record industry bosses over school anti-piracy lessons

Deific said:
Thing is, I want to listen to music I enjoy because it stimulates me and ultimately I enjoy it. To then be told I am not allowed to listen to this music because I can't afford it is....well, ridiculous? I'm all for paying artists for their work and completely against giving my money to thieving record labels. However, even if all my money went to the artist, it still wouldn't stop me pirating the music. What am I expected to do? Not listen to the music until I can afford to buy it, at which point I have now spent my money on it and have to hold off listening to another artists music before I can purchase that too? Ridiculous. Why are they making music in the first place? To send out a message, to convey emotion and feeling? - at least this is what I thought it was about, so why does making people who enjoy your music, pay for it, matter more than allowing them to enjoy it? It's nice when you see an artist who actively encourages people to download their music simply because they want people to enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Because it's their job. Should footballers be forced to play football for free? Should actors act for free? Should game developers make games for free? Of course not, and this is why they have to charge.

HOWEVER, I am against the price inflation caused by money-grabbing record labels. Music could be much cheaper if it came straight from the artist.
 
The Lily Allen thing is really funny, she set up a blog complaining about piracy, but people spotted that on her other website she had for download some mix tapes she made when she was younger. She also copied articles/scanned magazines to her blog without citing sources.
I can't link to the article, but google "Lily Allen Pirates Music, Is Clueless About Copyright"

I get the feeling from what some artists spurt out that they are just a front/ambassador for what the RIAA/BPI etc tell them to say and they don't have a full understanding of the situation.

The story in the OP is stupid, I can't possibly see why 6 schools would agree to do that.
 
Seeing as though schools get both creationism/evolution lessons now (I think?) does this also mean, in the interest of fairness, they need to be taught pro-piracy too? :o
 
D D Danneh said:
Because it's their job. Should footballers be forced to play football for free? Should actors act for free? Should game developers make games for free? Of course not, and this is why they have to charge.

HOWEVER, I am against the price inflation caused by money-grabbing record labels. Music could be much cheaper if it came straight from the artist.
Click to expand...

But the point is, they are trying to make an input for one of your senses cost. A vibration in the air. It's like trying to make you pay for a smell - yes this would be perfume, however perfume costs to formulate and bottle, the cost of playing a piece of music, recording it, and then twiddling the knobs is next to nothing, nor would you expect to pay for the smell of a summers day. If people want to make music, I can only assume it's because they enjoy creating it, and enjoy peoples response to their creation, but for an artist to then complain that people who can't afford their music enjoy it so much that they listen to it without paying, is just being a hypocrite. "You can listen to the music I've created for people to enjoy, but only if you pay me for pleasure."
 
I cant see how that people can bang on about how much music cost, the average cost of an album must be around £10 - £12 yet the computers that these very same people have probaly cost hundreds of pounds. Not to mention the the monthly cost of their internet connections. On top of that some of these people may even have MP3 players or IPods that themselves cost a small fortune.

As for Lilly Allen being a hypocrite, well of course we're all perfect eh - i bet there is not one person here that hasnt done something in their younger days (and lets face it, that wasnt that long ago for Lilly Allen) that we now see as wrong.

Piracy costs record companies millions of pound in lost revinue, they are providing a service and people are stealing from them. Shop lifting is illegal and wrong but i bet very few people would condone that - theft is theft !
 
Wouldn't the time be better spent teaching kids to show respect for others and not behave anti-socially, or are corporate profits more important to society?
 
teulk said:
I cant see how that people can bang on about how much music cost, the average cost of an album must be around £10 - £12 yet the computers that these very same people have probaly cost hundreds of pounds. Not to mention the the monthly cost of their internet connections. On top of that some of these people may even have MP3 players or IPods that themselves cost a small fortune.

!
Click to expand...

I can guarantee the amount of music I listen to in one month alone will cost more than your entire computer if i were to buy each song. Times that by twelve for the year, how is anyone going to afford that? Simply, without piracy it's not possible to listen to all the music you enjoy. If I were to only listen to the music I could afford, I wouldn't have 1/100th of the of industry/genre knowledge I have now, nor would I know so many great songs that bring me so much enjoyment every day.
 
Deific said:
But the point is, they are trying to make an input for one of your senses cost. A vibration in the air. It's like trying to make you pay for a smell - yes this would be perfume, however perfume costs to formulate and bottle, the cost of playing a piece of music, recording it, and then twiddling the knobs is next to nothing, nor would you expect to pay for the smell of a summers day. If people want to make music, I can only assume it's because they enjoy creating it, and enjoy peoples response to their creation, but for an artist to then complain that people who can't afford their music enjoy it so much that they listen to it without paying, is just being a hypocrite. "You can listen to the music I've created for people to enjoy, but only if you pay me for pleasure."
Click to expand...

The cost of a football. The cost of a costume. The cost of a computer. Don't say "the cost of filming it", as then you can say "the cost of producing CD's", which is footed by the publisher/record label/whatever. It might cost little initially, but you have to keep doing it. The smell of a summer's day isn't produced by people who need money to live (unless you've got your nose up someone's exhaust pipe), so of course you don't have to pay for it.

