Pirating of Music and other Digital Media

[waffle_x_v]

How is it faulty? Are you ignoring the part where the bands have to spend most of their own money to keep continuing? Where they owe money to the record companies, and they only make the extra? Quality means nothing when it comes to pirating. Stop trying to justify your laziness and cheapness, because it's not working. You're coming off as the guy who thinks that just getting your name out there is enough, and that's just plain wrong. It's like you have no grasp of how money works.

We're talking about how a band is able to make money in a world were pirating is illegal. If the band can't succeed despite the laws put into place, that reflects on them and no one else. Quit making a bunch of nonsense excuses to this.

Lady Gaga is one of the most popular artists out there, and she puts nearly all of her money in her tours and videos, so she doesn't profit much if at all from tours. Are you going to tell me she's not popular, or that she doesn't deserve to be an artist then?

Irrelevant do to your blatant incomprehension.

I don't want to repeat this but if you just want to admit you want to get music without paying for it and don't care about anyone else just say so, because it's looking fairly obvious that that's the case here. Pirating is always selfish unless you use it for the "try before you buy" reason.

Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you come up with a good argument?

First, your statement about pirating being legal makes no sense in this context and has no baring on your case.

Second, everyone else has provided evidence for their views in this thread but you.

Thirdly, like touring, it cost money to make an album. That money has to be paid. So this has nothing to do with quality. It is just cheap people not willing to pay for music.

Lastly, you can not call someones logic faulty with no logic at all.

Reading comprehension. You could use it! Evidenced by the fact that you can't understand anything in this entire thread.

If this is the best this debate forum can produce, I'm outta here. Unless your next argument is cohesive and worth replying to don't expect me to come back. Take the last word for all I care, it's clear that's what you want.

[miles0624]

We're talking about how a band is able to make money in a world were pirating is illegal. If the band can't succeed despite the laws put into place, that reflects on them and no one else. Quit making a bunch of nonsense excuses to this.

Yet, you bluntly ignore the continous information on how pirating can't hurt the band in the long run. How pirating can be the source of why a band collaspses.

Irrelevant do to your blatant incomprehension.

Ok. So, we aren't trying to make you look like an idiot at this point, which you are doing a good job, but here is how you debated.

We give you evidence you are wrong.

You respond by saying that because we gave evidence and you didn't we can comprehend everything. Which the only thing you say to back up your claims is that you have an uncle in the music business. Yeah, that proves you have a lot of knowledge. Also, weren't you the one who said and I quote

Ahhh, shaming. The best way to get people to do what you want or feel what you want. Not hypocritical at all to use something unscrupulous to fight against another action deemed unscrupulous.

... Ehem. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you come up with a good argument?

That wasn't a personal attack. Don't come on the debate forum if you feel like people are attacking you buy making a statement.

Reading comprehension. You could use it! Evidenced by the fact that you can't understand anything in this entire thread.

Why don't you look at the statement I made above. Also, this is what you define as a personal attack and like quoted above. Can you also read the post instead of just blindly debating? That may actually help you in this debate.

Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you come up with a good argument?[/

So here the thing, you accuse someone of something, then go on to do the same thing. So here is what we have to realize.

1. You are at this point a troll not willing to debate. As there have been people on this forum able to justify pirating, and provide evidence to their claims, of which you are not one of them.

2. Just and ignorant poster who has no idea how to debate and just likes to make a fool of themself. It is possible to have a debate with someone you disagree with based on FACTs and not the way you percieve a notation.

If this is the best this debate forum can produce, I'm outta here. Unless your next argument is cohesive and worth replying to don't expect me to come back. Take the last word for all I care, it's clear that's what you want.

Ok. So lets talk about this part and your debating style since you want to try and debate everyone.

Firstly, you win a debate not by having the last word, but actually providing evidence for your case.

Second, instead of actually being smart enough to look up evidence to support you claims you go on personal experience. This is a fallacy in itself. You are making a sweeping generalization because that is how you feel. This holds no grounds in a debate.

