for bands like RadioHead and Metallica their material should be limited to a pay for album option rather than individual tracks. It would cost less than buying the CD and you could still listen to the few songs you like as much as you want.

Personally wether it is true of not that most bands today put out half hearted efforts on most of the songs an album.. it is rare than you can only pay for the parts of things you like. For example just try to get your ticket reduced at a theme park because you only want to ride one of the rides. Or try to get part of your money back because you only liked the parts of the movie you just watched that had effects in them. Or try to license only parts of a software program because you only want the modeller. It just doesn't work that way.

I guess these bands could also be pissers by not putting individual song markers on their CD's.. that would make it just that more difficult for people to extract only the songs they want to listen to.. I dunno but I have bought CD's that were re-releases of formerly vinyl only albums that had no song markers. it was sort of annoying but in most cases I like the whole album anyway so it was not a big deal to me that I couldn't skip tracks.. just album sides.




>>>I heard the Napster thing was that you gained credit for hosting licensed content and letting people download it (all using DRM i guess) and once you built up enough credits you could download things as well. I guess its away of having a huge available bandwidth available for multiple indentical sources for less than it cost in the normal manner....i figure there's gonna be some advertising in there as well.

http://us.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/02/25/music.napster.reut/

"Roxio plans to offer services that charge a fee for each individual song as well as subscription services that allow users to download songs for a monthly fee. "

"Meanwhile, commercial online music ventures like Pressplay and MusicNet, both of which are backed by the major labels, have had a difficult time finding their footing. "

It doesn't sound like they are going to attempt the distro model you describe.. for one they are apparently still some legal issues from the original Napster that have to be settled.

Even though Apple seems successful with their online distro I think because they have a captive audience as they do with all their hardware that they have an edge. If they average MP3 player came with a subscription to other services that you ahvd to renew after the first year or quarter that might give som eof the other vendors a leg up.

>Both Metallica and Radiohead has streaming full versions of their new albums weeks before they came out. I remember listening to Hail to the thief over and over at mtv.com.

One note about MTV I'll mention is that if you want MTV to show your video you basically have to give them permission to use the music anyway they want in regards to the station. That's why you'll hear songs in their shows and promos etc and maybe now their website as well.

BTW.. I went to the MTV website and tried to play the streaming version fo the whole album and it timed out after a few seconds and then for all the other songs there is only the first 37 seconds available for listening to. So maybe for a short time they had the streaming version to promote the album????

real
08-04-2003, 11:50 PM
Union Scale in union scale anyway you cut it. I have never seen a gaffer or a key grip get bouses if the movie does well, and then sell a ton of DVD's. That would be great but that will never happen.


It's a advertising campain, there tring to sell something and that something is Tickets and dvd's and maybe some toys as well.



All this does't make it right but they could be more honest.

real

Meaty
08-05-2003, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by real
Union Scale in union scale anyway you cut it. I have never seen a gaffer or a key grip get bouses if the movie does well, and then sell a ton of DVD's. That would be great but that will never happen.


It's a advertising campain, there tring to sell something and that something is Tickets and dvd's and maybe some toys as well.



All this does't make it right but they could be more honest.

real


Two counter points:

Union scale is union scale only when you're working... right? If anticipated revenues are reduced, it isnt going to lower their rates, but it may mean a lowering in the number of staff that are hired.

Also, when it comes to unions bargening for higher rates, lower revenues give their requests less gound to stand on.

real
08-05-2003, 02:27 AM
Maybe but not really,

It's still going to be (for the electric side at least) Gaffer, Best boy and 2-3 electric, Plus extra man days. If you are working on the big show, you might have more. Not including the rigging crews and the wrap crews. Most of the time the gaffer will say
" Hey I need a best and 3 electrics" or whatever he or she is used to".

As for getting higher rates in the future. Illeagal trading or not studios never want to pay more for anything, This changes nothing. There will always be something.

I can not believe that dreamworks would tell steven that you know there has been alot of trading on the internet of your last movie so you only get 100 million this time, oh yeah and by the way your grip and lighting crew need to to be gaffer/key grip, and bestboy only. Not going to happen. Only your extra man days might be cut, but then again if you have 3 or 4 condors and tons of big lights to move and huge cable runs, the UPM will not argue with that, unless he wants to be waiting for grip and electric. UPM's are not dumb(at least most of them).
Plus your Bestboy will not stand for a cut down crew, If he/she's any good. I've seen huge arguements breakout between Bests and the UPM's and it wasn't about internet trading, it mostly about why do you need 8 guys for a huge Night exterior(HMMM! let me guess)


I don't know but I just have a hard time believing that illegal trading of movies is going to take work from me. It's canda and other farway places taking all the work.( This is starting in the visual effects world as well,; outsourcing) I think 728 and 80 and all the rest of the unions should make a PSA's, "DON"T Take your movie to canada"


Worse case I stop working as a electric and Compositor and just composite I'd be ok with that:)

my 2 cents
real

igorstshirts
08-05-2003, 03:53 AM
But ... Let's look at the bright side of VFX. Commercials will need Animation and VFX forever and hey... Go ahead and bootleg a spot... That much better for the advertisee!!!!! With T.V. slowly migrating over to the web, companies might not need to spend so much on airing spots and that might mean more dollas for us!!!!

Meaty
08-05-2003, 05:14 PM
Real,

When there is less money, there is less money to go around, end of story.

I know Dreamworks is not going to say no to Spielberg... but there are production houses that actually care about the costs of things directors ask for. Spielberg is abnormal in the industry. It isnt exactly fair arguing to cite him as evidence of any type of standard, especially for directors getting what they want.

I am not saying that people stealing movies over the internet is single handedly going to be the end of the key grip's career. But that in addition to a sluggish economy, in addition to the poor quality of the average movie, in addition to x, y, and z could very well be the difference. I am not sure what everyone's obsession is with this all or nothing arguing. "It either breaks the industry or doesn't effect it at all." It could, however, be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back.' And when that straw is something illegal, essentially stealing, then we have a serious problem. Business lives and dies on the margin.

I do agree that altering the business model to take advantage of the technology instead of using political pull to fight it with enforcement of new laws is probably the best way to go about fixing it, however, there has to be some measures in place to dissuade people from stealing and providing copyrighted material. It is a multilateral approach, and there is really nothing wrong with that.

JooS-10
08-05-2003, 11:49 PM
My opinion: Its almost like going to a drive in theater. You have all the paying customers sitting in their cars watching the movie. Yet say their are a few less fortunate individuals (kids in this case)who do not have the money to get into the movie simply becuase they have not reached a working plateau to bring in revenue. So say these kids camp out on the exterior of the drive in facility -on top of a hill, and well, watch the movie. These individuals have the opportunity to view a film that they other wise would never of been able to view. So they are not stealing revenue from the industry.
Yet, I do beleive it is wrong for people to just stop buying cds/dvds becuase they can get it off-line, becuase this does cause harm. But if there are people, like my self, who would normally never have the opportunity to view or listen to a production, yet can becuase of file sharing, I dont see what is wrong with that. I am currently 17 years old and am planning a career in either the visual effects or the gaming industry, so I use the material I DL as a educational tool. It gives me great inspiration and sets my aspirations. I have great respect for the production individuals on the films I view via filesharing, and I WISH I had $ to give them in return for their work, and I gaurantee that when im an adult, and do have $, I will give back, by paying for my viewing expirience. Yet right now I do not. But my gratitude has not faded as a result. And i still keep by DL's to a minimum.

We also must understand that this filesharing stuff is only temporary, it is very new, and will inevidably be shut down within the next few years as tech advances. So this current "crisis" COULD have the potential to have an overall positive effect on the industries, simply becuase people are getting addicted to this DLing stuff. They download everything they can. Yet what happens in a few months or years, when they can no longer quench their thrist for free fresh/new media? Well, they will have no other choice but to buy it. But then again, underground hacker/cracker initiated filesharing could be around for a long time, seeing as though they are always able to get past protective measures. This would be very unfortunate.

Anyway, I think that if you have the money, do the moral thing and compensate for your expirience. And if you currently buy cds/dvds, continue and do not stop due to the new opportunity of filesharing, because this WILL hurt the industries, and will leave us without quality entertainment.

Meaty
08-06-2003, 07:36 PM
JooS - There is a huge difference between illegally using pirated digital content creation software and watching illegally copied movies. There is no 'moral' difference, but there is a huge practical difference. I once had someone from discreet tell me in person that they recognize warez as a double edged sword. Double edged in that it has a great potential to help and hurt at the same time.

The argument for that is simply that software is too expensive for the hobbiest to use effectively and to get good enough to start work with it. There is some legitimacy to that. However there is no translation from that to movies. Movies cost at most $10 to see, and DVDs are usually $15 and up to $30ish. If you own a computer and have a high speed connection to steal the stuff, you sure as hell can afford to go out to blockbuster and rent it for $4. Aside from that, this is entertainment, it is highly elastic in its demand. If you are a traditional artist and want to change your life and get into digital art but dont have the money, or you are a kid with no income... then i can see that using copyrighted software illegally as an inelastic choice. There is 'something' to be said for that point of view from a practical, not moral, standpoint, assuming of course you think they are different.

gmask
08-06-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Meaty
The argument for that is simply that software is too expensive for the hobbiest to use effectively and to get good enough to start work with it. There is some legitimacy to that.

