Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Yeah, but the artists are already suffering. They would still be suffering if internet piracy wasn't around because the "middle men" have been ******* them around for decades.
Fixed your post.
Whoa, hang on a second, did I endorse commercial copyright theft? That kind of thing is not merely filesharing/piracy, that is gross commercial copyright infringement. I do not agree with that for a moment-I hold that commercial institutions should have to hold themselves to copyright laws, and similarly, if I go around selling my mix tapes of old classic copyrighted rock, I deserve to be hurt for it. That falls closer to "actually claiming it as their own".
Fair enough?
Where am I going to get my music if I boycott the RIAA and really, REALLY like mainstream bands? Remember, I'm not boycotting the bands-I'm boycotting the broken system that takes advantage of them.
EXCEPT I'M NOT TAKING THEIR PRODUCT. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO ****ING SAY IT. When Wal-Mart takes my money and gives me a blank CD, I am losing something. When I steal Wal-Mart's software packages that they bought to put out on the shelves, they are losing something. The more fair comparison would be "If Wal-Mart borrowed my CDs, copied them all, and listened to them for personal enjoyment". Because if they do that, nobody is hurt.
From the way you talk about this stuff, it's an easy assumption to make. The fact that, despite that downloads are massively on the rise, and that we are going through one of the most brutal recessions since 1929, the industry is still booming, should be a sign that we REALLY aren't hurting anyone.
I don't think the statement is correct, to be honest. It is correct when taking it is theft, and the boycotter loses money directly. But when it's merely copying his product, then there's nothing to say about it-I got his product from a better source.
The theaters? Arguably. They don't produce and they hardly consume. And the business model is one that I predict will be wildly unsuccessful in the next while, especially because of home theaters.
The whole purpose of the theater is exactly that-providing that massive, theater experience. They won't die out until people start putting massive screens in their homes, and making their own popcorn (to the extent that theatergoing becomes massively unpopular). And start getting movies earlier.
They aren't. He's dead.
And they still will.
It isn't. Fair enough. However, again:
Yes, but then I lose the part of the equation that makes me actually care about the whole situation.
Or maybe that we're in a serious economic recession? Maybe that record companies aren't prepared to help some artists produce albums? I really disagree with the causality behind this.
I have a song that I pirated. What's stopping me from, you know, buying it when I have the money?
Okay. Except your point loses all of its bite when the support for it falls away (which it kinda does).
I don't see what difference it makes whether or not money changes hands. The idea that it's okay to steal until you start making money is completely stupid. If I pirate the new Eminem album, according to you I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not actually taking anything from Eminem. So what difference does it make if I pirate the album, burn it onto a CD, and sell the CD for $5? I still haven't taken anything from Eminem.
Maybe nowhere. You aren't entitled to have music. If the only place you can get music you like is from a place you don't want to give money to, then you have to choose between giving money to that place or not having music. That's the way it works. Sorry...
Piracy isn't hurting theaters much because people like to be out with their friends and watch movies on the big screen. Piracy is hurting DVD sales though. That pretty much proves that piracy has nothing to do with people not wanting to give their money to a middle man or things being too expensive. They'll still go to a movie theater, pay $12 to see a movie, pay another $10 for popcorn and a drink, but they won't pay for a DVD even though you can get lots of movies for $5 at Wal-Mart. It's not about money, it's about selfishness. They just aren't able to pirate the whole theater experience, so they have to pay for that.
It doesn't really matter what you think. It's not up to you to decide what can or can't be done with someone else's intellectual property.
Even if Courtney Love were to convince me that record labels are the worst things in the world, that wouldn't mean that piracy is okay. You don't get to take the product of someone else's labor without compensating them just because you don't like record labels. All that is is an excuse. You're just blaming the record labels to justify your own selfish behavior. At least record labels have to offer artists a deal that they agree to. They don't just take what they want like you do.
That's true in a lot of cases, but not in this case. People have a right to themselves, their property, and their labor. To say they don't is to advocate slavery.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with biased news. All news is and should be biased. I'm not sure you're using the word "slanderous" correctly, but even if you are, I'm okay with that too.
So what? That's like saying that once I sell my car I can't let my friends borrow it anymore. If you agree to sell the rights to your music to someone else, then they get to decide what is or isn't done with your music. No one forced you to sell the rights.
THAT'S WHY RECORD LABELS GET SO MUCH MONEY, YOU MORON!!!
No...
Too bad, you aren't entitled to have it. And how have you lost anything when you didn't have it in the first place?
The recession started in 2007, and those statistics showed that the number of CDs released decreased from 1997 to 2004.
I don't know. You tell me.
Every business that stands to go bankrupt from piracy is one that contributes absolutely nothing of any value to the economy. In fact the MPAA and RIAA are very large deadweight losses we've been living with.
That would be like saying the gaming industry is dead weight.
Completely and entirely different.
The music, movies, and gaming industry all effected by piracy. How it effects them may be different but the point is that they're be effected by it.
In what way are they an obsolete corporation? If they were obsolete, why would any artist go through them?
Nice places for quick cash. I find them quite useful, they fill an important niche of quick selling, which few truely appreciate.