Thirdly, in order to deal with evidence provided, you call it wrong. Lady Gaga's tour grossed 500,000 dollars a night, of which she took 50,000 dollars. Off the international revenue, she would only make 1.65 million dollars. Now she made 52 million dollars last year in profits. As a total amount last year she made 113 million from concerts. So how can it be that she only had 52 million from profits. Oh, because concerts aren't free. She has to pay for the stuff. Did 75% of the money she made come from the tour. Yes. Now how much of that money is in the bank? only 1.65 million. Do I need to make this easier to understand? Do you know how lond this tour lasted? Can artist who haven't reached her popularity reach this. You talked about reading comprehension, yet can we get some common sense in here.

Moreover, don't use words in the wrong way to make youself look smarter than you are. Cohesive would me a united argument. Can you tell me which one isn't.

Further, instead of crying about what people are saying just because they are against you, why don't you grow up. It is a debate forum. It is not a place for little boys who get their feelings hurt extremely easily and when they have had enough cry their way with a last insulting bite to make themselves feel better. This isn't being jugemental, it is a fact. Base on how the last post had people post evidence, yet you skip over it to say how you feel mistreated by bad debaters.

Lastly, its fine if you don't come back. If you ever do, try to be more mature and realize that people are going to disagree with you.

[Sogeking]

We're talking about how a band is able to make money in a world were pirating is illegal. If the band can't succeed despite the laws put into place, that reflects on them and no one else. Quit making a bunch of nonsense excuses to this.






Irrelevant do to your blatant incomprehension.


Instead of making personal attacks, why don't you come up with a good argument?

You know what, if you can give me a legit business model where piracy is legal, bands can make enough money to keep working, and record companies can still post profits, that essentially wins the debate. If you can do that without posting "What ifs" or "If the band doesn't make money it's bad on them", then there's no point in debating about how bad piracy is. The problem is that doesn't work. You want to have your cake and eat it too, and it just doesn't work like that. If you are going to post in this thread again, make sure you stop ignoring evidence from other people, post evidence of your own, and stop interpreting things as personal attacks.

[waffle_x_v]

That wasn't a personal attack. Don't come on the debate forum if you feel like people are attacking you buy making a statement.

LMAO, so you STILL do not understand the argument at hand. I really didn't want to come back but this post was the epitome of stupidity. Instead, you decide to spout out condescending BS and tell people to act mature. Get over yourself, please. Reading comprehension is a major problem of yours. You didn't understand a thing. READ. As countless people in this thread have told you, you simply don't understand. Quit acting like you do. I quite frankly don't have the patience to break it down to someone as dense as you.

You know what, if you can give me a legit business model where piracy is legal, bands can make enough money to keep working, and record companies can still post profits, that essentially wins the debate..

Thing is the whole debate is about whether it is "wrong" or not. Since morality is completely subjective there's no way you can win either. I think it should be legal because record companies can still make money, musicians don't rely on albums for Most of their income, and it would benefit everyone else in the process. I stated my reasons for this above, I was the one who actually brought up the fact that most musicians make their money through tours.

[Sogeking]

Thing is the whole debate is about whether it is "wrong" or not. Since morality is completely subjective there's no way you can win either. I think it should be legal because record companies can still make money, musicians don't rely on albums for Most of their income, and it would benefit everyone else in the process. I stated my reasons for this above, I was the one who actually brought up the fact that most musicians make their money through tours.

This isn't a business model. You need to show evidence and numbers that that will work, because so far it looks like it only benefits people like you who just don't want to pay for anything.

[waffle_x_v]

This isn't a business model. You need to show evidence and numbers that that will work, because so far it looks like it only benefits people like you who just don't want to pay for anything.

As stated in the op:

Basically, I want to know you stance on pirating.

This thread wasn't addressing any sort of business model, it's addressing people's opinions. Business model is irreverent in this part of the debate, especially since I just stated an opinion regarding pirating and morality while you leaped into another different topic.

[Sogeking]

As stated in the op: This thread wasn't addressing any sort of business model, it's addressing people's opinions. Business model is irreverent in this part of the debate, especially since I just stated an opinion regarding pirating and morality while you leaped into another different topic.