If the intent is to simply use it as a hobby then I say use the free software that is available or the lesser expensive programs. I don't really see the legitimacy that because something is unobtainable that taking it "illegally" is somehow okay even though any given instance of this taking may not have an immediate financial impact on the makers of said product.

Meaty
08-06-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by gmask
If the intent is to simply use it as a hobby then I say use the free software that is available or the lesser expensive programs. I don't really see the legitimacy that because something is unobtainable that taking it "illegally" is somehow okay even though any given instance of this taking may not have an immediate financial impact on the makers of said product.

Gmask -

I am not arguing, but just to point out that I said the practicallity issue adds 'some legtimacy' to its use. I would never say that the availablility issue with expensive 3d apps makes it OK to use them illegally. If however you are a complete utilitarian moralist, there is absolutly nothing wrong with using the software. It is pretty relative to one's belief system i think.

edit: Aside from that, I merely meant to point out that while there is some practical justification to warez of expensive 3d software, there is no practical justification to stealing movies at all.

thatbrickwall
08-06-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
Also...

The beauty of this country is that you can charge any price for anything. Thats called a FREE market.



Of course, there's a problem when everyone charges an identically high price for everything. (major labels? price fixing? Nah, they would never do that... since its illegal, after all. :hmm: )

The U.S. (I presume thats the country you speak of) does NOT have a free market economy. It is in fact something called a mixed economy, which allows the government to regulate and run business practices. This is why you can potentially put pirates in jail. The purpose of a mixed economy, however, is also to allow the government to put and end to things like bad accounting, pools, and price fixing and gouging, which still run rampant in various industries (you know who I'm talking about,) despite what the media would have you believe.

Originally posted by gmask

Although given that Apple's service provides reliable and quality content if it becomes more widespread than the illegal downloads then perhaps the record industry will cease to pursue lawsuits against file sharing software companies and those individuals who make copyrighted material downloadable.


Actually, Apple's service was growing fine without the help of lawsuits, which would lead me to believe that the RIAA is using the lawsuits as a cover for the recording industry's previous online blunders. Instead of acknowledging that legit online dl services could flourish in their own right, they can now claim that lawsuits were instrumental in establishing legitimate online music business, which is, in addition to being a statement of doubtful validity, promotes even more lawsuits, many of which may not be blessed with such great timing so as to coincide with a positive event (Apple's success.)

gmask
08-07-2003, 02:53 AM
>>>If however you are a complete utilitarian moralist, there is absolutly nothing wrong with using the software. It is pretty relative to one's belief system i think.


Okay I have never really heard of that school of thought I did a search and couldn't force myself to read this particular explaination.

http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/poltheory/sidgwick/me/me.b04.c05.s01.html

So is that set of ethics an "the ends justify the means" set of ideals.

You can rationalize any set of ideals to your favor. Wether or not one feels guilt about breaking a law may be part of their ideal system but at some point depending on what you are talking about it is anti-social behavior and in some cases sociapathetic. For example hackers who cause damage for no other reason other than because they can are sociapathetic. Whereas ones who attack for a reason may have a cause that ties into a belief system but in both cases they may be doing something destructive and illegal. I'm not comparing warez to hacking but they share some similairities.

There are a few instances were your belief system especially religious ones can put you outside the law. I don't really think that's the issue here. You might take an orange from a grocer and think to yourself he has plenty of oranges and beleive that you are not stealing. The issue is wether or not people see software as property.. because it is digital it seems plentiful so how would the grocery know or care if he is misisng a few here and there. The issue though is if you are caught you can be sure that the grocer will see it as stealing but will he call the police? At that pointthe grocery may make a moral decision he may say..aw it's just this poor kid who wanted an orange or he might say throw the book at the kid he neds to learn a leason about criminal behaviour. It's up to the grocer because it's his orange.


>>>edit: Aside from that, I merely meant to point out that while there is some practical justification to warez of expensive 3d software, there is no practical justification to stealing movies at all.

What I was trying to say is that if you are using warez purely as a hobby then is that not the same as "stealing" movies as they are both for your entertainment? Generally speaking people see using warez for profit as bad but also say that it is okay to use warez to learn even though ultimately learning for professional reasons is eventually for profit. Especially now that most programs have learning "versions". Games are the same.. you may say that you are just test driving the game but you can't get your money back after you watched the movie.. of course games are more expensive than movies but you can rent both. Now if you could just rent software... actually in some cases you can as far as rendering goes ;-)

gmask
08-07-2003, 03:02 AM
>>>Actually, Apple's service was growing fine without the help of lawsuits, which would lead me to believe that the RIAA is using the lawsuits as a cover for the recording industry's previous online blunders.

I still contend that Apple's ownership of both OS and hardware platforms for music listeners gave them and ideal captured audience scenario. If you are new computer buyer are you likely to know how to get online and start downloading pirated music or opt-in for a decent and reasonable priced service that is being advertised with your shiney new computer.



>>>Instead of acknowledging that legit online dl services could flourish in their own right, they can now claim that lawsuits were instrumental in establishing legitimate online music business, which is, in addition to being a statement of doubtful validity, promotes even more lawsuits, many of which may not be blessed with such great timing so as to coincide with a positive event (Apple's success.)

Well this is debatable... think about it.. if the music industry never made a peep about napster doing what it did or ever sued any company for giving away free music do you think many people would pay for it?? It may be true that some would be willing to pay for a reliable downlaod service but generally speaking no-one is going to pay for something that they can very easily get for free especially when it is the same quality as what you would get if you paid for it... it's human nature.

I agree that it is a bit pretentious for the record industry to claim that what they are doing is paving the way for good business but I wouldn't agree that they aren't "acknowledging that legit online dl services could flourish in their own right" and that is because a legit business knows that it has to license the music.. otherwise this would never have been an issue.

thatbrickwall
08-07-2003, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by gmask


I still contend that Apple's ownership of both OS and hardware platforms for music listeners gave them and ideal captured audience scenario. If you are new computer buyer are you likely to know how to get online and start downloading pirated music or opt-in for a decent and reasonable priced service that is being advertised with your shiney new computer.


This statement seems to be the linchpin of the paragraph that followed, so I'll address this one so that you can hopefully see why I disagree.

I still contend that users are willing to pay a competitive price for a quality product, especially if the distribution system is clean and slick. (Porn-free, etc.) People buy bottled water... when they could just get tap from pretty much anywhere at no cost to themselves. Storefronts in nice areas get more attention than the back street vendors, for obvious reasons.

I don't think you can really say that Apple's customers are all new computer buyers. Rather, most seem to be experienced repeat buyers. If Apple had that many new buyers, then its market share would not be the 3-5 percent it is today.

gmask
08-07-2003, 04:26 AM
>>I still contend that users are willing to pay a competitive price for a quality product, especially if the distribution system is clean and slick. (Porn-free, etc.) People buy bottled water... when they could just get tap from pretty much anywhere at no cost to themselves.

Okay well those are good points but I recall from my experience as a student that I would gladly buy a case of Milwaukees Beast instead of buying a six pack of good beer. If there has been a free beer I probably would have drank it.

In regards to music downloads you can download music that is good quality for free but in th edemographics of college students there is probably a higher tolerance for some minor quality issues and the occasional piece of porn.

>>>I don't think you can really say that Apple's customers are all new computer buyers. Rather, most seem to be experienced repeat buyers. If Apple had that many new buyers, then its market share would not be the 3-5 percent it is today.

Obviously they are not all first time buyers but PC users have a much wider range of options for downloading software than mac users and since we are talking about percentages Apple's market share really says little about how many of their customers are first time buyers. It stands to reason that a high percentage of their customers may be.. although it may be fewer now that they have less of a presence in the educational market. It stands to reason that the youth of today being the most interested in new, candy coated technology and digital music are more likely to be first time buyers simple because they are young. Still even those who are nto first time buyers are still in the prime postion of being sold to this service.. if you a were a Mac user it would be hard to not justify putting your faith into an Apple service... would it not.. why would you go with the one made for PC users?

Another piece of fuzzy logic is that considering that the vast majority of users out there are that are on the PC and there are pay for music PC services then why are they not as successful as Apples? Are they not also offering quality (porn free) downloads? Or is it because they do not have the ultimate in product placement which is the hardware and OS as a package?

In the end you are free to choose whatever service you want but consider that Internet Explorer is pretty much the dominant browser.. is that because it is a good browser that like it's competition is free or because you pretty much can't buy a PC that it isn't allready installed on? Are the other browser defecient because their programmers are no good or is it because Microsoft hides code that would help them run better and saves the good stuff for their own product? It's hard to deny that there is an advantage to selling services when you own the company store. Maybe Apple has taken M$'s example to heart?

Meaty
08-07-2003, 07:33 PM
gmask,

I suppose you could classify anything as entertainment if you wanted to. I go to work for money, not to be entertained, but i do enjoy my job. The difference is 3D software is not designed as an entertainment product, like movies and music, it is for production.

I am not sure where the whole sociapathetic thing came in from. That really has nothing to do with the philosopy of utilitarian moralism. I was a philosopy major in college and i am just telling it like i remember it. And, YES, there is TONS of wiggle room to debate this issue. If you say 'There are free versions of the software'... i can say 'They are too limited to be useful,' and you can disagree etc.. etc.. Yes, there are valid critiques of every moral system out there. No one is 'Right' per se, at least not as far as we can tell objectively.

