I knew as soon as I finished posting that someone would 'educate' me and point out that what I was saying wasn't what the sites did. It was simply poor wording on my part. I know that Pirate Bay doesn't provide the stuff people download, it is all peer-to-peer. My point was, even though the Pirate Bay dude(s) got arrested, you could still go to the site and do exactly what you did before.

Congrats on not being a thief and not using torrent sites for anything illegal, Tarot. You are the one person out of a billion who has never done anything illegal with regards to Torrents. My sincere apologies for even accusing you of doing so. I should have known better. And for the record, I, too, have downloaded games and later purchased them (do I need to post a picture?!#). I'd still say that the main purpose 99.9% of the people who use sites like Pirate Bay involves getting something that they did not pay for. You excluded, of course.

That's the rub now isn't it? 99.9%? Hyperbole for the win. The folks who are stealing it can generally be considered as something other than lost sales, as they likely wouldn't have bought it in the first place. But there are many of us who aren't lost sales. Most recently I picked up GTA - Chinatown after putting it on my flash cart because it was such an amazing game. I didn't think it would be as good as it was, and likely wouldn't have bought it otherwise. There are more of the folks like us than you think.

Don't get me wrong, I think companies can, and do, lose money because of this shit. But you know what? The VAST majority of games I download are because I don't want DRM or some other such bullshit preventing me from installing it as often as I please. In the cases of exceptional developers I will make an exception (the recent Riddick release for example) in order to support smaller studios. This is a two way street in regards to business models, and it needs to change on both sides for it to work. This kneejerk lawsuit shit (along with treating paying customers like criminals) is NOT it.

Money is lost and money is gained, but the companies complaining loudest have done nothing to honestly determine just how much on each side. Instead of trying to make money from the technology, they file lawsuits asking for utterly insane amounts of money and threaten service providers instead.

TPB aren't white hats, but they're not the bad guys either. Every time I've had need for BitTorrent over the last few months, I've had problems.

Get an email from a band inviting me to download an album... sure, but my ISP whacks my internet connection.

Get asked by a colleague to download a free, open source security tool... sure, but I get suspicious looks from my company's IT department and shortly thereafter receive an email stating that use of unapproved P2P technologies are grounds for possible dismissal.

And this isn't just about bandwidth, despite what they say. It's also about protecting data and avoiding lawsuits.

If the people on the other end of the argument would use the technology to their benefit instead of relentlessly attacking it and its users, sites like TPB would be nothing more than minor annoyances.

I just downloaded Sid Meier's Pirates! for the 4th time yesterday. I bought the game when it came out retail and at some point lost the stupid POIUA-OS97-OSGSHOW-WOWNGA-I02874kj-jsskljoappoihag- KJLSHJG8886y Code that I had to enter every time I wanted to re-install the game. So, that rendered my disks useless, so now whenever I want to play the game, I have to download it via TPB.

_________________

I've seen some of the same arguments here that I see on classic brand emo kid forums. "I'm just trying it out" or "I lost my old CD". Sure, it's not precisely the same as outright keeping something without paying a cent, but exactly what is "stealing"? Since when have you been able to walk into a store, grab something and walk out with it without paying a dime to merely try it out? Sure - some companies allow that when they... /drumroll... give you an trial-based offer for their product. Try doing that though with any given product on a store, and then see what the police have to say when you suggest you were only demoing that washer and dryer than you dragged out of Home Depot. Still theft, because you're taking someone else's property without their permission.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not theft. Or were you just itching to use the "classic brand emo kid" thing?

Well, Tarot sorta is arguing it isn't theft.

And if I have to hear one more person argue "sharing media makes them more money" I will vomit. It is the copyright holder's right to decide that.

We don't let rapists say "I can teach them to like sex", right?

Indeed. I'm not sure how you could read the thread and miss that, Elessar.

Moreso I'm pointing out the fallacies of the justifications used, not solely the "I'm only demoing it" argument. Certainly poking fun at emo kids is a bonus, though!