I asked you why all free piracy would work, when you keep claiming it will. You've done nothing of the sort, and have just called people out for personal attacks and saying they have bad logic. You keep posting that everyone but you is wrong, but don't back up any reasons you have that you are right. If you wanted to debate morality and how it's pointless in a debate, then you wouldn't have kept coming back and insisting it will work despite multiple people posting evidence to the contrary. Remember, this is the debate forum, not the "post your opinions and expect people to say nothing about them if they believe they are wrong" forum.

[waffle_x_v]

I asked you why all free piracy would work, when you keep claiming it will. You've done nothing of the sort

I did, check back. I said that pirating is another way they can receive recognition. A group of people pirate their music, they tell their fiends about the music, and soon a word spreads about this new singer/band. I mentioned how the profit they receive from album sales is irreverent when compared to the profit from touring(which requires people to know who they are, this is were pirating kicks in). Also promotion deals(big or small) count for something, as well as performing in small clubs or restaurants. The pros from pirating far out way the cons when you look at it this way. And more recognition is going to increase album sales, that is a fact that you cannot deny. Whether the band succeeds or not depends on their popularity and how well liked their music is. Even a well known band or singer can fall flat on their face if they release a horrible album. I'm giving you an analysis on how pirating is useful if it were allowed, this is plenty "factual".

[Sogeking]

I did, check back. I said that pirating is another way they can receive recognition. A group of people pirate their music, they tell their fiends about the music, and soon a word spreads about this new singer/band. I mentioned how the profit they receive from album sales is irreverent when compared to the profit from touring(which requires people to know who they are, this is were pirating kicks in). Also promotion deals(big or small) count for something, as well as performing in small clubs or restaurants. The pros from pirating far out way the cons when you look at it this way. And more recognition is going to increase album sales, that is a fact that you cannot deny. Whether the band succeeds or not depends on their popularity and how well liked their music is. Even a well known band or singer can fall flat on their face if they release a horrible album.

The promotion only does so much, as most people today give download links to bands they find, they don't just mention the band and everyone just goes out and pays for the band. And how many artists actually perform in small clubs and restaurants, a practice that is going away more and more each day. Also you overestimate how little most promotion deals are. Only the people who have already had a lot of success get the big deals, and getting 500 dollars to help on a local car salesman commercial doesn't help much for the band moving up. Most bands get their big break from opening for other, more successful bands, which requires them to tour, and it's already been gone over that touring doesn't give the bands nearly as much money as you would think, after the other expenses are taken care of.

[waffle_x_v]

The promotion only does so much, as most people today give download links to bands they find, they don't just mention the band and everyone just goes out and pays for the band. And how many artists actually perform in small clubs and restaurants, a practice that is going away more and more each day. Also you overestimate how little most promotion deals are. Only the people who have already had a lot of success get the big deals, and getting 500 dollars to help on a local car salesman commercial doesn't help much for the band moving up. Most bands get their big break from opening for other, more successful bands, which requires them to tour, and it's already been gone over that touring doesn't give the bands nearly as much money as you would think, after the other expenses are taken care of.

Weren't you the one who said tours is were they get most of the money from? 75%? It isn't "that much"? 75% of someone's income is pretty meaty. Small gigs make all the difference. Say you get 1 gig a week for $500 on top of a $300 promotion deal. For one person, if you spend frugally, you can live off this till more people know who you are. Another new gig a week would adds +$500. This would allow the singer to advertise themselves a bit easier as well as being able to do more with their music and search for more gigs. It all counts. How is it irrelevant? It's possible to make it as singer even with pirating being a thing, live singing and meeting the person upfront is still a thing. Small gigs still exist, I don't see how it's decreasing unless you can show citations.