I will try to rephrase what i am saying... While, at the very least, using pirated software that is otherwise very expensive, there is 'wiggle room' to debate the morality in a utilitarian moral framework; NO moral framework (other than maybe an anarchist) would justify stealing music or movies. This was to counter the argument (I forget who it was) which identified the 'victimless' nature of illegally using highpriced 3d software and attempted to carry that concept over and apply it to movies. I am NOT justifying warez, simply saying that where there IS wiggle room for DEBATE (I am not picking a side) does not apply to movies or other entertainment.

just a disclaimer: I respect you a lot, love your posts, always interesting and well thought out. I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to be condescending by simplifying to what may be construed as insulting. not my intention at all

/me walks on eggshells

gmask
08-07-2003, 10:31 PM
Dear Meaty,

I'm enjoying this debate but I don't understand the philosophy of "utilitarian moralism" and so far I don;t think you have outlined what it measn other than to say that you think it's ideals allow for warez usage to be justified.

>>>I suppose you could classify anything as entertainment if you wanted to. I go to work for money, not to be entertained, but i do enjoy my job. The difference is 3D software is not designed as an entertainment product, like movies and music, it is for production.

See I disagree.. 3d software may not have been designed with entertainment in mind but often software is described as fun to use. Games are fun.. some games let you build things..in a way that is somewhat similair to a 3d program. My point was that the highend software is there for the professional. There is plenty of inexpensive or free and very powerful software available. If you are not creating for profit then needs for the highend should be irrelevant and therefore I cannot see "for fun" as being a reason to justify using warez like you are also saying that illegally downloading movies or music cannot be justified..because it is "for fun".

Also many people want to rationalize the illegal use of software for art purposes.. but i owuld argue that in that case compare the concept of outsider art. Generally speakign outsier art is created by untrained and poor artists who use materials that are either cheap, found or free to them. I cannot think of an example where and outsider artist made art purely by "stealing commerical materials". Although one might argue that Survival Research Labs is such a group as they iuse alot of "obtainium" as they call it. How ever most of the materials they obtain or from scrap yards and mayeb the occasional construction site they aren't shoplifting materials.

I have a lot of respect for artist who show there skills in old, free or otherwise non-commercial software. There is lots of software out there designed for hobbyists so can you justify not paying for software that is only meant to be used "for fun".

>>>I am not sure where the whole sociapathetic thing came in from. That really has nothing to do with the philosopy of utilitarian moralism. I was a philosopy major in college and i am just telling it like i remember it. And, YES, there is TONS of wiggle room to debate this issue. If you say 'There are free versions of the software'... i can say 'They are too limited to be useful,' and you can disagree etc.. etc.. Yes, there are valid critiques of every moral system out there. No one is 'Right' per se, at least not as far as we can tell objectively.


Sociapath:

Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores: gangs engaging in vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

So when somebody does something like repeatbly break laws or causing disturnbances without any sense of what they are doing to the social structure then they are sociapathetic or at least anti-social.

Pirating could be considered anit-social behaviour because it clearly is causing quite a disturbance to the way of things.

Even though what someone may be doing is anti-social does not neccessarily make what they are doing wrong. But I think when it is without reason that there is a pathos involved. This is certainly not the case with downloading music.. it could be more easily described as a mass delusion or the sign of change. Post analysis will be 20/20.. so until the chips have settled ...



>>>I will try to rephrase what i am saying... While, at the very least, using pirated software that is otherwise very expensive, there is 'wiggle room' to debate the morality in a utilitarian moral framework; NO moral framework (other than maybe an anarchist) would justify stealing music or movies. This was to counter the argument (I forget who it was) which identified the 'victimless' nature of illegally using highpriced 3d software and attempted to carry that concept over and apply it to movies. I am NOT justifying warez, simply saying that where there IS wiggle room for DEBATE (I am not picking a side) does not apply to movies or other entertainment.

Yes to debate does not mean that you are in p[ersonal allegience with one side or the other. A great debater could win either side of the argument.

I don't agree that warez is victimless but many peopel have a hard time understanding why because making copies of things comes so natural to the computer. If people could make their own cans of coke at home do you think they would pay for it.. probably not? If people could make it for free do you think that coke would still be in business?

Other arguments are like "well I wouldn't have bought the software anyway so how can they claim there is a loss". That person may not have bought the most expensive software out there but if they needed software they have options. There are cheaper programs and their purchasing any software would contribute to the economy whereas no purchase contributes nothign and everybody losses. This isn't an endorsment for steal the expensive software but pay for something less expensive but if you morals are that plastic you could make yourself beleive that you are getting what you needed and helping the little guy.

>>>just a disclaimer: I respect you a lot, love your posts, always interesting and well thought out. I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to be condescending by simplifying to what may be construed as insulting. not my intention at all

Right back at ya.. I like many others probably don't understand or have heard of utiliatrian morality. Probably not the easiest concept to understand. I love exploring the mechanics of these debates and obviously we hare headed into an age where these issues are more prevelant than ever.

Meaty
08-08-2003, 12:05 AM
Utilitarian thought is something we all engage in daily. It is really just a cost/benifit analysis test. We do it when we decide to go out to lunch or to save money and bring lunch to work. It is that same principle applied to more 'difficult' circumstances. I think you touched on it before, 'the ends justifies the means.' Some philosophers have even come up with mathematical formulas for deciding what is right and wrong!

This is as opposed to someone on the opposite end of the spectrum who believes that something which is wrong is always wrong no matter the circumstances. i.e. it is always wrong to murder in cold blood. And so the debate begins, is it wrong to murder someone that you know has intentions to kill your family? Then you get into the symantics of directions of intention. All very confusing and frustrating =]

Now, this is just a school of thought. I am sure you can have two utilitarians argue both sides of this issue equally well. I would also point out that a utilitarian would look at the situation of hacked 3d software and say that whether or not there is a free yet less functional alternative or not is irrelevent to the situation. If there is no chance of you buying the software, then there is no chance of company losing money, thus it would make no difference if you used free software or hacked software. That is the logic at play here. And also for the other reasons you pointed out, this issue is equally debatable from the opposite side. Some utilitarians might also say that the 'pro warez' position undervalues the Rule of Law and that it is not to be valued over trivial personal gains such as career shifting, etc.

So, it should make a little more sense now. I dont think you have to aggree with the position to at the very least acknowledge the validity of the debate. And if you can do that, you can then see how that debate does not apply to movies or dvds simply for the fact that they are not gated by prices the same way expensive 3d software is. That seems to be the fact that seperates the two.

gmask
08-08-2003, 12:46 AM
>>>Utilitarian thought is something we all engage in daily. It is really just a cost/benifit analysis test. We do it when we decide to go out to lunch or to save money and bring lunch to work. It is that same principle applied to more 'difficult' circumstances. I think you touched on it before, 'the ends justifies the means.' Some philosophers have even come up with mathematical formulas for deciding what is right and wrong!

Well have you ever decided to steal your lunch because you decided it would be more cost effective.. let's assume that you have a job etc. In my student days it woul dbe .. I don;t have the money so I'll eat ramen or a candy bar rather than a ham sandwich... the thought of taking without paying anything never came to mind. Although I have known of peopel who take condiments from fast food places instead of buying catsup at the store... that in my mind is utilitarian moralism. You are taking something that is free so you are not stealing and are therefore moral.

Never trust mathematicians with idealisms.. that's how we ended up with nuclear weapons etc ;-)

>>>s is as opposed to someone on the opposite end of the spectrum who believes that something which is wrong is always wrong no matter the circumstances. i.e. it is always wrong to murder in cold blood. And so the debate begins, is it wrong to murder someone that you know has intentions to kill your family? Then you get into the symantics of directions of intention. All very confusing and frustrating =]

Or the plot to Minority report..

>>>Now, this is just a school of thought. I am sure you can have two utilitarians argue both sides of this issue equally well. I would also point out that a utilitarian would look at the situation of hacked 3d software and say that whether or not there is a free yet less functional alternative or not is irrelevent to the situation. If there is no chance of you buying the software, then there is no chance of company losing money, thus it would make no difference if you used free software or hacked software. That is the logic at play here. And also for the other reasons you pointed out, this issue is equally debatable from the opposite side. Some utilitarians might also say that the 'pro warez' position undervalues the Rule of Law and that it is not to be valued over trivial personal gains such as career shifting, etc.

The fact that there are free softwares is very relevant.. if you are a moral person you do not tak ewhat is not yours therefore the obvious choice is to either take the free software or invest the significantly lesser amount of money into the cheaper software.

Let's say you own the software but you need to work on the road and can't run the software on your laptop. I could see a moral untilization of warez as being to use it for your laptop for the trip. Some companies have given up dongles for this reason.. so that their uysers are not incovienced by the secuirty mechanism and are free to utilize the software as they need and because hopefully they are a paying customer.

If there is no chance you will buy the software then I would say that that person is a thief more so than anyone else.. especially if they are remorseless about doing so. For example this person presumably had to buy the computer and internet service they are using to get and use the software but they refuse to pay for the software.. what gives? In the need they maybe irrelevant cause they will never do anything with the software but will they also promote the idea of taking and also redistribute the software?

Is this person simply a collector of warez that will never do anything with it or pass it around? Somehow I doubt that is normal. Even if the person is more along the lines of a collector I can't imagine that it would be satisfactory to do so without bragging about the collection by promoting the "ideals" of warez or by passing the software around. It simple is not totally harmless behaviour. The "collector" could easily be a person who is downloading music files and tells no-one about it and does not share them.. but based on what you said earlier would this be okay?

