For those who are fine with pirarting music and movies etc

[davidinalameda]

what incentive would exist in your world for people to create new music, movies, books, drugs, inventions, etc

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. joy of creativity, I guess

[davidinalameda]

6. so you and the others think people should create for the joy of it

how about those who want to make a living at it or who can make a living at it

[Occulus]

26. I do, could, and don't

Next question?

My "Fantasy on the Old West" directly quotes "Rhapsody in Blue". Do I owe the Gershwin estate a royalty, even when the score says "Thanks, George"?

[Aerows]

28. I write

and I do it because I enjoy doing it. My stuff is posted out there for anyone to read.

Lots of people do, too.

If I could make money doing it, would I? Sure, but I like the creativity that comes from not having to abide by a publishers will.

You really need to think about that one.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. I think you need to re-read your own OP

You said "what incentive would exist in your world for people to create new music, movies, books, drugs, inventions, etc".

Liberal_in_LA answered your question by saying that people would (and do) create for the joy of creating rather than profit.

Maybe you need to start an OP that says "To those who pirate music, do you feel that artists don't deserve compensation for their work?"

[Liberal_in_LA]

80. yep. People knit, paint, write poetry, build stuff, write music, for no pay. Part of being human.

[Liberal_in_LA]

77. No, I think people should get paid. I was just offering a suggestion as to

why people will still create music, fiction, etc.. when folks can steal it from the web.

[whoneedstickets]

2. Curiosity, creative impulse, expressiveness, persuasion....

there are lots of human impulses that have nothing to do with greed.

Wonder why those cave people made those paintings when they couldn't turn them into a commodity?

[Tansy_Gold]

7. first of all, how do you know those cave people didn't charge

admission to see their paintings?

Second of all, they didn't have to cough up cold hard cash for the light bill, gas in the car, a mortgage payment, school books, etc.


As someone who made money off copyrighted "creations," I think there are valid reasons in our modern (or even post-modern) age to maintain reasonable copyright and patent protections. Artists still gotta eat.

But even in the thrill of creative endeavor, there is a desire to retain the ownership of the creation and protect it from others.

An acquaintance of mine some years ago published a novel. Her name was Sylvie Sommerfield and the historical romance novel was titled "Fires of Surrender." She was paid a fair amount of money for it, and then it was discovered, by myself and others, that Ms. Sommerfield's book was not only virtually identical in plot and plot details to a book published some 40-odd years before, but that numerous passages were lifted verbatim on page after page after page. The original book, "The Hepburn" by Jan Westcott, was long out of print but Ms. Westcott was still alive and the copyright on her book was still in force.

So are you saying that someone like Ms. Sommerfield -- or her publisher -- should have been free to make money with no restrictions?

Are you saying that radio and tv stations and networks should be able to sell commercial air time for big bucks and play music 24/7 without ever paying a penny to the artists and composers who produced it?

Maybe teachers should just teach for hte love of teaching and not get paid, too. And computer programmers should program just for the joy of creating a new program and not expect to get paid. And doctors should spent eight or ten or twenty years of their lives and go deep into debt just so they can give away their services for free.

I can almost always tell when someone is a happy pirater of creative work -- they're the ones who bleat the loudest that creative people should just do it for the fun of it.


Fuck that noise. Artists of all creative endeavors should be adequately compensated.



Tansy Gold, (usually starving) artist

[whoneedstickets]

33. You must hate libraries.

I don't think someone else should be able to profit from an artist's work. The artist, sure --- perform, and if I like it I'll pay to see you. But I'm not convinced that once something is published, produced, displayed or sold that sharing that material is evil.

[Tansy_Gold]

37. Sharing is not the same thing as making copies

Duh.

[Occulus]

47. Bittorrent. n/t

[whoneedstickets]

53. Copying is sharing of the highest sort...

I share with you without depriving myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=relmfu

[davidinalameda]

8. wanting to make a living is greed?

