Steerpike said:

Like I said before, prove that something has actually been stolen.

If I go and jack your car, then that's theft. If I went and copied your car, you'll still have your car, but I'll have an identical one. Nothing has been stolen so it is inappriopriate to call it "theft", and it is ridiculous that some courts in some countris choose to treat it as theft. Travesty on justice is what it is, when individual pirates have been made to pay worse punishments than people guilty of violent assaults. (yes, this has actually happened in some countries).

Seriously? Should I pay a worse punishment for downloading an MP3-file, than someone who beat the **** out of someone else? Is that justice?

Varnias Tybalt said:

Piracy is theft. Another person spent time and money creating what you downloaded for free. Not only was his investment in time and money wasted, but he may be out of a job as a result. Most RPG companies are small enough that even a small loss in sales can make a big difference. Keep sticking your head in the sand all you want, but piracy is selfish and immoral.

The amount of people who think piracy isnt theft because they copy something... *sigh* I'll just go through the usual conversation on the topic to save time:

It's nice to get stuff for free isnt it? Only it wasnt free to make it, was it? Let's consider music, since that's the punishment you were concerned of. You realise how much for example studio hours cost? I can already hear the typing of the "Oh, but I wasn't going to buy it anyway!" argument.

Why did you download it then? Clearly there was something you wanted..

"Oh I just collect them in my harddrive!" What a waste of energy and recourses then. Good for you!

"Oh I just wanted to evaluate it!" The whole record? and when you've listened to it for several hours did you buy it. Maybe added one song to your playlist, did you pay for the song through web perhaps? If the answer is yes, you are mildly excused.

Besides piracy for music is sooooo outdated. Use spotify. I know, I know.. not every record is there, but at least it's legal and paid for you.

http://www.spotify.com/en/

Here ends rant. (Piracy. Gets me every time.)

macd21 said:

Selfish and immoral? You do know that you're speaking with a nihilist here right? All moral is completely relative, so that doesn't present much in the way of an argument. Sorry.

If you desperatly want to own a monopoly on an experience (a picture, a song, a game, a movie etc. they're all experiences to the viewer/listener) then don't show it to the rest of the world. Because once it's out there, it is absurd to claim "ownership" of it. You can own a record, but you can't own the music on it if other people have heard it. You can own the marble that a statue is made of or the canvas that a picture is painted on, but you can't own the feelings seeing it will evoke.

You could say that copyright laws are immoral in a way. That they are absurd there is no question of...

ymrar said:

Personally I listen to music that can at time be a bit obscure and unheard of, so spotify is not an option, simply because the songs I want to listen to isn't there.

Second, I pay a handsome amount of cash for tickets to live shows of the artists that I like. That way I know that the ARTIST get the most payment, rather than some greedy, leeching record company that take's the major amount of money for any records I buy...

So you want to experience? and how are all these experiences delivered for you? That's right. Somebody coughed up money. You liked a movie? It had superior filming and effects? Somebody had to make them for you to experience it. So yes, you can put a price on experience. Some experiences come a lot cheaper. You want an experience free? Take a walk in the forest. Enjoy the sunset. Write a book (but for crying aloud, do not share it or try to make a living out of it).

Varnias Tybalt said:

Oh, so you think that the contract that "leeches" the artist in record sales wouldnt do that in the tour sales? That is if we talk about the Big, Bad, Record Companies... I had forgot about that excuse. "I already buy tickets for shows!" That's still less money for the artist from the record, no matter what the deal is with the company.

ymrar said:

Oh I buy movies that I like and know that I'll want to see again. Sure, divx rip's can be useful for evaluating if a movie is good or not (if I don't like the movie I delete it), but they don't hold much against seeing the movie at a cinema or the superior quality of DVD or BluRay. And frankly I like the look of having the real movie covers standing in my bookshelf. In fact, im quite a sucker for anything with "Collectors edition" written on it, in that regard.

It's just that I REFUSE to pay for a movie that I can't know for sure that I'll like. I shouldn't be expected to "gamble" on wether I think my money will be well spent or not. It's absurd to expect me to do that. Therefore I check out the movies on beforehand. Sure they will have awfully reduced quality in regards to sound and picture, but from that I can still make an assesment of wether I like the film or not, and if it's worth paying for to have a permanent copy of it.