>>>So, it should make a little more sense now. I dont think you have to aggree with the position to at the very least acknowledge the validity of the debate. And if you can do that, you can then see how that debate does not apply to movies or dvds simply for the fact that they are not gated by prices the same way expensive 3d software is. That seems to be the fact that seperates the two.

Yes but software is more expensive because generally speaking the average 3d application does not sell millions of copies .. certainly not on the same timetable as CD's can. If your need for the software is not commercial then why not buy lesser expensive options or free options? When it come to music I can see why you might not opt for lesser bands or free music because it may not cater to your tastes.

I think I have have brought up some valid reasons to use warez such as being a customer in a situation where the licensed product won't run. But I cannot rationalize any other reasons for a particular case unless the person in question gives the other options a try first. Otherwise the complaint that I must have the most expensive software for free just because I can't afford it sound like the cry of brat.. seriously it's the mentality of a baby.. If you have ever been around a baby you will know that they will throw a temper tantrum if you deny them something that is in within their grasp. They can grab it so why can't they have it..wah!

Well in most cases with babies they can be easily fooled.. you simple give them something shiney to look at and hold and they forget about the other illicit object. Adults even though they may act childish at times usually aren't as easy to distract and divert but learning versions are sort of about that. If you give the potential user a version they can play with they are less likely to come upon or want the illicit version.

Again this is an issue that is much easier to understand when you are talking about physcial objects because if you are a kid and you dream of a mazerati you can get a toy mazerati because even as an adult you may never beable to afford a real Mazerati.

thatbrickwall
08-09-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by gmask



Another piece of fuzzy logic is that considering that the vast majority of users out there are that are on the PC and there are pay for music PC services then why are they not as successful as Apples? Are they not also offering quality (porn free) downloads? Or is it because they do not have the ultimate in product placement which is the hardware and OS as a package?



Well, I would tend to say that the pre-existing PC services did not, in fact offer "quality" downloads, because of all the limitations imposed on the paying customer by previous pay for music PC services. Apple's was the only one that charged you per song (not by month, etc.), had no limit on downloads, let you burn copies, and such all in one place. The others were poorly implemented, simply because the record companies had no clue. Only recently has a relatively tolerable PC service come online (Buymusic).

Originally posted by gmask

It stands to reason that the youth of today being the most interested in new, candy coated technology and digital music are more likely to be first time buyers simple because they are young.
Still even those who are nto first time buyers are still in the prime postion of being sold to this service.. if you a were a Mac user it would be hard to not justify putting your faith into an Apple service... would it not.. why would you go with the one made for PC users?



In the paragraph several lines above this statement you argued that that free beer is pretty appealing, especially to today's youth/college-age young people. If it indeed was so appealing, then using a non-Apple service would not be too hard to justify. In any case, many Apple users use M$ products anyway (and M$ is the embodiment of all things PC.)

Therefore, if statement 1, saying that free beer is very appealing, is true, then the quality/ease of use/license terms of Apple's service and not platform ties is what draws users, since free beer would probably overwhelm the tenuously subjective platform loyalty, but free beer is not as likely to overwhelm nonfree, lowpriced, quality wine.

If statement 2, which states that platform loyalty is enough to make an Apple user shell out the cash rather than take the free beer, then free beer is not as compelling as the record companies say it is. In that case, a competently run record company should be able to compete, despite what the RIAA says.

gmask
08-09-2003, 07:52 PM
>>>>The others were poorly implemented, simply because the record companies had no clue. Only recently has a relatively tolerable PC service come online (Buymusic).

Well it is true that any of these services has to strike a bargain or deal with the record companies but I don't think that the lables have dictated how the subscriber uses the service. Sure being able to buy one track is the ultimate in economizing but if you buy one song you are likely to buy several. Again in comparison to movies you can't pay for just the parts you want to watch so I agree with a band who is opposed to seeing their record sold a song at a time. As far as economics goes it seems that the record industry finds selling a song at a time okay.

But don't mix up the music service with the record industry as they are actualy two seperate entities. If a the subscription services fails it's not because of the record industry it's because people don't want to have to pay every month. It's sort of like a record club ..those allways sucked because once you are on a subscription to them you may have to buy record from a catalog that no longer appeals to you.

As far as I can tell the record industry is happy in general if peopel pay for what they listen to wether it's whole albums or single tracks.



>>>If statement 2, which states that platform loyalty is enough to make an Apple user shell out the cash rather than take the free beer, then free beer is not as compelling as the record companies say it is. In that case, a competently run record company should be able to compete, despite what the RIAA says.

For one a college students taste in music is far more subjective than their taste in beer.

If you have been on the Mac for a long time then you know that as a Mac user you have far fewer options for free software and sharware.. it has allways been that way.. so again if you want to download music to your iPod is your first thought ..I'll just get the nearest free download software?? Probably not... why because there are fewer options when at the same time your friend Apple is offering a convenient service to do it for you for a reasonable fee.

On the other hand if you have never owned a computer before is there an assumption that you have a great knowledge about what can be gotten for free off the net? Assuming that you didn't have this knowledge and you wanted music and you bought an apple and along with your other ut of the box materials you were offered a msuci service wouldn't you consider using it?

Back to brand loyalty.. Apple users do have very strong brand loyalty. So now for mee even though I used to drink cheap beer to get a cheap beer buzz I no longer can do it.. these days I have to buy a brand that I actually like. I pretty much buy that brand any chance I get. So I figure if I were still a Mac user I would be more than interested in an Apple branded product or service. PC users on the other hand have too many options and far less loyalty to any particular manufacturer. Even though I use Microsoft product sit is begrudgingly and I look at the company with suspician. However I'm sure that if Microsoft or Dell started a msuic service it would be successful because there are some users who have loyalty to those manufacturers.

Marketing works when you use a brand that is allready well known to sponsor or create a new service or product. This is marketing 101 and a smart decision on Apple's part. The service or product still has to be quality and satisfies the needs of the consumer but such a service is not guareenteed success alone without sure fire advertising and doing it under the nam eApple is sure fire.

Alanbell
08-10-2003, 05:32 AM
Here's how I see it.

It doesn't matter weather piracy is effecting the people at the top or not. What does matter is that they believe it is effecting them. If they think they are getting screwed by piracy or any other economic downturn then they will want to pay less for the work we do. Belive me they will take the pay cut last. So in this way it does effect the low man on the pole.

And for the record piracy is theft as far as I'm concerned.

Regards
Alan Bell

201
08-22-2003, 04:32 PM
I was reading the Inquirer.net today and found this:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11166

Well, it seems like the tech geeks are one-step ahead of the RIAA and anyone else who is trying to destroy file sharing. Basically, there’s a new file sharing tool that hides your IP and makes you anonymous. With idea of proxy/bouncers and encryption algorithms being around forever, it's only a matter of time until someone applied all those things to file sharing. Seems like ES5 is the one of the first companies to do so.


This quote made me laugh:
"their governing laws and policies have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine." He warned the RIAA and the MPAA: "The next revolution in P2P file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control. "

gmask
08-22-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by 201
This quote made me laugh:
"their governing laws and policies have absolutely no meaning to us here in Palestine." He warned the RIAA and the MPAA: "The next revolution in P2P file sharing is upon you. Resistance is futile and we are now in control. "

I can see it now.. the next PSA will be "Did you know that file sharing supports terrorists!"

Gentle Fury
08-22-2003, 08:50 PM
ok, here is my latest contribution to this topic. I went to see Freddy Vs Jason last weekend and one of the things they showed before the movie (along with about 6 car ads a coke ad and the obligatory propaganda "An Army Of One" be all that you can be crap ad) was one of these Anti-Piracy PSA's!!!

Is this really the right demographic?? I just spent about 13 bux at the box office, and then another 10 at the concession stand and i have to sit thru a preachy PSA stating that it is wrong to pirate movies!!!

Obviously myself and the 300 other people in the theater are not the people these PSA are to be aimed at! We didn't DL the movie or buy it off the internet, we spent almost $30 to be able to see the damn thing.....then we get to sit there and be called criminals!

Sorry, please, keep these damn ads where they belong.....ON TELEVISION!!!! You know the place where people watch programs for free.....not in a place where i just spent my money to watch the damn thing they are trying to protect.

I didnt think there could be anything more insulting than having to pay to watch commercials and propaganda.....now this?? It is getting out of hand.......If the show starts at 9pm now the movie doesn't start till almost 10pm.

gmask
08-22-2003, 09:38 PM
>>>Is this really the right demographic?? I just spent about 13 bux at the box office, and then another 10 at the concession stand and i have to sit thru a preachy PSA stating that it is wrong to pirate movies!!!

I had the same experience.. they should do it like so.. "Hey there movie patron.. we really appreciate that you came to see our picture..but did you know that there are millions of people who steal the fun ..etc.."