[Tansy_Gold]

11. Apparently.

:wtf:

[inademv]

32. Digital pirate's honor code

If a product is worthy of your money then purchase it to support the creator. If it is not, then nothing is lost to pirate it because you would not have been a customer anyways.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

69. I Can Tell You This

The list of albums and movies that I downloaded, enjoyed, and then went out and bought is long and distinguished. And I'm just talking about music and movies that I had absolutely no intention of seeing/listening to before I downloaded them. So, downloading has actually produced MORE money for QUALITY artists than simply sticking the items on the shelves and hoping I find them.

On the other hand, let's consider the number of times I've gone out and bought an album and found out that there was one good song on it and the rest was utter crap. With the advent of downloading, now I discover the crap albums BEFORE I buy them so I don't waste my money. So, the only artists who are being hurt are the ones who produce crap. And do we really want to perpetuate them?

See, it all balances out in the end.

[inademv]

3. I assume you're talking to people who ONLY pirate media?

Personally I buy media that I like to support the creators (note: with games and music I try to bypass the publishing company whenever I can and buy direct from the creator).

I guess to answer your question, how the fuck do you pirate a book, drug, or invention?

[davidinalameda]

19. someone patents a drug or invention

basically the same thing as copyrighting music or a book

a company or individual puts their own "version" of something out there and the original inventor gets screwed over

how would you feel if you spent years trying to perfect something and someone comes along and steals it out from underneath of you

how would you feel if you spent however long to create a song, piece of art, etc and someone comes along and slaps their name on it

[Edweird]

27. Wait. What? You really have no idea how that whole 'digital copying' thing works, do you?

Nobody sharing a music CD on pirate bay is claiming it as their own - no one else would want it. Furthermore, nothing is for sale, only available to be shared.

[inademv]

29. Patents and copyright only apply reasonably to distribution

If someone sees a neat invention and builds on for themselves would you consider them a pirate? If they are producing it for themselves and not for sale then I fail to see the problem on any level (also happens to be the view of the courts).

If a drug is so simple to synthesize that the average person can do it then yeah, I have absolutely no problem with that.

I think that you need to better define what you mean by "pirate" if you are applying the term equally to people who produce facsimiles of a product or copy data and people who reproduce data or products without permission for personal profit.

[Toucano]

4. Honestly, the best of music, movies and other performing arts come from those who

enjoy the least of what you call an "incentive".

I don't advocate piracy (really? that's being a PIRATE?). But I do think the copyright laws have become ridiculously long and complicated.

I also don't really see the difference between borrowing a movie from a friend next door and borrowing parts of it from a few dozen friends on the internet.

If you're not SELLING it for profit, are you really a PIRATE?

What about a book?

I bought a book and read it. Are you saying I can't GIVE IT to someone else?

You might benefit from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[speltwon]

5. That's a specious analogy

If you buy a book and loan it to somebody else, you no longer have the book. You can do the same thing with software. Theft is theft. And yes, I admit it - I hacked into a few Apple II programs using Nibble away!

[Toucano]

38. Not specious at all. Your issue is that I RETAIN a copy of the material?

I lend a copy of a movie to my neighbor on Tuesday. He watches it and returns it to me on Friday. I still retain my copy, but now my neighbor doesn't need to buy a copy - she's already seen it.

Now poor Tom Cruise can't pay his property taxes and it's all my fault! How on Earth will Brangelina ever afford to adopt another African baby, having now been so aggregiously injured by my crime? Won't someone think of the children?!

Second scenario:

I go to a concert hall and I hear a lovely song played on an acoustic guitar.

I go home and figure out the chords and now I'm reproducing a copyrighted material without paying the publisher. The source copy is still retained by the musician I saw at the concert, and now a new copy exists in my home.

Call out the FBI, I've just violated the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution!!! How will the creative arts flourish now that the composer has lost his exclusive right to his work! No one will ever write another song if they know people can reproduce it without paying for it.

If you think that's silly, have a look at the life of Stephen Foster.


Scenario third:

I stop at the airport and buy a MAGAZINE...I read it on my flight and GIVE it to the lady sitting next to me.

