Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
steal this book/movie/song.
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

mirtchevman
mirtchevman
1725 posts

Re: steal this book/movie/song.

jauntymonty wrote:
mirtchevman wrote:
matthew6 wrote:
I am not even sure if is a problem at this point... rather it's just the reality


oh, i agree w/ you -- i don't believe it's a real 'problem' either. if anything, it might be a solution of some kind...



Artist are on the right track with selling their works on their own web site. Passing out free CDs at a concert is not a bad way to circulate your wares as well, assuming, dare I say, the artist included the CD distribution in their ticket price.


i agree -- it gives them a lot more control over the product and the bottom line.

May 14, 2010, 18:20


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

mirtchevman
mirtchevman
1725 posts

Re: steal this book/movie/song.

cyberpainter wrote:
mirtchevman wrote:
s_lush_s wrote:
I can fathom it.
I don't think the artists make all that much money. I think that's more myth.


movie celebrities are what i consider glorified performance artists -- and they make way too much money and wield way too much influence. there's no myth to that. and with that monetary and social wealth comes an inflated and absurd sense of self-importance. i love to watch the oscars just to laugh at these people. the downfall of that ridiculous empire can't come soon enough...



Ok, but mirtch, are you grouping visual artists, musicians, writers, and actors together in previous posts? The "entertainment" industry is not the same as some writer, visual artist, or musician, most of which are not celebrities or making millions off their work.


i'm sorry, i didn't notice this post earlier. you're correct, cyber -- i should have differentiated between celebrities and working class artists. my earlier statement was in reference to the brad pitts and justin biebers of the world...

May 14, 2010, 20:16


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

rufus
rufus
82 posts

Re: Evolution?! lol

revox wrote:
.

Whatever the language you choose to dress this up in, plagiarism and theft are two sides of the same coin.



Our language is exactly what allows you to categorise these together.
Plagiarism is passing object X (created by A) off as your own creation. Theft is taking object X off A and keeping it for yourself. The current form of "theft" (internet piracy, quite similar to the old fashioned taping but far more ubiquitous) is different. It is copying A's object X without paying.
The interchangeability of words enables people to say they are all the same. They are not the same.
Whether copying without paying is okay is a separate issue.

May 30, 2010, 01:07


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Food for thought 1: Promotion

I have no figures to prove this but back in the 80's, I heard that Guns n roses sold more t-shirts than albums. This would mean that either people had the tshirt and never heard the music or they had the record and bought heaps of tshirts or people taped the record and bought the tshirt. Perhaps there is more than one way to make money.

May 30, 2010, 02:11


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Food for thought 2: exaggerated figures

The figures suggested by the entertainment industry seem to be based on the idea that every illegal download equals a lost sale. Given that, I would have spent about 30000 USD over the last two years on music.

May 30, 2010, 02:14


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Food for thought 3: fair pay

I have said this before but it is worth restating. We don't pay people much to make clothes, grow food etc. Perhaps the time has come when we don't pay people much to make movies or record records.

May 30, 2010, 02:17


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Food for thought 1: Inheritance

I don't quite know how any true capitalist could support the idea of people inherting wealth. Surely true capitalism would be repulsed at the idea that somebody gets money for nothing (and I am not talking about being a lazy boss). I am talking about the children of creative people getting money from the hard work of their ancestors. Surely money should only go to those who earn it. If a capitalist starts to allow wealth to go to associates, friends or family, then they could start to extend that principal to society in general. If lazy, good-for-nothings can get money simply by association then surely a community can get money too. Given that capitalists reject the idea that anyone deserves wealth without effort they will reject the extension to family. Given this, the cost of records by dead artists should not include anything other than money going to those who made it and the cost of manufacture. So beatles records should be about half price, elvis records very cheap, Tyrannosaurus Rex albums near free but this is not the case. Why? Because the capitalist system allows for socialist principles such as common wealth.

May 30, 2010, 02:28


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Food for thought 5: licensing

The last entry should have been #4.

I (stupidly) purchased Moby's album play in 1999. He subsequently stole the album off me by licensing every single song off it. I was deprived of any chance of a personal experience of that record as it was used in advertisements everywhere.

"According to Wired magazine, the songs on Play "have been sold hundreds of times" wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_%28Moby_album%29#Licensing_of_songs

I am not going to enter into the sampling aspect of the record.

May 30, 2010, 03:46


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5935 posts

Re: Food for thought 3: fair pay

hito wrote:
I have said this before but it is worth restating. We don't pay people much to make clothes, grow food etc. Perhaps the time has come when we don't pay people much to make movies or record records.


We don't pay people much. They're mass produced, so albums and movies don't cost much. When they aren't mass produced, like individual works of art, they are priced higher of course.

May 30, 2010, 07:58


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5935 posts

Re: Food for thought 1: Inheritance

hito wrote:
I don't quite know how any true capitalist could support the idea of people inherting wealth. Surely true capitalism would be repulsed at the idea that somebody gets money for nothing (and I am not talking about being a lazy boss). I am talking about the children of creative people getting money from the hard work of their ancestors. Surely money should only go to those who earn it. If a capitalist starts to allow wealth to go to associates, friends or family, then they could start to extend that principal to society in general. If lazy, good-for-nothings can get money simply by association then surely a community can get money too. Given that capitalists reject the idea that anyone deserves wealth without effort they will reject the extension to family. Given this, the cost of records by dead artists should not include anything other than money going to those who made it and the cost of manufacture. So beatles records should be about half price, elvis records very cheap, Tyrannosaurus Rex albums near free but this is not the case. Why? Because the capitalist system allows for socialist principles such as common wealth.


If I have money I should be able to give or leave it to who I choose. Why should some stranger have more right to someone's money than one's own family? Capitalism doesn't reject wealth without effort which is the basis for your argument. That is false. It's based on getting whatever the market will bear. Effort plays very little part in worth.

May 30, 2010, 08:02

Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index