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 12:11 AM
Remeber cassets?, people suddenly could record from tape to tape, you could even record entire radio shows, and if a radio show was broadcasting a live show (concert) of any kind, you could record some live footage that would never even ultimatly be released.. Then came the vcr, you could now record movies and tv shows, and also any live concerts that were broadcast, not to mention marathon runs such as the entire 3stooges archive, or alien 1 2 and 3, or all the twilight zones, and even most of the starwars episiodes...and to top it off almost every household had all 4 things, a radio, a tape deck, (most likely a double deck), a tv, and a vcr...


why didnt the industry dissapear with all this piracy?

and now with things even easyer? by easyer I meen, hunting searching, dropped downloads, lousy quality mp3's, garbage ripped games, lousy quality cam movies. the list goes on on, some would have others believe that dare I say it warez is going to hurt the industry because the quality of warez is impecable and finding and downloading massive files that more often that not require 2 to 4 parts, totalling upwards of a gig or more is just soo easy and conveniant.

yea sure, easyer.....wake up.. everytime the medium changes the industry starts squaking about the same old things.

And every time the squakin is all for nothing, the problem this time is that theres a new generation that believes all this squakin and their actually willing to hand over the keys to thier pc's, (isps have agreed under the patriot act to hand over any and all information regarding a customers web usage under any circumstances, all the feds hafta do is ask) wich now requires the rest of us to do the same.

how this history can be ignored is beyond me.

As for me, (a paying customer, and a typical customer I would think) Ill continue to do the same thing Ive always done, if I really want it, I'll go get it, sure I could download it, or I could record it on my tape deck, matter of fact "Men in Black ll" is on tonight I might just pop in a tape and steal me movie.. but then again on second though I could buy the used dvd for 9.95 and get all the extra footage, a directors comentary and all the behind the scenes "how they did it" CG clips... wich is what im sure most would do.......

All the entertainment industries are using piracy issues as a scapegoat to explain less than desirable sales numbers. with a total disregard for the fact that the US just came outta recession and the first thing that takes a hit in recession is entertainment, its also the last thing to come out of recession...

as for Ben affleck doing this particular add I'll betcha that he will make another movie, he will remain a millionare for some time, and on the next movie they will still need the "little people" for evrything they need them for now......

this is the reality of most people I know.

If you really like your music, you'll want the lyrics and art work thats on the jewl, ultimatly you'll buy the produced cd.

If you really like the movie, you most likely will buy the produced DVD.

If you really use and need the software there are many, many reasons to purchase the package and those who use the sofware professionally will do so.

and if you really like the game you'll want to play online and you'll want to finish the game without the glitches of a cracked or ripped copy, so again, it will be bought.


Other wize anyone who has an old cassette tape with music on it, or a vcr tape with a tv show or movie on it, or an mp3 of a song you liked. you might as well go turn your self in.

matter of fact we ALL might as well take our tape decks, tv's vcr's, dvd players, cd burners, and our pc's, load them into a truck, and drive on down to the police station, and say, im turning my self in, im an evil criminal, and im killing the little guy..and to all you pot smokers out there dont foget, your worste than the rest of us your not only killing the poor little guy whos gonna be working on mr afflecks next movie, but your also funding terrorism and orginized crime................


are there enough jails for all uf us?


from what I gather is that most warez groups have a name, and boast quite a bit about how many products they put out., and can also be located and/or contacted,......fine go get em, whats that got to do with me or the rest of us for that matter....

If this much effort was put into clamping down on spam and porn and especially child porn the net would be a better place...

but that will probably never happen, because theres no big bloated greedy corperations worred about loosing all these imaginary dollars that normally they would have if it wernt for piracy.............................

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 12:18 AM
Once a t.v. show aires or radio is playing a tune... It's been paid for by someone (probably a sponsor or an ad campaign). The issue here is theft, directly into Your machine.:wavey:

gmask
08-23-2003, 12:32 AM
>>>Remeber cassets?, people suddenly could record from tape to tape, you could even record entire radio shows, and if a radio show was broadcasting a live show (concert) of any kind, you could record some live footage that would never even ultimatly be released.. Then came the vcr, you could now record movies and tv shows, and also any live concerts that were broadcast, not to mention marathon runs such as the entire 3stooges archive, or alien 1 2 and 3, or all the twilight zones, and even most of the starwars episiodes...and to top it off almost every household had all 4 things, a radio, a tape deck, (most likely a double deck), a tv, and a vcr...


>>>why didnt the industry dissapear with all this piracy?

1. analog tapes make lousy copies

2. it is legal to record for your own personal use anything as long as you do not give it away, sell it ,redistribute or otherwise re-broadcast that recording

3. The industry does make money and even though how much they have actually lost is questionable they as the holders of copyrights do have the right to control how their material is distributed

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 12:35 AM
Thats no good. tv shows and movies make alot of reruns and movie rentals, hell shows are even sold to other stations for sindication, why would a station buy a tv series if everyone has already seen every episode 3 times? there would be no value to sponcers who might play comercials durring these shows, why no value? cause no ones watching right? they musta downloaded now they dont to care tune in...

that just aint how it goes...........

I meen for cryin out loud "three's company" is still on the air. along with hundreds of other old shows.......


ps cassette tapes, and vcr tapes, and dvd's go directly into machines..for somereason the new genration sees pc's as different. some how its become a worste machine than the others..... and again by no meens and easyer more conveniant machine


and these issues all remained back then as well but the industry lived on no prob..

1. mp3's stink

2. it was illegal to copy anything back then just klike it is today

3. all this stuff was copy right protected just as it is today..

but 4. piracy was easyer, you didnt hafto be heavyly into computers...so by right the impact to the industry should have been even worste than it was now........

my mom can manage to record and pass on an episode of "ER" but could never actually manage to find that episode online, download it, burn it, and pass it on, but for some reason if she choose to do the later, she would be a really really really bad person...

gmask
08-23-2003, 12:40 AM
>>>I meen for cryin out loud "three's company" is still on the air. along with hundreds of other old shows.......


Okay well to my knowledge there aren't very many complaints about bootlegs of TV shows flaoting around. The focus of rcent debate is movies and music.

>>>ps cassette tapes, and vcr tapes, and dvd's go directly into machines..for somereason the new genration sees pc's as different. some how its become a worste machine than the others..... and again by no meens and easyer more conveniant machine

The big difference between PC's and VCR's is that VCR's are analog.. meaning they're output is degraded and since the signals are stored on magnetic tape they fade relatively qucikly over time. DVD's and computers are digital and generally speaking the copies are perfect and the shelf life is very long if not infinite. If you refuse to see the difference .... don't participate in this discussion.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 12:47 AM
I understand that in theory thats correct..but to many especcially audio engineers, analog has a much more human and warm sound than digital, and no matter what when you encode a wav to mp3 , you loose quality, evrytime. and evrytime thereafter..digital or no digital if i could buy a cd that was available as mp3, or as the traditional format, Ill skip on the mp3 thanks..... and i dont know about anyone else but cd's and dvd's in my house are definatly not something that lasts into infinity... 6 moths to a year at best, although I do have some friends who have had a number of cds for 2 or 3 years or so, but anyways, a cdr is a magnetic medium, so is your hard drive

and you should have said "if you refuse to see things my way"
seems that would be more accurate.

fact is im old enough to say ive seen this before, and all ended we'll. if you refuse to see that, then just dont respond to me.........
casue that wont change unless you have a time machine.

its not somthing to dispute, when cassette came out, the industry was all up in arms because everyone was gonna copy thier records, (record=big black plastic disk), and it was all for nothing.......

gmask
08-23-2003, 01:04 AM
>>I understand that in theory thats correct..but to many especcially audio engineers, analog has a much more human and warm sound than digital, and no matter what when you encode a wav to mp3 , you loose quality, evrytime. and evrytime thereafter..digital or no digital if i could buy a cd that was available as mp3, or as the traditional format, Ill skip on the mp3

That's the thing with computers.. once it has been encoded to MP3 you can copy it as many times as you want without going through any conversion. This is easy to do and the internet makes it easy to literally broadcast the file to millions of people. Can't do that with VHS tapes very easily can you?


>>> and i dont know about anyone else but cd's and dvd's in my house are definatly not something that lasts into infinity... 6 moths to a year at best, although I do have some friends who have had a number of cds for 2 or 3 years or so, but anyways, a cdr is a magnetic medium, so is your hard drive

CDR's are magenetic but CD's and DVD's are not.. they actually have little blips etched into them. Anyway you can legally make backup copies of CD"s wether for safe keeping or for the car. I have numerous CD's that are in good working order..even ones that I burned of my files in the mid 90's that still work.

To be techncial.. VHS records an analog signal to magentic medium. CDR"s store a digital signal to a magentic medium. the difference being that when there is degradation in analog the entire tapes degrade over time with digital signals you have drop out... the areas around the drop out look as good as they day they were recorded.


>>>and you should have said "if you refuse to see things my way" seems that would be more accurate.

Do you have any other words to put in mouth?


>>>fact is im old enough to say ive seen this before, and all ended we'll. if you refuse to see that, then just dont respond to me......... casue that wont change unless you have a time machine.

If that's the case then you'd realise that as long as there are copyright holders and pirates that those with the money to defend their rights will do so vigorously. Even the early composers defended their rights to their printed music. I didn't need a time machine to figure that out.

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 01:15 AM
I've had music in My HD for five years now... Sounds just as good now... as then.

gmask
08-23-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by igorstshirts
I've had music in My HD for five years now... Sounds just as good now... as then.