She's not paid a dime to feast her eyes on that copyrighted material. A second pair of eyeballs have now absorbed the 2,000 some advertisements contained therein without paying the $4.95 cover price.

How will the poor publisher SURVIVE!!

The lady who has the magazine hops on a connecting flight where she and her evil, anti-creativity heart gifts the magazine to a third person who expresses an interest in viewing the ungodly quantity of perfume ads.

And our poor suffering publisher sustains yet MORE DAMAGES!!

If the corporate owners of creative materials want to control exclusive access to the use of their products, they can't put them out on the street. Don't want people seeing your movie without paying admission? Don't throw copies of it into a bin at Wal-Mart with 400 other movies, all stamped $2.97. If it has value to you, treat it like it does...otherwise the courts shouldn't get involved.



The current law extends rights that exceed Congress's constitutional authority on the matter.

[speltwon]

58. Those are fine, and in fact in the trade are often referred to as "book loan" copyright

Iow, if you buy something, whether it be a book, an MP3, a painting, a video game, whatever... you can loan it to anybody. If and when you do, you don't have use of it while you do. They can loan it back to you. You can sell it or loan it. What you can't do is retain a copy for your use AND distribute it. Just like a book.

And this isn't about Brangelina. It's about every single person involved in the creation of the product. Your dismissive coments are very telling at the lack of respect you afford people and their property.

Just because property is available in a digital format doesn't change this basic fact of ownership. Obviously, with a painting, it's a non-issue, but just because the medium doesn't allow you to magically copy the actual brush strokes of the painting on to another campus and you CAN do that with a movie, etc. doesn't give you the right to duplicate it for theft purposes.

[Toucano]

73. True. I have no respect for the property of multi-national billion dollar corporations.

You're talking about the law and I'm not...the law changes whenever Mickey Mouse gets a hard-on.

What I'm talking about (what I thought the question of the OP was talking about) was the principle involved. How are people ever going to write a song or a movie if they don't have the promise of being multi-millionaires, I think it was.

Regardless of what the law says, if I give you a book and you read it without paying the publisher, you have benefited from the creative work of someone without rewarding them financially. You've caused them a "loss of revenue" with your "piracy".

You seem to think people download a movie and keep it forever. They don't. They download it, watch it, pass it on the minimum number of times to keep their ratio high and then delete it. People have limited storage capacity and you'll see the number of seeders drop off within weeks of peaking.

The data is just passing through their system, much like the book being passed from person to person.

The medium of distribution does make a difference.

If you want the benefits of mass distribution, you're going to have to live with consequences. If you want absolute control, show your movie in cinemas where you can control access. Play your records in arenas where you can charge admission.

Believe me. They've done the math and decided the benefits of electronic distribution far outweigh the risks. There's no way they'll get 300 million people into a cinema to see a movie, but you might move 300 million DVD's.

The 10 highest grossing films of all time have all been released (except Titanic) in the last 10 years, well within the file sharing era.

Similar statistics exist for other media as well.

File sharing hasn't caused any great bleeding of creative output.

[Shiver]

59. There are flaws in all of your scenarios.

First scenario: You neighbor may have enjoyed the movie, and may wish to have a copy for himself. Borrowing movies or books is a major way in which I discover things that I like and want to purchase for myself. The copy I have borrowed has already been purchased - however, if your neighbor goes and downloads the film off of pirate bay, then they are creating an illegal copy of the movie, a copy which has not been paid for.

Second scenario: Are you making money off of playing that song? The original performer was. They wrote the music and recorded it, and they make money off of selling copies of the recording and from ticket sales to their performances. Are you claiming the song as your own? Are you making money off of performing it or selling CDs of yourself playing it? Knowing how to play a song is different from making money by playing it, or claiming that you wrote it.