But that's not how the movie industry want's me to think. They want me to base my entire opinions of inferior trailers that doesn't really reveal how good the movie is, but only shows a few amped up highlights in order to draw crowd interest. They'd rather want me to gamble with my money, like it was a game of blackjack. There is a chance I might be satisfied with buying the DVD or the tickets for viewing it on the cinema, but not a guarantee. And considering the vast amounts of crap that hollywood has produced the last few years, that chance for satisfaction has decreased a huge amount.

So you only piracy music then? How's that any different from movies? As I stated earlier tour revenues does not make up for record revenues.

Hey did you ever consider that some people dedicate thier times, money or even thier lives to something creative. Be it music, making video games, movies or even fine art. They work hard so we can enjoy all of those things. I know better then to pirate anything because I work on art sometimes. Now I haven't sold any yet but I just practice for fun. Some people have to sell art or music to make money and keep thier jobs. I don't think any company is a leech. They are just trying to do some thing they enjoy (like make RPGs for example) and make money off of it. Is trying to make money and doing something you love so wrong? I think not.

ymrar said:

Oh yes they do. At least for the musicians. The only people losing money due to piracy is the record companies. Do you realize what an insignificant amount of money from royalties actually goes to the creators of the music?

Many musicians have realized this, that's why some of them even lets you download ALL of their songs from their websites, and this tactic works wonder due to the fact that they become exposed to many people, packing their live preformances with a paying audience.

Other "artists" who don't do this (meaning, pretty much all pop-musicians today) are just bribed pawns of record companies, and they don't have to feel cheated by me, because I don't listen to their crappy "music" anyway. (neither through bought CD's or downloaded MP3's)

But you already stated that you listen to obscure and unheard of. You download these songs too? Because many of these "small artist" pay the costs for the records themselves. Some of them have started even their own record companies.

Also, no matter what the royalty is. Royalty not gained, is royalty lost. Yes, not all artist have good contracts. Not all of them have bad either. Just like not all of us have good jobs. Not all of them are bad either.

I have no trouble of people listening to music someone offers free on their site, as I have no trouble with fan made products in RPG.

lordsneek said:

Yes, because I AM one of those people who dedicate my life and most of the money I earn on creative projects. The thing is, I have realized that such artistic pursuits is a personal matter. I make my art because I WANT to make art, not because I hope to be able to sell it or the rights of ownership to it, to some greedy, leeching distrubution company.

Now im not a public artist (meaning, VERY FEW of the works I've done has actually been revealed to the rest of the world), I create my art for my own satisfaction, not to impress others. But if I were a public artist, I wouldn't be so stupid or naive to think that I could "own" the experience of my work. As soon as someone else lays their eyes upon something that I've drawn or sculpted, the very idea, concept and experience of that work is as much their's as it is mine. The canvas, the paint, the plaster or the marble I might give shape and form to is nothing more than a tool to convey the thoughts and feelings I had while making the piece in question. I might be able to own, and put a pricetag on plaster, canvas or paint in a particular configuration, but it is impossible to put a pricetag or claim ownership on thoughts and feelings.

It would be like claiming copyright on capitalism or communism itself. Or claiming ownership on Pythagoras theorem. It's just thoughts, they only exist in our heads and they copy eachother all the time just by being spoken of in a social setting. No one seems to mind that, so why should it be any different with other experiences, such as seeing movies, listening to music or appriciating artistic pieces in general? It's absurd.

What's also absurd is that some overly romantic people expect that they can earn their entire livelyhood through art. It's absurd to expect that you, as a singer, should be able to make the same amount of money that Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera does. Art doesn't normally entail income, you've just been extremely lucky that you have actually been able to sell the medium of your art if you have.

So yes, doing "what you love" and making money off of it at the same time, is wrong in this regard. Or at the very least, i'ts wrong to assume that you're going to make money off of it if you want to call yourself an artist...

ymrar said:

I think that's a bad analogy. If you're an artist that's being offered a contract by a record company, you should make **** sure that the contract is something favorable to you. But most artists don't, because they're so horny over the idea of getting famous, so they're willing to get completely shafted over the royalties by their record company.

I don't really listen to those at all. Fame-loving attention-whores generally make bad music...