Exactly and as long as you bought that music originally on CD or otherwise legally obtained it there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 01:20 AM
I got nuthin to put in your mouth, my opinion remains the same,

if this were a problem the industry would have sank along time ago. when cassette arived. then again when vcr's arrived, and will will start again when we move to another medium. history repeats itself and always has. if your telling me that the riaa is doing a good thing by taking a slew of parents to court because thier kids downloaded some tunes...thats nieve.....

the premise of not stealing is good natured, but drawing such thin lines is nieve, especcially when it cant be stopped, which is the only reason nothing happened before..industry couldnt put a cop on everycorner waiting for someone to pass on a cd or a cassette or vhs tape.. but now with the patriot act they actually can do something. and thier gonna do it to the wrong people...like I said most warez im told is put out by groups that boast quite a bit, they can be found, and they can be contacted, so again I say go get em. I dont think think that the people responcible for warez will be stopped by killing filesharing apps. I should think they would use a much safer meens of tranfer? i would also think the demographic for a filesharing apps would be someone closer to a high school age. and im just not for locking up all our students..


I was at lunch yesterday and I gave someone one of my potato chips. I suppose the right thing to do was make him go buy his own bag, but i choose not too. although I did rent a movie and asked him to leave as I watched it, because he didnt pay a dime, and the little guy is gonna suffer..

how much thinner can the lines get?


ps igor I guess that makes you a criminal.......

gmask
08-23-2003, 01:29 AM
>>I got nuthin to put in your mouth, my opinion remains the same,

That's a good cause I bite... that is if there was anything to bite.

>>I find that nieve.....

I find your spelling to be bad.

>>>the premise of not stealing is good natured, but drawing such thin lines is nieve, especcially when it cant be stopped, which is the only reason nothing happened before..

I don't think the goal is to stop or prevent it but to curb it.. the problem has become more than a few people sharing tapes to entire countries manufacturing and selling illegal copies. These days it seems that there is a generation who simple cannot see why this is bad for commerce. The US's biggest export is content so that's a big concern for the economy. It may also be the case that even though piracy is the least in the US that US citizens will pay the most.


>>>I was at lunch yesterday and I gave someone one of my potato chips. I suppose the right thing to do was make him go buy his own bag, but i choose not too. although I did rent a movie and asked him to leave as I watched it, because he didnt pay a dime, and the little guy is gonna suffer..

You just don't understand intellectual property to make such an analogy. If you made a copy of the potato chip that would be an issue.. you can give the CD you paid for away.. nobody cares about that. It is also not illegal to rent a movie and watch it with friends.. it would however be illegal to rent a movie and show it at a bar or other business establishment.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 01:39 AM
bah your splitting hairs and drawing thin lines...

fact is if people were more informed of what exactly is in your basic recording contract, they would understand that file sharing is nothing compared to financial damage studios do to new artists, and like wise the listener , and the little guy.....when a new artist is forced to payback every cent thats invested in him plus a huge chunk of profit, but at the same time has no controll over how much is beeing spent and on what. only to find out after 5 years topping the charts they got nothing to show for it, and is then told by the studio who made a nice roll "Hmm not sure why your not making all that much money, must be that darned warez file sharing thinggy, so sorry, but anyways get in my limo i'll buy you lunch, I dont have much time though I gotta run to the bermuda this afternoon for dinner ".


whatcha got is a bunch of bloated corps complaining that they are afraid theres a chance they wont be as rich as thier used too. I find it tough to sympathize
anyways I gotta go to work, and make a cd that I hope the whole world wont steal....

gmask
08-23-2003, 01:54 AM
>>bah your splitting hairs and drawing thin lines...

d00d your chip bag analogy has got to have been the most ******* statement I have ever heard in regards to copyrights.. that and the homophobic innuendo make you a real genius of a debater.

>>>fact is if people were more informed of what exactly is in your basic recording contract, they would understand that file sharing is nothing compared to financial damage studios do to new artists, and like wise the listener , and the little guy.....


blub blub.. music artists have been getting screwed forever.. maybe they should require all record labels to put signs over there doors that say "abandon hope all who enter". If the allure of being picked up by a record label wasn't so hypnotizing or the average band member's intelligence a little higher then maybe they'd just do it on their own.. but it takes money, time, and business savy and not everybody has it.

You could also say I'm going to boycott music from bad labels because they treat their bands unfairly.. this however requires that you also not listen to the music .. that is unless you want to be a hypocrit.

>>> only to find out after 5 years topping the charts they got nothing to show for it

Well that's not the case for every single band out there but are you saying that the record labels are responsbile for the excesses of your average drug swillingly, groupy banging, mansion buying, sportscar crashing rocker ever. no.. they aren't..

Should there be a retirement fund for now unpopular rock stars..hmmm.. maybe a union.. naw... it's easy money.. just sing to yourself .. "I want my MTV".


>>>anyways I gotta go to work, and make a cd that I hope the whole world wont steal....

Good luck with that.

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 01:58 AM
I own a t-shirt store... Have for eight years. "Can You airbrush a Tweety bird on my shirt?" or "Do you do Jimmy Neutron?" How about Papa smurf or Fat Albert. There is not one day that goes by where I don't get about ten of these if not more. I think to myself... These are all characters that were exploited to the fullest, made a huge amount of money, and are still in demand today... Should I do it... It's not like I'm mass producing these in the thousands and selling them online, just one or two here and there to pay for My mom and I's rent. If I was walking around downtown Denver, saw a two thousand dollar bicycle unlocked, I would not steal it. ( Unless I was being chased by an Asian gang and then I'm off like Lance Armstrong). Ahhhhh Pokemon.... Miss that craze.... Can You scan a picture of Charizard and make it into a 11 by 17 t-shirt transfer? I guess I am a criminal... How much revenue I am stealing from Warner Brothers remains to be seen... After all, their success is mine! Gotta go, I've got a customer staring at Me tapping their feet.

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:19 AM
>>>I own a t-shirt store... Have for eight years. "Can You airbrush a Tweety bird on my shirt?" or "Do you do Jimmy Neutron?" How about Papa smurf or Fat Albert. There is not one day that goes by where I don't get about ten of these if not more. I think to myself... These are all characters that were exploited to the fullest, made a huge amount of money, and are still in demand today... Should I do it... It's not like I'm mass producing these in the thousands and selling them online, just one or two here and there to pay for My mom and I's rent.

Well here's an interesting example.. You may actually be within fairuse to make one offs of such shirts per customers requests becuase you are only selling the service of printing the shirt. You are not offering these designs as part of a catalog of designs. Also since these are still very popular designs your small amount of business probably has no impact on the econimics of it. However wether or not it's fairuse would not be decided until your were in front of a judge. How much is that going to cost you?

How much would it cost you to legally license the characters that are request most? Maybe you could expand you business to selling licensed characters? I'm sure warner brothers probably sells licensed iron-ons.

Clearly though if you started manfacturing mass numbers and sold them on ebay or anywhere else you would stand a really good chance of getting sued... it's would only be a matter of time especially since being in the states puts you well within the reach of those copyright holders.

When I was a kid there was a flea market that we went to frequently aand they was a huge amount of knockoff t-shirts there of Panama Jack and the Simpsons. I remember wanting to buy one of the simpsons ones because the colors used where really messed upand weird.. anyway there was crack down on that at some point.

I also knew a T-shirt designer who made a design for a baseball team and sold the shirts at the stadium. He eventually moved from town and latter discovered that the team started manuafacturing his design and selling those shirts. He seud and lost because even though he created the art .. the team logo and mascot are theirs.

But with the current state of affairs with music we aren't talking about one person making a couple of shirts but millions of people making a couple of shirts here and there.. it's epidemic..

When people say well so what they have lots of money then I saw.. steal office supplies from your workplace or copy private documents and see how your how your boss feels about that. Copy your co-workers social security number and open a credit card accoutn.. your co-worker will eventually get off the charges and the credit card companies have lots of money so they can eat it. Next time you walk by an fruit stand take a piece of fruit.. nobody is looking and there is plenty of fruit there.

So do we have a double standard? You can take what you want from this list of record labels but this other labels on the good list you should buy from them... or Pay to wathc this picture.. but this picture isn't worth paying to see so watch it but don't pay for it??

When baby reaches for something it's supposed to have do you give it them anyway when they start to cry?? I guess some parents do so that they don't have to listen to the crying.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 02:31 AM
lol. homophobic inuendo....
where was that exactly.. I havnt read the rest yet, i will, but that stopped me in my tracks im dying to know what part is the homophobic part? and I hope its as funny as im expecting...

anyways dont waste so much headspace on the chips..lol

aside from that, ive posted my opinion, and you dont like it, I shouldnt hafta say "too bad", but here goes, "toobad". its got nothing to do with you. im sure your plenty nice and maybe even a hotshit...but thats my opinion like it or not. (i dont sway easily) when I can point at a time line and show when this has happened before, and then show how it effected the industries since. you gotta bring to the table more than just your opinion to move me over...............do that and ill continue to have an open mind... otherwise im lookin back and saying, it wasnt a prob then, and shouldnt be such a fuss now......

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 02:34 AM
I get your point... Unless there are millions of us airbrushing Tweeties... I know you guys' point here is about music but...
Let's say I get hired to be an animator in the new 3d version of AKIRA.:buttrock: A team of animators works thirteen hour days for five years to make an Epic film of such proportions, it makes Final Fantasy look like Girtie the dinasour.
Okay, movie hits the theaters and a few months later it grosses the highest amount of money of any previous animated film in history. (More than Lion king and Nemo combined:beer:
Now... I am surfing the web in My new eight thousand square foot animation facility in Maui when I stumble accross a guys' site that is selling 2048 by 1536 versions of stills from our hit movie and receiving twenty thousand hits a day. Probably making a killing off of our work... What do I do.