I buy music from iTunes. 99 cents a song plus tax. I guess I don't belong in this theft/steal conversation...

I just find illegally downloading games/music/movies/etc morally and ethically wrong. Unfortunately I am in the minority on an internet ex-game message board, where it seems most users/posters feel it is perfectly fine to illegally download games and not give money to the makers/creators of said game (or any other form of entertainment). They are in the business to sell whatever they are selling- a song, a movie, a game. Our role in this transaction is to offer up our cash and, in return, receive some level of entertainment *hopefully*. If not then we move on.

I am sure all of us have spent money on something that was a waste. I am also sure that all of us have spent money on something that was so amazing that we could have spent 3x what we originally did and it still wouldn't be enough compensation for the amazing entertainment that it provided. So in the end it all evens out... kinda.

And I guess because I hopefully one day see myself in the entertainment industry (novelist) that I would hope that if my novel does become published that I, as an artist and creator, would be financially rewarded and compensated for the work I put into the novel. I would hate to lose out on thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of dollars because people illegally read my work. Call me elitist, call me greedy, whatever. I would have worked hard on my novel, and I would like to be properly compensated for its value. Is that wrong?

_________________

BTW since the thread has changed to illegal downloads... where is skycrasher

_________________

I'm also hoping to enter the entertainment industry as an animator (cartoons, not game animator), and here's the thing, my hope is for my shit to be available for free be it on youtube, vimeo, whatever. Now, how will I make money? After all, I need it to eat! And to keep making shit. And the answer is, add more shit to the product you are actually selling!

The real value of physical media, for me at least, is on the extras, especially now that legit content is available online for free (currently watching Buffy off Hulu). Sure, there's the better quality too that comes with DVDs and now Blu-Ray, but even that as technology advances will keep getting better digitally (or so I can dream). So, you are left with two things to do, waste your time trying to stop people from getting your shit illegally, or find creative ways to make them want to buy your stuff. DRM, and copy protections are not those ways. =P

Oh, and make sure your shit doesn't suck (no, I'm not saying it is ok to steal shit that sucks!). People don't like to spend money on stuff that blows either, yet when people really like something they are not hesitant to support it. Heck, sometimes people even bring stuff back form the grave with the power of their wallets. So yeah, trying to stop piracy by the current means the different entertainment industries are trying to stop it is a waste of time.

Cicely -- buy from amazon instead. no sales tax and you don't have to bother converting it to an mp3!

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

And if you use iTunes (like me~) it has an option of automatically adding the files to your iTunes library.

I couldn't give 2 shits if the entire music industry collapses tomorrow - artists and all.
People will always make music and want to share it with other people, for profit or not.

I probably haven't downloaded a single song in over a year. I mean, I have the entire known library of recorded music at my fingertips on the internet and honestly don't even feel like spending the time to download any of it.

I did download the shit out of the music videos from Stage6 before it shut down. 12 DVD's worth. Most of them were from other countries though(90%+)... does that even count? =)

_________________

How thoughtful of you.

He's like a poor man's Skycrasher. No pun intended.

Well, what is the point of the industry? Who cares? Some people won't make some money? Who cares? Britney can go flip burgers in Shreveport. Musicians always have and always will make music. The industry is pointless, and that is becoming more and more apparent as the years go by.

Thoughtful? How does that even make sense? Because I don't "care" about entertainment corporations? **eyeroll** oooook.

Do you think we get a better quality of music because of the free market? Do you honestly think that? What good does the money do other than make some people very, very wealthy?

P2P and the internet was the best thing to ever happen to music and people's enjoyment of it.


And yes Neesha, I see you. *head pat* I re-formatted my computer and haven't re-set the mod to block your virtual attempts to lick my sack. Jesus fucking christ, I will buy you a fucking ice-cream cone next time I see you, sport.

_________________

Cicely-- put up a poll. I think you'll find that you are wrong regarding this board. It's been my impression, especially as we've all gotten older, that most people on this board do not pirate intellectual property anymore, and do believe it to be stealing. I know that's the case for me.