Third scenario: Once again, you purchased the magazine. What you do with it, who you allow to read it, is entirely up to you. The product has already been paid for. Every copy of a magazine you see on the shelf has already been purchased by the store that carries it, and so when you purchase it, you're buying it from the store. And since most of the magazine's profits are made from ad sales, putting the ads in front of more people who might potentially buy what they see within is completely to the publishers benefit. This is why the store gets upset if you stand around reading the magazines but never buying them, but that could also be because it could be considered loitering. If the stores doesn't make a profit on the magazines, then they stop carrying that magazine, and the publisher loses circulation and likely on ad revenue as well. That woman you shared the magazine with? After she gave it to someone else, she might have decided to buy her own copy.

Although, honestly, the magazine example is very flawed. The first two present actual potential issues, but the third doesn't. If it was a problem, you'd see magazine publishers cracking down on dentist offices and waiting rooms for spreading copyright material. As long as your not stealing what's in the magazine and passing it off as your own, or making copies of the magazine and selling it for profit, then it's not copyright infringement.

[Toucano]

74. Not that complicated

In your first scenario, why do you want to purchase something you've already enjoyed? I don't need the clutter, thanks very much. I might want to see a movie or hear a song...I don't need to own a copy of it. Why make a copy of it at all?

Second scenario - none of the above. I simply denied the publisher a sale of sheet music by listening to the song and figuring out the chords myself. I can enjoy it for years to come and they'll never get one red cent! Bwaah ha ha ha! Crafty, ain't I? Arr!

Third scenario - So I buy a "copy" of a movie at Wal-Mart...I paid for it and now I go home and share it with 10,000 of my dearest friends. The store got the money, so just like the magazine, I paid for it. I watched it and passed it along. I'm not going to watch it a second time, so I sell it at a yard sale, but some of my friends are like you and now that they've seen it, they want to "own" a copy so they decide to go out and buy their own copy. What's the difference between that and a magazine? Between that and lending a neighbor a DVD? All three scenarios have denied the creator revenue

My point is, there's a lot of inconsistency in the way we regard copyrighted material. The law is a meaningless separate issue - meaningless because it's written by lawyers and lobbyists at Disney - but our ideas about why sometimes the loss of revenue is totally acceptable and other times it's "piracy" are curious.

A loss of revenue is a loss of revenue with or without the Internet.

[davidinalameda]

15. there's a big difference

between giving your friend your copy of a book or CD and posting it on line for thousands or millions of people to have access to it

[Toucano]

44. Really? What's the limit of friends that I should be allowed to have?

I give my book to a friend who gives it to a friend who gives it to a friend who gives it to a friend...

At what point to the damages suffered by the publisher become "piracy"? Is 10 times too many? 100?

So, you're okay if I record a television program that was broadcast FREE of CHARGE and then seed a torrent of it to 10 people? But I got to jail if 11 people download it?

What if I record a television program that was broadcast FREE of CHARGE and then invite 20 people to my house to watch it? They don't pay admission and it's BYOB. Do I go directly to jail or can I stop by Park Avenue first?

I'm 100% certain NO ONE is seeding anything to thousands or millions of people.

[Tansy_Gold]

51. whenyou make it available to more than one person AT A TIME

that is the equivalent of making a copy.

If you lend your single copy of a book, magazine, or DVD to someone, you have not made any additional copies. If you want to invite 1,000 people into your home to watch it all at the same time, you have not made any additional copies.

Once you make it available to more than one person at a time, that's copying, and you don't have the right to copy.



TG

[davidinalameda]

66. are you so sure about that

a Bloomberg article states that there are hundreds of piracy sites on the net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-20/music-piracy-is-rampant-even-as-record-labels-license-more-online-services.html

for argument's sake, let's put the number at a hundred

ten people steal a song that's posted on a site-that's only ten people but multiply that by a 100 and you have a thousand people stealing a song

that's a loss of revenue for the artist, the songwriter, and the company that has spend money promoting the song and the artist

[Toucano]

72. If "loss of revenue" is the determining factor, why isn't my gifting you a book piracy?

If I've read the book, I don't want it back. My friend reads the book without paying the author an additional fee and gives it to another person. That person reads the book without paying any additional fee and gives it to another person.