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
lol. homophobic inuendo....
where was that exactly.. I havnt read the rest yet, i will, but that stopped me in my tracks im dying to know what part is the homophobic part? and I hope its as funny as im expecting...

anyways dont waste so much headspace on the chips..lol

Sorry if this is causing you to use head space.

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:40 AM
>>>Now... I am surfing the web in My new eight thousand square foot animation facility in Maui when I stumble accross a guys' site that is selling 2048 by 1536 versions of stills from our hit movie and receiving twenty thousand hits a day. Probably making a killing off of our work... What do I do.

You sue them.. but this isn't the same as a few patrons coming to you with designs that they want you to put on shirts. If you were advertising that you put Tweety bird on shirts and you didn't license the design then it'd be the same. In either case you may legally be in the wrong but your situation is less aggravated.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 02:41 AM
do you realize that with the patriot act, someone can watch you threw your own web cam without your knowledge. and its legal? these are the laws that we have welcomed in the fight against terrorizm, and likewize the fight against warez, and piracy....

dont let the headspace for the chips thing distract you,,, how about the homophic thing? what was that? lol really.....

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 02:46 AM
See... No... I don't sue him... I contact him to take the stuff down or perhaps strike a business deal.
Movie goes to theaters and grosses five hundred thousand dollars in it's opening weekend. (Studio invested 50 million).
What do I do.

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:48 AM
>>>do you realize that with the patriot act, someone can watch you threw your own web cam without your knowledge. and its legal?

If you are doing something illegal and you have a webcam watching you do it you deserve to get busted..duh?!?

I guess what you mean is that they can legally break any security that might prevent just anybody from viewing the webcam stream and therefore this would be an invasion of privacy. However as far as privacy is concerned if you want it don't setup a video camera on yourself and make it available to the internet.


in other words "man in glass house should not throw rocks"

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 02:48 AM
gmask aside from all this, can i see some of your airburshing?

and do you think you could custom airbrush a guitar body?

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:50 AM
>>>See... No... I don't sue him... I contact him to take the stuff down or perhaps strike a business deal.

Hey that's your call if you are the copyright holder.. but you are not obligated to give a warning shot.

>>Movie goes to theaters and grosses five hundred thousand dollars in it's opening weekend. (Studio invested 50 million).
What do I do.

You look for a new job. As the website who actually making money off your stuff.. you better want a piece of that action.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 02:51 AM
"If you are doing something illegal and you have a webcam watching you do it you deserve to get busted..duh"

that ones just too much man, no one should be watching ever, not on my cam, not threw my windows, never period, and thank god my fate is not in your hands regarding these issues.

one thing is true, and will always be true.

"Not only crimnals have secrets or want privacy."

you can broadcast a deep nose pickin, as for me ill pick in private....actually i demand privacy for my nose pickin.

gmask
08-23-2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
gmask aside from all this, can i see some of your airburshing?

and do you think you could custom airbrush a guitar body?

Pay me $100,000 to my paypal account and I'll think about it.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 02:56 AM
hmm.. I guess thats sarcazm, ok then, Ill keep the guy I have now. prob is hes kinda stuck on cartoony stuff, not much artistic vision...then again, he didnt cost me 100,000 so i guess you get what ya pay for, and you must be the bestest of the best.. :applause:

gmask
08-23-2003, 03:02 AM
>>that ones just too much man, no one should be watching ever, not on my cam, not threw my windows, never period, and thank god my fate is not in your hands regarding these issues.

Actually the issue of what you do in plain sight through your window in a house has allready been settled and it's not private if anybody walking by can see it. If you want to walk around nude in your house and a crowd gathers outside.. you might consider closing your curtains.

>> "Not only crimnals have secrets or want privacy."

Well it the case of a webcam you'll have to humor me with some examples of thing that most be broadcast on a webcam but require privacy.

>>you can broadcast a deep nose pickin, as for me ill pick in private....actually i demand privacy for my nose pickin.

What you pick in private is your own business but I don't know why you'd have a webcam of it going.. is this some sort of new nose fetish? Are people paying to watch you pick your nose?

Anyway.. be warned that pretty much anythign that goes through a satelittel is scanned for various keywords like "bomb". Some kid in canada was raided because it said something like it's "da bomb" over a phoneline. Of course he was talking like a rapper not like a terrorist.

That reminds me.. yesterday I was at a cafe and this woman walked by talking on a cellphone and she started going off loudly about how she had just seen this guy that looked like Bin Laden.. anyway.. I didn't see who she was talking about but it was probably a Sike(sp?) because they were turbins and often have long beards.

gmask
08-23-2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
hmm.. I guess thats sarcazm, ok then, Ill keep the guy I have now. prob is hes kinda stuck on cartoony stuff, not much artistic vision...then again, he didnt cost me 100,000 so i guess you get what ya pay for, and you must be the bestest of the best.. :applause:

I didn't say I would paint your guiter.. I said for $100,000 that I'd think about it.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 03:15 AM
umm yea I got it..

if it takes 100,000 to get you to think about just one, then a few a month would break my bank pretty quick, and Ide still hafto find someone to actually paint them after youve done all your thinkin, lol


look man, sorry, this thred for me is simply a debate, im not vested in this topic, like I said I think its a bunch of fuss over nuttin....but I quess you have a stronger feeling on the issue, I dont tend to take sarcazm from one topic to the next, and I was interested in your brushing, I dont hafto agree with you on this topic to be interested in your brushing do I?

gmask
08-23-2003, 03:18 AM
>>>I was interested in your brushing, I dont hafto agree with you on this topic to be interested in your brushing do I?

Maybe you mean to ask Igor about airbrushing because he's the one that brought it up.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 03:20 AM
ahh sorry I missed that...whatdoyasay Igor, how long ya been brushing and can i see some designs?


(still curious about that homophobe thing)

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 03:32 AM
http://www.igorstshirts.com/airbrushing_shoes.htm

gmask
08-23-2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
(still curious about that homophobe thing)

naw.. I don't want your head space to get too filled up.. you might need it some day. Hell you almost hired me to air brush your guiter and I could have totally ripped you off... you need the space! ;-)

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 03:56 AM
lol. dont flatter yourself.

(im starting to think you just kinda threw that in there lol, and sure why the hell not I guess its inline with your painting my guitar for 100g's (ridiculous)

gmask
08-23-2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
lol. dont flatter yourself

who's flattering who?.. as if you had the money to hire me to do anything? :rolleyes: pfftt!

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 04:02 AM
oh yea, I forgot, you know all about me and my finances..silly me, thinking i could pull one over on you..and its now painfully obvious that you threw that in there..

igor: brush work seems pretty good, how long you think it would take to do guitar body front and back with a similar design, and where are you located? and how many you think you could do in 4 weeks guy I have now gets 2 done in 4 weeks, I need someone faster......pm me i'll give ya more info on how many, and how much is budgeted for paint outta the jobs....

gmask
08-23-2003, 04:06 AM
>>>oh yea, I forgot, you know all about me and my finances..silly me, thinking i could pull one over on you..

My offer to think it over for $100,000 still stands.. I take cash, cashiers checks, banks wires, gold bullion but sorry no credit cards or personal checks.

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 04:07 AM
then stand it shall....:thumbsup:


hmm. ok give me your paypal account :)

igorstshirts
08-23-2003, 04:07 AM
E-mail me from My site... You guys gotta steer your conversation back on topic.:p

RazzBlade
08-23-2003, 04:12 AM
we'll if ya cant tell im trying to make a b-line awaqy from gmask and toward you thats why i suggested the pm.. gmask keeps taggin me though, and you know how it goes when your it......

anyways, if your interested igor, let me know I got a few people locally im lookin at. and they have resume's, if you want to pm with a link to yours i'll check it out.....

gmask
08-23-2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by RazzBlade
then stand it shall....:thumbsup:


hmm. ok give me your paypal account :)

It's on my homepage. I'll be looking forward to thinking about your guiter.


So by any chance it wouldn't be an unlicensed design that you want to paint on their would it? :blush:

ninjadodo
08-23-2003, 05:06 PM
I think the problem is the wrong amounts of money going to the wrong people. I am generally against piracy but I don't feel compelled to pay up just so some superstar can have a new set of custom-made sportscars...

That said, as long as it's fair priced, I pay for my CDs, games, films and other things.

The thing with music downloading is not greed but convenience. If you could find ANY song online, even the most obscure ones imaginable, and download it legally for a small fee (or with some sort of subscription) there would not be any substantial problem.

I had a good laugh reading Jakedeth's and the other's discussion.
"Kiddie porn and MP3 theft", really... :applause:

btw... Love this one:
To be honest reading those replys with out of left field content on the guys business makes it hard for me to take any of the other opinions which may be more grounded seriously. There's always someone taking the piss out of left. Incidentally, it's usually rich, right-wing, money-hungry hypocrits. How's that for ridiculously over-generalizing?! :D

Anyway, it's a good thing there's people like Micheal Moore taking the piss back.

gmask
08-23-2003, 08:44 PM
>>>I think the problem is the wrong amounts of money going to the wrong people. I am generally against piracy but I don't feel compelled to pay up just so some superstar can have a new set of custom-made sportscars...