Draagun-- you really want to fuck over millions of people because you don't like Brittany Spears? If someone likes to make music and can make money doing it, why do you think this is bad?

As a musician myself, I cannot understand why you think it would be a good thing for musicians to be unable to make a living. Why would you wish for the downfall of an entire industry? Did a musician beat you in a previous life or something?

And you are wrong, in some ways, about the assumption that "musicians can and will always make music." I often wonder how many fantastic musicians have been lost throughout civilization because those human beings were unable to develop their talent due to the lack of resources. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that there are a lot of people who die never knowing they even had that talent, because they spent their lives trying to survive in places where all of your efforts had to go toward finding your next meal.

I believe that music is a huge and vital part of our culture and most cultures on earth, and I believe it is our responsibility as a civilized country to find and cultivate musical people. I believe that the essence of copyright law is a good one-- that when someone creates a piece of music they should have the right to give away, sell, distribute, or withold their piece of music as they see fit. The apparent fact that you don't care about their rights to their property disappoints me.

Virtual attempts to lick sack? Ice cream cones? Does that even make sense to anyone?

In his defense, he didn't say it was "bad" for them to make money. He's just questioning the value of the big companies themselves and the millions they make off of selling crappy $15 CD's. He also didn't say that musicians shouldn't be able to make a living.

It's a good question though, IMO....if all those huge record companies did vanish tomorrow, would we still get new musicians and music? I'm sure we would.

That's what we're seeing, and what I want to see a whole lot more of. Elimination of the middle man.

This I can relate to.

By and large that's what I think Draagun was getting at, he's just not as...um, we'll say eloquent...about getting it across.

I completely agree that 15 dollars for a CD is too much. Heck, I don't buy hardcover books anymore because I think 18 dollars is too much for a new release hardcover. And like someone else stated, a lot of that is middleman mark ups for their own profit.

I have no issue with elimination of several layers of middlemen to lower the costs to the consumer. However it seems as though some people will still illegally download regardless of cost- and that is where I have the issue with.

I remember people like skycrasher (why is this the second time I mentioned his name, omg I have a bromance ) who would brag about downloading games on his 360. While I completely also agree that 60 dollars for a new 360 game is ridiculous... paying 0 dollars is wrong. There has to be a middle ground for everyone to be compensated, whether it be entertainment value or financial growth.

_________________

I think $15 for a CD is perfectly reasonable.

Only if every track is decent, and it has 15 tracks =P

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

And the only artists I would trust enough to make that guarantee would be The Eagles and AC/DC.

To me, 10 dollars is the maximum amout for a CD. I would say that the standard average one should be 7, and your higher end/more popular artists can go up to 10.

Games should be at 40 max, *maybe* 50 for your high end/popular releases like Halo, Gears, etc. Your standard good game should come in around 30 on initial release. And actually, your standard crap games start out at 20 (or lower) and I personally think that is a good starting rate for games like that.

Hardcover books should be no more than 12, I would say that 8-10 dollars is a great price for all new releases. Similar to a music CD, although it is debatable how much enjoyment/value one can get out of a CD compared to a novel. But to see a lot of hardcovers starting out close to 20 is too much IMHO.

Unfortunately it is the greed of many people that drives up prices (not counting demand and what people will actually pay). It sickens me to see athletes who make 10+ million a year want to renegotiate for 12 million per. Seriously? I guess I have never really cared that much about money in my life- I make money, I save some, I spend some, I try and live within my means. Whether I make 38k this year or 40k or 44k or 50k... /shrug. It is whatever it is. Maybe that makes me an idiot, I dunno. But I guess I place happiness far far more important than money, which isn't what a lot of people in today's age feel I think...

_________________

Talk about it from the other end. How much do you think a singer should be paid? What about the songwriter?

I disagree, but oh well.

If CDs only cost about $5 each, I would have owned a ton more. But, would they make money at that, I dunno.

I have no proof of this position, but the industry stuck it to people for so long and now they're getting theirs. /shrug

Like movies, I don't get why anyone bothers pirating them. Pay $20/month for Netflix and you're set.