This is clearly a loss of revenue for the publisher, but no one has ever been charged with piracy for giving a book away.

All these responses seem to be very concerned with the concept of "ownership". What makes you all think everyone wants to "own" a movie or a book?

People give away magazines, books, movies...they even re-sell their books, DVDs and CDs at yard sales, thereby causing a loss of revenue to the poor beset upon studio and record company.

I don't see anyone being served with citations at their yard sale.

[Lucian]

9. Stupid argument.

-1

If people really loved making music, then they'd do it for the hell of it, not to make money like the greedy humans they are.

How is downloading music different than taping it off the radio? What if I gave my copy of my book to a friend?

:banghead: for the stupidity.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. No, not stupid

"copyright" means the right to make a copy.

If you tape a song off the radio or dupe a CD, you are making a copy that you do not have the right to.

If you give your friend your copy of a book, you no longer have it and you have not made a copy of it, so you have not infringed on the author's copyright.

What do you do for a living? Whatever it is, how come you don't do it for free just for the joy of doing it? Oh, you gotta eat and pay the car insurance? So do musicians and composers, artists and writers.



Tansy Gold

[Edweird]

17. Except that musicians DON'T OWN THE COPYRIGHT. The record label does.

[Lucian]

20. And the record labels can go and fuck themselves.

[Aerows]

35. Which is the point...

...a bunch of people are missing here. I am creative because I enjoy it, and it is an outlet. If others find value in it, by appreciating it, it encourages me to do better things, and be more ambitious.

If I have to write for someone that governs my message, and controls what I do, what am I doing it for?

[Lucian]

18. I don't think you have any idea how they make their money.

Do you know where most musicians make their money? From ticket sales and merchandise, not by selling CD's.

You should probably do your homework before getting in an argument you won't win.

[Tansy_Gold]

36. Look, honey, I did my homework probably before you were born

It makes absolutely no difference where musicians make their money, whether from ticket sales (concerts and other performances are also protected by copyright if they're recorded) or from merchandise sales (also copyright protected).

Musicians can only copyright their actual performance and then only when it is fixed in tangible, publishable form (meaning, recorded). Composers and lyricists copyright their portion of the total package and collect royalties (if the product isn't PD), and so do the arrangers and producers. Out of all that, you have the techies and support staff who get a non-royalty cut.

Performances (music, theatre, dance, etc.) that are not recorded are not protected by copyright; they're just there and then gone.

What you and pirates like you really want is to be able to have your pleasure for free at someone else's expense. You probably think that because some performing artists make gazillions of bucks you should be able to steal from all artists, all musicians, all performers, all writers, all directors, all actors. You want it, and you think merely wanting it gives you a right to it.

I'm sorry, but in my book (pun intended) that's the attitude of an aristo who has no respect for the effort that goes into creating the work (pun also intended) that you think you should have for free.

You probably don't have a clue what kind of struggle most artists have trying to get any recognition at all for their work, much less pay for it. Doesn't matter if it's a novel, a poem, a song, a play, a painting, a sculpture, a fucking greeting card. You think it's all fun and effortless creative joy and you want it done for YOUR pleasure.

You have no idea how hard it is, or you wouldn't be DEMANDING that artists give you the fruits of their labor with no compensation.

As I said, fuck that noise.


Tansy Gold

[Aerows]

41. Plenty of people

already offer the fruits of their labor with no compensation.

No demanding necessary. If people enjoy it, that IS compensation for many, and you would be surprised how many people will offer compensation and other things just for the joy of enjoying your work.

You are welcome to a different opinion, but don't be surprised to learn that slick packaging is meaning less and less these days in a world where just about anyone can be their own publisher and do it for the joy of just doing it.

Money tends to come in, and you tend to be good at things when you do them solely because you enjoy doing them.

[Tansy_Gold]

48. It is one thing to choose to give your work away for free

with no intention of any monetary ROI. It's quite another to give it away for free and then say "Money tends to come in." If you're not doing it for the money, but you're taking the money. . . . doesn't compute.