[Sogeking]

Weren't you the one who said tours is were they get most of the money from? 75%? It isn't "that much"? 75% of someone's income is pretty meaty. Small gigs make all the difference. Say you get 1 gig a week for $500 on top of a $300 promotion deal. For one person, if you spend frugally, you can live off this till more people know who you are. Another new gig a week would adds +$500. This would allow the singer to advertise themselves a bit easier as well as being able to do more with their music and search for more gigs. It all counts. How is it irrelevant? It's possible to make it as singer even with pirating being a thing, live singing and meeting the person upfront is still a thing. Small gigs still exist, I don't see how it's decreasing unless you can show citations.

They do, but out of the tour money they themselves don't get much of it, as it goes to the record company or for their other expenses. And if that's one artist that's one thing, a band often has 4 people, and you have to split that money evenly and that doesn't equal a lot. And remember 500 for one gig isn't the starting amount at all, you're lucky to get 200 at first. And small gigs still exist, but you said singing restaurants and clubs, which are going out of business more and more, and not many are opening up.

[waffle_x_v]

They do, but out of the tour money they themselves don't get much of it, as it goes to the record company or for their other expenses. And if that's one artist that's one thing, a band often has 4 people, and you have to split that money evenly and that doesn't equal a lot. And remember 500 for one gig isn't the starting amount at all, you're lucky to get 200 at first. And small gigs still exist, but you said singing restaurants and clubs, which are going out of business more and more, and not many are opening up.

Okay so everything the band does(according to you) barely breaks even but somehow that small amount they get from CD's makes up for everything? And this is not to say that in a world of pirating no one will be buying CD's but they won't be as much. So how is that small number make a difference? Do you even have a point anymore? What are you getting at? Give me citations showing me that every cent of the record sales make all the difference in staying alive, otherwise your argument in moot.

[Sogeking]

Okay so everything the band does(according to you) barely breaks even but somehow that small amount they get from CD's makes up for everything? And this is not to say that in a world of pirating no one will be buying CD's but they won't be as much. So how is that small number make a difference? Do you even have a point anymore? What are you getting at? Give me citations showing me that every cent of the record sales make all the difference in staying alive, otherwise your argument in moot.

I'm saying that the people hurt most by piracy are the bands themselves, as they get the extra money, while the record company gets a fixed amount regardless. If there's no extra money they don't get any. And if piracy was free and public only a small handful of people will buy the CD themselves, most of them collectors.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...82610186.shtml

Here's where sales go in an album. As you see the band themselves don't make much at all comparatively. The top bands survive by being the biggest, but you can see how this can hurt anyone who isn't selling out huge stadiums every night.

[moot]

music sales are used to repay the labels, if there is no music sales but they still tour, they've got to pay back the label somehow. they way you say music sales are so insignificant is totally wrong, i said earlier that about 25% of their income comes from music sales. if you worked a $60k job and all of a sudden they cut your salary to $45k you'd be absolutely in the shitter. just because you don't like paying for music doesn't mean nobody has to for bands to keep going.

[waffle_x_v]

Those bands are still struggling, piracy or not. Odds are, the recognition they get from piracy will more than make up for the lost album sales. And if the band is small enough, no one's going to know them enough to post their material on the internet anyway. The extra advertising more than makes up for the money they may have lost due to pirating, as shown here(been meaning to post this for a while now):

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1905424

With the extra advertising more than making up for the lost sales profit, I don't see how your argument matter anymore.

music sales are used to repay the labels, if there is no music sales but they still tour, they've got to pay back the label somehow. they way you say music sales are so insignificant is totally wrong, i said earlier that about 25% of their income comes from music sales. if you worked a $60k job and all of a sudden they cut your salary to $45k you'd be absolutely in the shitter. just because you don't like paying for music doesn't mean nobody has to for bands to keep going.

You're missing the point I'm saying the extra advertiser from pirating can turn that 25k lost to 35k gained.

[Sogeking]

Those bands are still struggling, piracy or not. Odds are, the recognition they get from piracy will more than make up for the lost album sales. And if the band is small enough, no one's going to know them enough to post their material on the internet anyway. The extra advertising more than makes up for the money they may have lost due to pirating, as shown here(been meaning to post this for a while now):

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1905424

With the extra advertising more than making up for the lost sales profit, I don't see how your argument matter anymore.