I agree Orme, the price I like for albums is around 5-8 bucks. Then again, I don't buy physical CDs any more unless I really like the artist.

If you're trying to eliminate the middle men and huge record companies, why single out music? Name any given product and if there's enough money, the same thing will happen.

I'd just be curious why I don't see people stealing from the big retail store chains, particularly those with all the overpriced shit. I have a feeling I already know the answer: it's easier online and there's more anonymity.

It's a byproduct of large industries. There will always be bad eggs in those corporations, but take those out and you're not just affecting the fat cats. There are many relatively innocent people employed by them that would not otherwise be employed if music were as simple as - "Band record music. Band distribute music(online even)."

The relatively innocent people will find relatively innocent jobs elsewhere. Bands get paid only a small percentage of the money from record sales, so yeah, most small bands would benefit more from going independent and selling their shit online and earning more than a few pennies per song.

Really, the way technology is now there is no real need for "the middle man" in the music industry unless you want to be a super star.

Also, don't you think it is quite obvious why you don't see people stealing from big retail stores as often as people download illegal copies of digital files? It's simple, we don't apply the same values to physical objects as we do to digital ones. I'm sure if there was a way to magically clone my iPod infinite times there would be a lot of people getting a 'copy' while feeling no remorse compared to the people who would be okay with just snatching one off from a store.

It's pretty easy to say "they'll find jobs elsewhere" from the armchair. They might feel a tad different about that. Not giving a damn about many people's livelihoods isn't something I'd want to partake in.

Musicians are free to make the call on whether they want to distribute via different methods or not. Obviously some have chosen the corporate method and found some benefit to doing it that way.

We don't apply the same value to digital and physical objects, but if there were infinite iPods - yet they remained on store shelves for whatever reason, I'd still wonder how many people would actually steal them as opposed to simple online downloads. There are plenty of products in mass production whereby the maker of the products would never see a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of their bottom line changed if you stole several of their goods. Is that good enough to be "infinite" for the standards of this argument? Personally, I think so.

Even if the devaluation is really that great(even though some of the same people would hesitate to steal a stick of gum for moral reasons), you can't really ignore the fact that it's incredibly easy to steal things online, and it's more anonymous in comparison to the guy stealing from 7-11.

Some related thoughts that may be of interest: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/ ... ter_1.html

Whatever the market will bear. And if you listen to the record companies and their campaign to convince us all that piracy is putting them all in the poor house, apparently the price tag isn't very high!

(Yes, I know thats' not actually the case.)

Bullshit answer, and you know it. As a member of the market, sir, what do YOU believe someone who makes music for a living should be paid?

I'm not actually a member of said market, I have not purchased a CD, cassette, whatever for the last ~20 years.

I'm just not a huge music buff like some folks.

Fine-- avoid the question. You listen to music every single day (unless you never watch tv, never watch movies, and never turn on the radio), and I'm asking you how much those musicians and composers should be paid.

It's not a job at McDonalds, sir. There's no set value that they should be paid, that's really a dumb question and even if I DID have an answer, I probably would still avoid it.

/agree

He is correct- the market does determine how much an individual makes.

As a sports fan, it is an easy correlation to relate to. Heck, look at what happened to Manny Ramirez this past off season- he wanted a 4 yr/$120 mill contract. Not a single team even acknowledged this request. The Dodgers became the only team to even offer a contract- 2 yr/$45 mill. That is a HUGE difference from what he wanted, and what other teams were willing to pay. Most other semi-offers from other teams were 1 yr/$15-20 mill... and even then, they were never concrete offers.

There is a reason why a Britney Spears will make more than, say, Leonna Lewis. She is more popular, she is more in demand, she sells tickets, she sells merchandise, she is more iconic, people want to see/hear/talk about her more. The demand is there; thus, Spears gets the money. It has nothing to do with who is the better singer, or who has the better songs- it is all about demand.