However, it is quite another thing to take the work of someone who HAS copyrighted their work and DOES want to protect it, and then demand that you be allowed to take it for free.

It's quite obvious that there are people in this discussion who don't have a clue as to what "copyright" means. Sharing a magazine with one or two or ten other people is not a violation of copyright. Sharing a DVD with your neighbor and then getting it back from her is not a violatiobn of copyright. Borrowing a book from the public library is not a violation of copyright.

1. Most slick magazines ('slick' because of the shiny paper they're printed on) are loaded with advertisements, and it's the revenue from those ads that cover the bulk of the actual printing and distribution costs. Subscription prices are, to a certain extent, just to keep people from getting it for free. Yes, I know. But magazine advertisers WANT those magazines shared, so the ads can be seen by as many people as possible.

2. "Copyright" is a concept almost exclusively relative to the modern age, when mass copying of anything became economically feasible. First through printing, then through photography and phonography, then film and video, etc. As the word implies, the law pertains to the legal right to make additional copies of the work in question. The owner of that right can choose to give it up, but as long as they hold it legally, they cannot be forced to relinquish it. Anyone who usurps that right is guilty of copyright infringement.

3. It doesn't make so much difference the the copier isn't attempting to make money off the deal; the fact that the money they are "saving" rightfully belongs to someone else is what makes it a "crime." If my friend paints a lovely picture and without her permission I make prints of it to give to my other friends as Christmas cards, I'm not making any money from it, but I've deprived her of HER right to make money off it.

4. Most artists don't make a helluva lot of money. There are always a few in each medium -- whether it's music or movies or TV or books or whatever -- who make huge amounts, but a few are lucky to be self-supporting and most don't even reach that level. Copyright law is there to protect the 99.5% who work just as hard as the stars but don't get the rewards.

5. Anyone who chooses to be creative and give their work away should have the right to do so. But I think those who do should still respect the rights of those who choose to use their art to make a living and have the best of both worlds.


Tansy Gold

[Aerows]

50. Well,

don't be surprised if more and more people turn away from spending money on your work if there is someone else whose work they can enjoy for free.

It's not all "pirating" that is the problem. A lot of it is that too many people attempt to shovel their work rather than put the effort into being creative, and there are too many other outlets that allow for expression of, and enjoyment of, that creativity.

You are on the biggest outlet for human creativity that has ever happened, because it is so freely available.

My comment was not that it was wrong to charge for your work, but the excuse that 100% (or even 50%) of the problem is pirating is not valid, in my opinion. You are competing now with people who are also creative, and work to refine that creativity, and freely share it.

The business model for arts, particularly the media arts, has got to change.

[Edweird]

70. You have no idea how the music industry works. None.

Musicians sign away the rights to their music in exchange for distribution/promotion/exposure. Once the ink is dry on the recording contract, they no longer have the rights to those recordings. With a few exceptions, musicians generally never see any money from royalties - unit sales don't provide them any money. Copying a CD DOES NOT HARM THE MUSICIAN. Exposure is the name of the game, and 'sharing' music does just that. It also eliminates the corporate stranglehold which is why CORPORATIONS are against 'sharing'.

[Edweird]

42. So why was Paul McCartney mad at Michael Jackson?

[Lucian]

45. Your argument became meaningless to me after you called me "honey."

[Tansy_Gold]

49. I figured it would.

That's why I do it, honey.

[dionysus]

67. in the case of music, it's ripping off the record company far more than the artist, but if one has

any respect for the artist, they should support them by going to their shows.

after years of outrageously inflated CD prices, i think i've paid the record companies enough.

courtney love had a great manifesto on this.

pirating software, like games and stuff, might have a bigger impact on the bottom line of those who created them.

[Forkboy]

12. I can't love them if I don't know them.

For the egotistical artists out there.