Then show support for bands that are actually on independant labels. I think it is hypocrticial to not pay for music because you don't like the record lable and still listen to the music. It's simply a rationalization for theft.


>>>The thing with music downloading is not greed but convencience. If you could find ANY song online, even the most obscure ones imaginable, and download it legally for a small fee (or with some sort of subscription) there would not be any substantial problem.

There are many oppuntunities in life where stealing may be convienient but do you act of them? Again this is a rationalization for theft. I will agree that file sharing does provide access to otherwise unobtainable material and that may even be justified and possibly even fairuse. ..assumign that the copyright holders aren't vigorously pursueing their rights.


>>>I had a good laugh reading Jakedeth's and the other's discussion. "Kiddie porn and MP3 theft", really... :applause:

I'll have to check that out.. another issue that seems surprisingly unmentioned int eh debate about file sharing programs is how it makes all kinds of porn available to anyone of any age.

>>>Anyway, it's a good thing there's people like Micheal Moore taking the piss back.

You mean onthe subject of guns or has Moore made some statements about file sharing?

ninjadodo
08-24-2003, 12:14 AM
Then show support for bands that are actually on independant labels. I think it is hypocrticial to not pay for music because you don't like the record lable and still listen to the music. It's simply a rationalization for theft.As I said, I do. Only recently I bought the CD of a group that I had discovered through MP3-sharing. Though I had actually heard one of their songs before, which I liked, it wasn't until I heard their album on MP3 that I really got into their music. One simply doesn't go to the music store to discover music. You go there to buy something you want because you heard it before (and liked it)... on the radio, or on MP3, or by borrowing a CD from someone you know .

There are many oppuntunities in life where stealing may be convienient but do you act of them? Again this is a rationalization for theft. I will agree that file sharing does provide access to otherwise unobtainable material and that may even be justified and possibly even fairuse. ..assumign that the copyright holders aren't vigorously pursueing their rights. I'm just saying that MP3 sharing allows people easy acces to music that they might never hear otherwise and it also works for popular songs because it's still easier than going to the store. The music industry can either embrace that system by offering the same services for fair fees or they can ignore it and suffer the consequences.

another issue that seems surprisingly unmentioned int eh debate about file sharing programs is how it makes all kinds of porn available to anyone of any age.Oh man... my point was that equating MP3 sharing to surfing for children pornography is completely ludicrous and how it found its way into this discussion I don't even want to begin to imagine.

You mean onthe subject of guns or has Moore made some statements about file sharing? I don't think he's ever tackled the subject of filesharing - not sure though... haven't seen all of his work - but he's covered a lot more than guns. He's done plenty of documentaries besides "Bowling for Columbine", you know. Try looking for "The Awful Truth" on tv... it's a series with each episode dealing with a specific issue in an amusing yet thought provoking way. I brought his name up because he tends to be the voice of left field America. Whylee seemed to be implying that left has nothing either meaningful or reliable to say. I beg to differ.

gmask
08-24-2003, 01:12 AM
>>>As I said, I do. Only recently I bought the CD of a group that I had discovered through MP3-sharing. Though I had actually heard one of their songs before, which I liked, it wasn't until I heard their album on MP3 that I really got into their music.

okay but that's not what I was talking about.


>>>One simply doesn't go to the music store to discover music. You go there to buy something you want because you heard it before (and liked it)... on the radio, or on MP3, or by borrowing a CD from someone you know.

Hmm well I see little difference between browsing names in a file sharing program and browsing names at a record store if in both cases you can preview the music before buying it. It seems like there are many places where you can preview music and then buy it both online and in stores. For a period I was listening to net radio stations and after a song you could look up the band and then buy the music.

>>>I'm just saying that MP3 sharing allows people easy acces to music that they might never hear otherwise and it also works for popular songs because it's still easier than going to the store. The music industry can either embrace that system by offering the same services for fair fees or they can ignore it and suffer the consequences.

Well see here's the problem.. the record industry have embraced it because they do work with companies like Apple to provide such music services.

The problem that the record industry has is with people having copies of the music that they can listen over and over again without paying for it at all ever.

>>>Oh man... my point was that equating MP3 sharing to surfing for children pornography is completely ludicrous and how it found its way into this discussion I don't even want to begin to imagine.

Yeah.. I'm just surprised there hasn't been more of an uproar about that side of file sharing.

>>>Try looking for "The Awful Truth" on tv... it's a series with each episode dealing with a specific issue in an amusing yet thought provoking way.

I know I worked on the shows opener. I also projected Roger and me about a dozen times in the early 90's.. I just haven't really kept up with all his stuff lately.

thatbrickwall
08-25-2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by gmask



Well see here's the problem.. the record industry have embraced it because they do work with companies like Apple to provide such music services.


If the record industry really had embraced it, they would have done it themselves. If a large money-grubbing company (such as what the record industry is predominantly composed of) thinks an idea is really going to work, it is not going to risk handing it over to another large company; they are going to take the idea and run with it. A company does not effectively outsource something they think will be the core of their business. The way the record companies have treated online music downloads (halfheartedly and throwing away the business opportunity to Apple) shows the record industry's lack of faith in this front.

By letting another company get to this concept first (polished, uncrippled and reasonably priced) the larger records demonstrate that they still do not want to leave their old and outdated distribution system, at any cost.

gmask
08-25-2003, 11:30 PM
>>By letting another company get to this concept first (polished, uncrippled and reasonably priced) the larger records demonstrate that they still do not want to leave their old and outdated distribution system, at any cost.

Then by that logic record labels should own every record store there ever was..

I don't think you understand the concept of retail.

Record labels are wholesellers and in this case Apple is the retailer. Now in some cases.. like the Virgin Mega store the wholeseller is also involved with retail but this by no means should be considered a requirement as a measure of acceptance of a technology by an industry.

If a company wanted to buy wholesale music licenses and sell them to people via telepathy for retail prices.. I'm sure the record industry would be fine with that.

thatbrickwall
08-26-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by gmask


Record labels are wholesellers and in this case Apple is the retailer. Now in some cases.. like the Virgin Mega store the wholeseller is also involved with retail but this by no means should be considered a requirement as a measure of acceptance of a technology by an industry.

If a company wanted to buy wholesale music licenses and sell them to people via telepathy for retail prices.. I'm sure the record industry would be fine with that.

Mayhap... however, in this case, almost none of the established retailers initially stepped up to the plate in the case of online music, so when that happens, the record companies, hopefully having some business sense, would step in. In fact, it would make sense for them to step in at this point, since they could cut out the third party retailer and therefore earn a bigger percentage of the total retail price... follow? So that is pretty much what they did, sort of. I say sort of because they flubbed it badly and halfheartedly, handing the middleman's cut back to a third party (Apple.)

gmask
08-26-2003, 03:38 AM
>>>almost none of the established retailers initially stepped up to the plate in the case of online music, so when that happens, the record companies, hopefully having some business sense, would step in.

I can't really blame major retailers for also not being early adopters of online music sells.. I mean do you think Walmart, Sears or Kmart (bankrupt) for example were likely candidates for online music ssales.. they are after all major retailers.

>>>In fact, it would make sense for them to step in at this point, since they could cut out the third party retailer and therefore earn a bigger percentage of the total retail price... follow?


At anyrate it's flogging a dead horse because music is being sold online now. Busineses that sell content don't have to take the risk of exploring new business models when there are satrups with invest capital yahoos willing to play hi-roller. I never understood how Napster was planning on making money.

Sure they could have sold music online directly but there is overhead in developing the resources to do so and I imagine that it is alot more than cost of pressing CD's if sales are slow at first.


>>>So that is pretty much what they did, sort of. I say sort of because they flubbed it badly and halfheartedly, handing the middleman's cut back to a third party (Apple.)

Well again that is the world of retail.. the manufacturer counts on distributors and resellers to buy large quantities. This lowers their overhead because they don't have to deal with the huge number of individual sales. The resllers often charge double the whole sale prices to cover for overhead, labor, advertising and etc.

If demand for music went down then perhaps the industry would charge less... that is the law of supply and demand.. however if people keep downloading then demand is up even though people aren't buying.. I still don't think many people would pay for music even if it was cheaper than it is now if the fear of the law wasn't enforced.

thatbrickwall
08-26-2003, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by gmask


At anyrate it's flogging a dead horse because music is being sold online now. Busineses that sell content don't have to take the risk of exploring new business models when there are satrups with invest capital yahoos willing to play hi-roller. I never understood how Napster was planning on making money.

True, except this time the yahoos were the record companies, since they did in fact "explore" the area themselves. Badly yes, but they did.


Originally posted by gmask
I still don't think many people would pay for music even if it was cheaper than it is now if the fear of the law wasn't enforced.
It doesn't really matter whether you think they will buy or not, because they happen to be buying, both online from Apple and off. Offline hits in sales are less than the sales losses many other industries are experiencing, so I don't think the music industry can claim a special case so much as an overall economic slowdown.

gmask
08-26-2003, 04:16 AM
>>>It doesn't really matter whether you think they will buy or not, because they happen to be buying, both online from Apple and off. Offline hits in sales are less than the sales losses many other industries are experiencing, so I don't think the music industry can claim a special case so much as an overall economic slowdown.

I guess the same could be applied to films.. should movies be available for download for a fee?

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.