My issue is the greed that these celebrities/stars have. Manny is whining about 45 mill cause he didn't get his 120 mill. Umm... you know how many people in this world would do just about anything for 45 mill? And he is complaining? I have always felt that you just reach a point where too much money is, well, too much money. And when I see these people complain that they only got 10 mill when they wanted 11 mill... what the heck is the big deal with an extra mill? Nothing but greed.

_________________

I didn't say he was incorrect. I said it was a bullshit answer. I was asking him to make a value judgement of his own, and he refused.

Why is it a bullshit answer? Not everything can be measured in black and white. Should ALL TEACHERS make exactly the same amount? How much money should ALL TEACHERS make? Can you answer that?

Sure. I think they should be paid significantly more than they are. In fact, given the importance of teaching to the future of our country, I think teachers should be making an upper middle class living in whatever locale they belong.

See? It's really not that hard.

It's not a bullshit answer, it's really about the best answer I can give. For entertainers and such, the amount they make should be directly proportional to what the market/people will pay.

Sarissa already explained it in detail, but if you don't like the answer to the stupid question, there's not much else I can do.

I really wasn't looking to be obnoxious. I was looking for a way to start the conversation from the other side of the equation. Instead of focusing on, "how much will I pay for a CD" I wanted to start at, "how much money should an artist make" and then extrapolate from there what a fair price for a CD would be.

I really wasn't trying to be difficult, although it's turned out that way.

YOU WERE NOT PREPARED!

....sorry

Teachers are grossly underpaid.

Strike that.

GOOD teachers are grossly underpaid.

The question then is- What exactly determines whether or not a teacher is good, average, or poor?

I would not want a poor teacher to be making the same amount as a good teacher. But to my tiny knowledge of teacher salaries, doesn't everyone make pretty much the same amount? Maybe the difference in salaries would be seniority and location? But even then, I seriously doubt that your seniority and location would qualify you as a good/average/poor teacher.

So again, what determines how good a teacher is? Survey the students? See what the students do 10 years after the fact?

_________________

I would say that even the bad teachers are underpaid for the bullshit they have to deal with.

God I hate teachers.

me too.

As I understand it, teachers unions basically squash any attempts at paying good teachers over bad or any sort of system like that.

Being a member of one of those evil teacher unions, I can assure you that you are incorrect.

Well, considering that it's the explaination that everyone from the media to school boards to legislators give, perhaps you'd like to shine some light on the subject for us.

You must be the only one then Frib. The Teacher's Union's dominance over how all teachers were paid was one of the main reasons why my wife quit teaching in Arkansas. She was teaching music at two schools, was doing a good job, and making an impact in the lives of those kids, yet because she had not been there more than five years she didn't get the promotion to one of the larger positions. That spot went to another that had been there five years but had less qualifications and in general was a horrible teacher.

I can't speak for the country as a whole, since I recognize that my own experience is only anecdotal. However, our union, has certainly been ok with the idea of firing bad teachers-- the problem is so far no one has come up with a plan that makes sense to link merit with pay without adversely affecting students themselves. It's definitely not as black and white as you make it out to be. The fact that teaching standards vary widely from state to state and sometimes even within districts makes it even more difficult. There is no standard way that can be applied over the entire country, unless there are fundamental changes in the way you view government. You know, the whole "states rights" thing.

And here's the difference between you and me. My experience is anecdotal; I recognize that and try not to apply it to everyone, everywhere. Your described experience is anecdotal too, but your conclusion is, "teacher unions everywhere must be evil! Kill them all!"

Of COURSE school boards say otherwise-- their goal is to find a way to pay everyone as little as possible while still providing a good education for their students.

Yeah, that was REALLY the conclusion I came to and offered.

And you know, while I'm thinking about it, let me say something else: if the base salary of teachers was higher, you would have more qualified teachers applying for jobs. As it is, especially in poorer urban and rural districts, schools just pray someone walks in the door that can finish a sentence. Who's going to take their physics degree, turn down the job at NASA for 6 figures and an office, and go work with screwed up kids for $30k a year?

Because a degree guarantees a job at Nasa and a 6-figure salary.

Man, you're on a roll with the silliness today.