Serious answer: It comes down to two options for me, and for the artist/band as well. I have literally no extra spending money, so I can either download a movie or a CD, and then spread the word to others anf get others into the band/movie, or I can not see/hear it at all, and hence never say anything good about it, never buy any merch at a show, never recommend it to others, never share the fun that is sharing music.

[grahamhgreen]

14. +1

See below

[Forkboy]

21. If I had the dough I'd buy everything.

But I don't. But when I see something cool I spread the word far and wide. I may not buy your CD, but I'll get 10 other people into it. :)

[Edweird]

24. Skip the CD and go to a live show and buy a t-shirt.

[Forkboy]

43. I try to do just that.

The band The Melvins have a great approach to it. They know that many will download the CD, so they make all kinds of special posters and special hand crafted CD cases that will appeal to the hardcore collector. They sell a ton of special items on tour to make up for the lost CD sales.

[grahamhgreen]

13. A lot of people have pirated my film,

See below.... Google it, its all over the torrents.

Some people simply cant afford it, but they can provide great word of mouth marketing....

[davidinalameda]

22. I'll start selling it under my name then

[Edweird]

23. That's a whole other can of worms than just duplicating for personal use.

[Occulus]

34. He knows that very well.

He's equating the two for deeply black, anti-creative, anti-public-domain political purposes.

[Toucano]

46. That's not the argument at all.

And you know it.

[davidinalameda]

65. it's part of the argument

as I said in my original post-what's the incentive for creating new works

if some think that artists should create for the joy of it, who's to stop someone else from slapping their name on it and selling it as their own

[Generic Other]

31. I am a rank amateur making machinima but I love googling myself

and getting so many hits. My videos get shared! I don't expect to make a penny off my creativity. But I am vain enough to adore seeing my work all over. I don't think money would give me half as much pleasure.

[Edweird]

16. Musicians generally don't make squat off unit sales - the record label does.

Musicians make their money off live shows and merchandise. Pirating actually HELPS musicians. It's the new 'radio'.

[elias49]

64. Quite right!

[HEyHEY]

25. Chumps like you paying for it?

:P

[Aerows]

30. The incentive...

...of not having to cater to a publisher that cripples their creativity. See, some of us like doing it for the old fashioned reason - because we want to share ourselves.

[TygrBright]

39. Possibly for the same reason the Creative Commons copyright is becoming...

...the most popular copyright on the Internet.

Website designers and SEO gurus have known it for a long time now: The very best way to "monetize" your site is to give a lot of stuff away free.

curiously,
Bright

[Modern_Matthew]

40. All creative work is derivative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

[Ramulux]

52. The same one they already have

Music piracy hasn't bankrupted any musician or filmmaker that didn't deserve it. Music piracy simply means that people will be able to try products before they choose to buy them, thereby making shitty products less successful and good products more successful.

All piracy is is "borrowing" on an international level.

[Rex]

54. I've was against pirarting long before I was for it...no wait

I was for it long before I was...hmmm...what is pirarting? Is that like para-sailing or more like volcanic pottery!? Please tell me so I can give my expert opinion on the matter and DU will be smurter for it! :rofl:

[pacalo]

55. For new music I don't mind paying for it on the internet; I think it's the right thing to do.

However, the music I like is from the '60's & '70's -- not top sellers today, so back before iTunes & Amazon began selling music, I saw nothing wrong with downloading songs from KaaZa. I'm talking about songs you've probably never heard of, like "Walking My Cat Named Dog" by Norma Tanega & "Girl Don't Come" by Sandy Shaw. Now that there are sites online that sell songs, I don't mind paying for them, but if some of the artists are no longer with us, I question where the money goes.

[curiousabout...]

56. They wouldn't.

Let's face it, they will stop if they aren't making profit.

[BlueCheese]

57. Very little.

Only the independently wealthy or altruistic would create things. If the Beatles could only sell one copy of each album, to a customer who then shared it with everyone in the world, would we have their music today? Of course not.

[uncle ray]

60. i dunno, what's it worth to ya?

[NuclearDem]

61. I don't get paid to write stories, or work on game mods

As long as credit is given where credit is due, I don't care.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. What Would Radiohead Do?