But who is going to buy the album when they can just pirate it instead? You do realize that today someone posting a download link to a band's songs are much more likely than someone telling a friend to check them out on iTunes.

That paper has nothing to do with how piracy affects sales, which is hundreds of millions of dollars in sales on iTunes alone. That paper tells us that advertisement usually leads to more sales, which anyone with common sense will tell you. But the problem is the money loss the bands get, when they have to pay the record company. All the extra money from those advertisements will get sucked up by the record company, but the amount of money lost overall due to piracy affects the bands more than anything, since that's their commission essentially that you're stealing.

And you said you wanted all music to be free, but how do you expect 99% of bands to stay in business then? That would ruin the private domain, and then companies wouldn't have to pay bands to use their songs.

[waffle_x_v]

But who is going to buy the album when they can just pirate it instead? You do realize that today someone posting a download link to a band's songs are much more likely than someone telling a friend to check them out on iTunes.

Didn't I just mention more promotion deals and gigs as a result of the advertisement?

That paper tells us that advertisement usually leads to more sales, which anyone with common sense will tell you.*

1. It wasn't my aim to bring that source to discuss piracy. 2 Thing is, I had to bring that out to prove to youthat the advertisements(wherever they may come from piracy or not) are beneficial.

And you said you wanted all music to be free, but how do you expect 99% of bands to stay in business then? That would ruin the private domain, and then companies wouldn't have to pay bands to use their songs.

That's different. I mentioned it should be free for entertainment purposes. If you use the music to make money, that's were the problem is. I don't agree with using someone else's' work to make money. That falls indirectly under plagiarism.

[Sogeking]

Didn't I just mention more promotion deals and gigs as a result of the advertisement?

You did, but we've also been over how those deals get eaten up by other purposes, so the bands don't make much of it as a profit for themselves. They need to sell as much as possible, and that includes CD's and songs. Promotion deals don't even happen unless you are already fairly well known, and small gigs are often fought for among bands trying to make it.

That's different. I mentioned it should be free for entertainment purposes. If you use the music to make money, that's were the problem is. I don't agree with using someone else's' work to make money. That falls indirectly under plagiarism.

Then you don't know how copyright works. If you make a song you own that song, if anyone uses it without your permission that's stealing. They can pay you to use the song in whatever they want, and the price varies depending on whatever the person wants to make it. People can also buy the rights from the person who made it, but it's always up to the person themselves if they want to sell it, like how Disney got the rights to Star Wars. How would you like it if you build a swimming pool at your house, and people just kept coming over and swimming in it that you didn't know? Would you be fine with it as long as someone else wasn't charging for it?

[waffle_x_v]

You did, but we've also been over how those deals get eaten up by other purposes, so the bands don't make much of it as a profit for themselves. They need to sell as much as possible, and that includes CD's and songs. Promotion deals don't even happen unless you are already fairly well known, and small gigs are often fought for among bands trying to make it.

We've also went over how those album sales are close to irrelevant and how they only benefit the record dealer. Moot point.

Then you don't know how copyright works.

You don't understand the argument. I said that pirating for the sake of entertainment is fine. Doing so for profit is stealing and falls under plagiarism. There's a huge difference. Do you get it yet? Or are we going to continue going in circles?

[Sogeking]

We've also went over how those album sales are close to irrelevant and how they only benefit the record dealer. Moot point.

No, I said that the record company makes a fixed amount, so the loses are only affecting the bands themselves. In this situation due to how much pirating going on yeah only the record company is benefiting, but stricter piracy laws would help the bands.

You don't understand the argument. I said that pirating for the sake of entertainment is fine. Doing so for profit is stealing and falls under plagiarism. There's a huge difference. Do you get it yet? Or are we going to continue going in circles?

The argument is that's legally and morally wrong, as both cases are stealing from the person who holds the rights to the song. It's the same as someone using something of yours without your permission, as long as they don't make a profit off it. Movies and tv shows buy licensing rights to songs all the time, and the artists makes money off of it. If I bought the rights to a song, and sold the rights to a movie does that make me wrong? Not really, it just means I made a business investment that's paying off.