So if you want to make a living out of something that you actually like, and people are willing to pay you for it, you're a *****? Wow! Someone's bitter...

Varnias Tybalt said:

What if some people don't care about fame but instead just want to be remembered as someone great, someone that can make the world a better place. I think that some day I will be like that. Now you may say that it is a foolish if not childish dream until you are blue in the face but that won't mean it can't happen. As for the money, well you just need money to get by in today's society. It's a fact of life.

ymrar said:

jadrax said:

:DD OMG. Ok that's it. Now this topic has officially derailed a. lot. I'll stop right here.

ymrar said:

rather, if you EXPECT to be able to make a living out of something you like, and compromising what you like in order to bring in more cash, you're a *****.

For instance, I like playing RPG's, but I don't expect to make money out of it. In fact, I lose money to it due to buying books for it. Does that persuade me from not playing? No.

Why should it be any different with singing, painting, sculpting, writing etc. etc.

Here's the trufh for ya. While our decadent, developed-country lifestyle allows us to indulge in "fun" pursuits like listening to music, looking at paintings, playing RPG's etc. etc. We don't actually NEED it. What people DO need on the other hand is accomodations, food to eat and other means to stay healthy and living. That's what we NEED, and that's what money should generate income from.

Remember, that while we spend money on so much stuff we don't need, people in other parts of the world are starving to death. If they had the same amount of money we spent on **** like computers, RPG's, paintings, CD's, DVD's etc. etc. they could survive. But they don't. We're priviliged that way, and also a bit naive when you expect that you can make money of doing something that other people don't really "need".

I don't suffer from that kind of naive thinking myself. I don't expect to be able to ***** out my art for the highest bidder, I expect to having to work for a living in industires that provide people with what they need (not what they "want"). That doesn't make me bitter, it makes me realistic...

Or maybe bands realise they can't...

Manufacture CDs, design adverts and album covers, create websites, book gigs, send out promotional material, manage road crew wages, etc...

on their own.

lordsneek said:

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, then making money of your ideas would be the least of your concerns. People who want the world to be a better place don't sit around arguing over copyright infringements, they travel to third world countries and help the poor and war-torn people in any way they can. They often suffer for it, some times financially and sometimes they even die trying.

A person saying: "I want to make the world a better place... But also make money doing it" is nothing short of a selfish *****. It's blatantly obvious that they are driven by selfish desire to make money and achieve fame.

So please, spare me the hypocrisy and sanctimonious bull about "making the world a better place"...

Varnias Tybalt said:

I can still accomplish something good in my own country I shouldn't have to go to third world counrties to make the world better. After all presidents like Abraham Lincoln abbolished slavery without having to personally go to Africa. So please stop your baltent name-calling and you will already have made this forum a better place.

Dave Allen said:

Manufacture CD's = oh really hard. Im not in the record industry nor do I belong to a band but still I burn CD's every single day for personal use.

Design advert's and album covers, create websites = Do it yourself, or hire someone to do it for you. If you expect to make a living out of your music, you should make **** sure you can hire the right people as well.

Book gigs = Not that hard, depending on where you intend to play. The local pub might just be an affair of speaking with the owner, who knows? The owner might have actually downloaded your song from your website and liked you. As for large concert arenas you do pretty much the same thing, speaking with the owners, telling them that you'd want to play there. If you want to persuade them show them the fame you've garnered online and how many downloads your latest hit has provided. Check their fee's of the ticket prices and work it out with them.

Send out promotional material = if you're famous online, you rarely have to. Besides, nobody likes junk mail anyway.

Manage road crew wages = either do it yourself or hire an accountant to do it for you.

See? Lot's of ways to make sure that YOU control the entire shindig, without having to sell your soul to a greedy record company that will treat you like **** and not pay you what you deserve.

But then you might say: "Well, Varnias. Do you really think that let's say Britney Spears wouldäve thought of all these things herself?"

No she probably wouldn't, but she sucks anyway so I really couldn't care less.

Varnias Tybalt said:

And the self-righteous rant is in aid of what, exactly? Whatever your beliefs regarding the state of the world and how best to improve it, such matters are a little weighty (not to mention off-topic) for a forum about the new edition of a long-running fantasy role-playing game.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

You are quite right. This argument is going nowhere. I am sorry if things got off topic but this is getting very heated. So you heard him back on topic!