They'd release an album and ask people to pay what they thought it was worth to download it. And then warn new artists not to tie themselves to traditional record labels, which are greedy old dinosaurs...

[Anakin Skywalker]

63. Don't need more Jonas Brothers and Justin Beibers of the world!

[ChoppinBroccoli]

68. You What You Sound Like?

The Bill O'Liellys of the world who claim that if we tax the rich too much, they'll just all quit their jobs, retire, and/or just plain stop doing whatever it is they do that contributes to society. Are YOU moved by that argument? Does it have the ring of truth to you? Nah, me neither.

I know this topic has been rehashed a million times, but the fact remains that the very same arguments were raised about a CENTURY ago when radio stations playing music over the airwaves was going to bankrupt the music industry. Why would anyone ever pay for an album or a single when they could just hear it for free on the radio? So first you have to shut down all the radio stations.

And let me ask you this: did the fact that public libraries give away books for free to anyone who wants to read them put authors and/or bookstores out of business? If that were true, you'd NEVER see a money-whore like Sarah Failin churning out book after book. People still write books because DESPITE the "interference with profit" that libraries pose, books still sell. Libraries will let you borrow music and movies too nowadays. Better shut them down too.

Did video/DVD rental stores put the movie business under back when the home VCR became prominent? Better shut them down too.

Do the existence of art museums, where people can view great works of art WITHOUT buying them, mean that there is no such thing as the sale of art anymore?

When I was in high school back in the '80s, the big thing was to make copies of albums to share with your friends. People still do that to this day. I'll burn a CD of one of my albums so my wife can listen to it in the car. I'll put some of my iTunes on my wife's iPod. Should I be labeled a "thief" and treated like a criminal?

The fact of the matter is that every time technology changes, the various artistic industries panic, and then they figure out how to operate WITHIN the new framework. The first step is for these industries to stop blatantly treating the general public like a money-delivery system (we hold our hands out and YOU peons fill them!!!)

And what about people like me? I'm a musician (not professional--I just enjoy playing in my basement). Does this mean that every time I pull out the old Les Paul and hammer out a Metallica tune, Lars Ulrich will show up on my doorstep demanding "tree-fitty"? Where, exactly, does it end?

Now, maybe I'm not "the norm" when it comes to music downloading, but when I download a really good album, I then go out and buy it. If the album is crap, I delete it. And I only STARTED downloading music because more times than I care to recall, I would take my hard-earned money, plunk down ten bucks or more for an album I thought I would like, take it home, and then find out it only had the one good song on it and all the rest was filler/crap. So, the only artists who should fear downloading are the ones who intend to fleece their consumers by giving them 10-song albums with only one good song on them. So, again, the only artists who have anything to fear are the ones who produce crap.

[JuniperLea]

71. If they only create for money, I'd say they are lame anyway...

I can't imagine being inspired by money alone, that to me seems hypocritical to the art. Music, and other arts, tend to be soul driven when they are good, and everyone I know who creates art does it for the love of the craft. But they should be paid for their intellectual property, no question.

I test drive cars and music, and I only buy those I like. There are some artists that hold a special place in my heart and I will always buy their latest works unheard... those are rare. And then there are some albums I've bought multiple times... vinyl, cassette, disc... and if I've owned an album for 40 years I have no guilt nabbing it again electronically.

"If my songs become my freedom, and my freedom turns to gold,
Then I'll ask the final question, if the answer could be sold"

[Prometheus Bound]

75. I price my product low enough that it isn't worth copying.

I go for volume. What's the point of pricing something so high only 20% of the potential customers can afford it?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Aaarhh! String the pirartes up from nearest yardaarm!

[Shagbark Hickory]

79. Lots and lots of sex. Endless sex.

I don't pirate music, etc so I don't know if my answer will count but I suggest that they can charge less for the music and movies because they can probably make several million dollars less per year and still be doing ok.
People in entertainment don't seem to have grasped the concept of value.