I'm not debating that music isn't overpriced or that I'd much rather not get it free, just that if you were producing music as a job, and you got no money for it, you'd be pretty annoyed. I'll bet they enjoy their job, but it's still a job, and people have to live. Some people get jobs they enjoy, some people don't.
 
D D Danneh said:
Because it's their job. Should footballers be forced to play football for free? Should actors act for free? Should game developers make games for free? Of course not, and this is why they have to change.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you there, small but important difference.
 
Deific said:
I can guarantee the amount of music I listen to in one month alone will cost more than your entire computer if i were to buy each song. Times that by twelve for the year, how is anyone going to afford that? Simply, without piracy it's not possible to listen to all the music you enjoy. If I were to only listen to the music I could afford, I wouldn't have 1/100th of the of industry/genre knowledge I have now, nor would I know so many great songs that bring me so much enjoyment every day.
Click to expand...


I cant beleive that you think theft is actually ok, if you didnt have the internet to get hold of the music you steal would you just as readily walk into the shops and steal it from the shelves ? Some how i dont think you would nor would anyone else...........


Tell you what, how would you feel if i took a liking to your car or anything else for that matter that you owned and decided to steal it because i couldnt afford one of my own. If i didnt steal it then i wouldnt be able to have the pleasure of using/wearing it - i dont think you would be happy somehow.
 
D D Danneh said:
The cost of a football. The cost of a costume. The cost of a computer. Don't say "the cost of filming it", as then you can say "the cost of producing CD's", which is footed by the publisher/record label/whatever. It might cost little initially, but you have to keep doing it. The smell of a summer's day isn't produced by people who need money to live (unless you've got your nose up someone's exhaust pipe), so of course you don't have to pay for it.

I'm not debating that music isn't overpriced or that I'd much rather not get it free, just that if you were producing music as a job, and you got no money for it, you'd be pretty annoyed. I'll bet they enjoy their job, but it's still a job, and people have to live. Some people get jobs they enjoy, some people don't.
Click to expand...

Sure it's their job, but who goes into creating music for the financial yield? People want to make music to be creative and stimulate people (at least the artists outside of the pathetic mainstream pond do) who listen to it. So why then cry, when people start doing with your music what you had the intention of when creating it, just because they can't afford to pay for it.

Tbh if you're an artist and you're telling fans to stop listening to your music until they pay for it, then you might aswell pack up and get an office job because you've just failed as an artist. You've defeated the entire purpose of being 'an artist'. An artist creates art, art is created to stimulate, provoke and question. It's not something to charge for the pleasure of.
 
Deific said:
Sure it's their job, but who goes into creating music for the financial yield? People want to make music to be creative and stimulate people (at least the artists outside of the pathetic mainstream pond do) who listen to it. So why then cry, when people start doing with your music what you had the intention of when creating it, just because they can't afford to pay for it.

Tbh if you're an artist and you're telling fans to stop listening to your music until they pay for it, then you might aswell pack up and get an office job because you've just failed as an artist. You've defeated the entire purpose of being 'an artist'. An artist creates art, art is created to stimulate, provoke and question. It's not something to charge for the pleasure of.
Click to expand...

So artists should live on the dole?
 
Meridian said:
No, because a large proportion of those illegally downloading don't want to pay anything. Legal music is hardly expensive, so claiming people are unwilling to pay for it suggests that it's more a case of it being even better if it's free.


M
Click to expand...

70p a song? no thanks.. :rolleyes:
 
teulk said:
I cant beleive that you think theft is actually ok, if you didnt have the internet to get hold of the music you steal would you just as readily walk into the shops and steal it from the shelves ? Some how i dont think you would nor would anyone else...........


Tell you what, how would you feel if i took a liking to your car or anything else for that matter that you owned and decided to steal it because i couldnt afford one of my own. If i didnt steal it then i wouldnt be able to have the pleasure of using/wearing it - i dont think you would be happy somehow.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't steal it off the shelf but that's because I would get into a lot of trouble doing so. However I will 'steal' it off the internet because, as stated, I think it's ridiculous to charge people for it. Smoking herb is illegal, it won't stop me doing it because I disagree with the law on it and believe the argument for it being legal is a good one.

Don't get me wrong, if I have the cash extra and like the artist enough I will give my money, but only if they are on a small record label where I know the artist will get a fair cut of cash. However, with the sheer amount of music I listen to, this isn't possible for the majority, so piracy is the only answer.
 
Deific said:
artists get the majoirty of their own cash from concerts anyway, not record sales.
Click to expand...

Well by your logic, concerts should be free too. It's appealing to your senses.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be, just that it's not quite that simple. Nobody in any state of power is going to overrule almost every single artist and record label and demand that music should be free. It just won't happen, not any time soon anyway.
 
D D Danneh said:
Well by your logic, concerts should be free too. It's appealing to your senses.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be, just that it's not quite that simple.
Click to expand...

Not really, because you're seeing the artist perform, you're paying for the performance, you're paying so the event can happen. That's completely different to paying for a downloadable mp3.
 
Deific said:
artists get the majoirty of their own cash from concerts anyway, not record sales.
Click to expand...
Only multi-million album selling artists make bundles of cash from concerts, Joe Bloggs band has no hope of making a decent living without the backing of a record label.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom