" Piracy "

[mukund_nadkarni]

But the fact remains that justifying Pirating a movie based on the fact that someone didn't go to the cinema and cant wait is utter tripe and laughable.

That is so.

 

[Leggie]

Do you have a legal vers of Photoshop? Besides, what will the mods here do to me if I have an illegal vers? I just want to know First tell me, then I'll post the truth.

Obviously not seeing as I asked the question.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't have any software which is illegal in computer. My Vista + Office came preloaded. Plus I use freeware for practically everything else.

And I listen to ARR mainly. I make it a point to buy his CDs and rip them, just to prove my loyalty to him.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

I just wanted to bring up another issue here. Slightly off topic, but still in a way linked to the present debate.

Should movie artists, or music artists be millionaires? Don't think Michaelangelo or Beethoven was a millionaire. Sure they can make as much money as they like. But why should the consumers suffer so that they can earn more. Someone had posted earlier about the irony in pirating the music of your favourite band. But what is that endears a band to a music lover? How does one value music? Is a fan who pays for music, a better fan, or lover of music than one who doesn't?

 

[Precambrian]

You know what. If a film gets released and I really really want to see it, I go to the cinema to see it. if I haven't been to the cinema to see it then I guess I'm not that bothered about it and can easily wait until its on DVD or On Demand on tv.

That has to be the lamest argument for pirating movies I have ever heard in my life.

I agree. There is always DVD.

 

[Kev]

I just wanted to bring up another issue here. Slightly off topic, but still in a way linked to the present debate.

Should movie artists, or music artists be millionaires? Don't think Michaelangelo or Beethoven was a millionaire. Sure they can make as much money as they like. But why should the consumers suffer so that they can earn more. Someone had posted earlier about the irony in pirating the music of your favourite band. But what is that endears a band to a music lover? How does one value music? Is a fan who pays for music, a better fan, or lover of music than one who doesn't?

Should artists be millionaires? Why not, it's their chosen profession good luck to them. You make comparisons with Michaelangelo and Beethoven but there is a big difference. Their artistic achievements were seen/heard only by a select few in their day. They didn't have a world audience, if you lived in their day you would never have heard of them. Today movies,music and art is seen and heard all over the world. There is a lot of money to be made out of that just because of the sheer numbers involved.
Do consumers suffer so modern artists make more money? 79p on itunes in the UK to legally buy a music track (there are cheaper legal alternatives too). That isn't suffering that's less than a can of Coke from a service station.
Is a fan of music better if he pays? You can like someone but not pay for their music and still be a fan, listen to it on the radio, watch it on tv. The artist is still getting paid. How would you feel if I stole from you and claimed to be a fan of you? I'm guessing you wouldn't be all that pleased.

I've made a few patches for computer games, nothing fancy and the main reason for making some was because someone else wanted them. I don't want to charge for them, As long as they are downloaded from the sites I support then I am happy. I don't devote a lot of effort to it and if I had chosen to go down the line of programming or graphic arts or something similar then I would want to be paid for my work, it would be my living I wouldn't be doing it for free. One of the reasons i stopped programming many years back was that with the internet I found that someone else had generally already written something I wanted and probably done it better. The internet is great for giving you stuff for free and people get used to that, but you shouldn't forget that not everyone makes stuff just for the love of it and they deserve to get paid.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Should artists be millionaires? Why not, it's their chosen profession good luck to them. You make comparisons with Michaelangelo and Beethoven but there is a big difference. Their artistic achievements were seen/heard only by a select few in their day. They didn't have a world audience, if you lived in their day you would never have heard of them. Today movies,music and art is seen and heard all over the world. There is a lot of money to be made out of that just because of the sheer numbers involved.
Do consumers suffer so modern artists make more money? 79p on itunes in the UK to legally buy a music track (there are cheaper legal alternatives too). That isn't suffering that's less than a can of Coke from a service station.
Is a fan of music better if he pays? You can like someone but not pay for their music and still be a fan, listen to it on the radio, watch it on tv. The artist is still getting paid. How would you feel if I stole from you and claimed to be a fan of you? I'm guessing you wouldn't be all that pleased.

Well, I said myself they can earn as much as they like. Doesn't anyone who work well in his field earn well. What I was saying basically is why should be artists treated any differently? There is a notion today, that if you are an artist, such as a singer or an actor you expect millions. And you expect people to let go of their 'freedoms' or 'behave themselves' so that you can make those millions. Why should I restrain myself from downloading a copy of your music album, if it's available? I'm interested in the music, and paying you too if I can afford it, but I'm not interested in paying more than what I think is right so that you can make your millions. Why, what happens when a band releases their album and people listen to it on the radio? They do get paid for it right? Also, when they tour, don't they earn there too. As for the comparisons with Beethoven and Michelangelo, that is to illustrate that it is technology itself that has afforded the new generation of artists the opportunity to make millions without being half as brilliant. Now technology has changed again. They have nothing to complain here. May be in the future they will all not make millions, but they will still be way better off than those two. That said, the good ones will still make lots of the green stuff.

How would you feel if I stole from you and claimed to be a fan of you? I'm guessing you wouldn't be all that pleased.

Well if I make a painting, and you download a scanned copy and get it printed and hang it in your drawing room, well I have really no reason to complain. You haven't stolen anything from me. I still have my copy. Of course I'd be mighty happy if could also pay me for my effort if you like it, so that I can make a living out of it. But I think it would be utterly unreasonable of me to expect you to remove that painting off the wall because that hurt my chances of making my millions.

 

[KBC]

It was in a NDTV Interview that i saw the host showing Danny his own film's Pirated Slumdog Millionaire DVD and he was all laughing at it and said he didn't want to touch it. Aah though, he was optimistic, and he is!

Well. Tbh, Piracy would only truly stop or decrease if every person was rich in the world. That's not my whole point, but a general description out of the many reasons. Some companies don't mind if their software are pirated because maybe some one who's extremely talented though poor can gain benefits of the piracy and well may be a master of the software and that with his talents, he could make his era.

It's a gutting thing i know. There are positives and negatives. But most of the people are trying to stop it, and yet, most negative reactions come from the people who are really rich. But it's a horrible and shameful commitment from someone and to see...say, YOUR product which you've done with Hard work and Reasonably set a price for the efforts and one day you see your product being pirated and clipped on a string in a shop with the many others, how embarrassing you'd feel? Ripping and Pirating aren't similar, but they're the SAME. Just that one is done for online sake and other for real-life use.

There are ways to stop i say. Certain people like Michael Jackson, yes, and Bands like Eagles, The Beatles Enjoyed much of the Cassettes'/CDs' sales because the Internet wasn't that grown up from it's roots. And now? Well, if anyone releases an album, they'll at least get 25%-70% of the loss due to the wide-spread internet ripping and piracy.

But again, there are ways, they just need to be made strict with the people causing a fear into doing theft/piracy.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

But again, there are ways, they just need to be made strict with the people causing a fear in theft/piracy.

Earlier they also used to try to stop pornography. These guys will be brought to their senses sooner than later. You can't live in denial forever.

 

[KBC]

Earlier they also used to try to stop pornography. These guys will be brought to their senses sooner than later. You can't live in denial forever.

You were referring to me? :S

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

LOL! No man! C'mon KBC! I was referring to all those billionaire media goons!:P

 

[KBC]

LOL! No man! C'mon KBC! I was referring to all those billionaire media goons!:P

Oh LOL! I got mattled by myself. .. Cheers. No problems. ..

 

[Kev]

Well if I make a painting, and you download a scanned copy and get it printed and hang it in your drawing room, well I have really no reason to complain. You haven't stolen anything from me. I still have my copy. Of course I'd be mighty happy if could also pay me for my effort if you like it, so that I can make a living out of it. But I think it would be utterly unreasonable of me to expect you to remove that painting off the wall because that hurt my chances of making my millions.

Ok this is a pretty good example to work with. I take it you like painting and you are quite good at it but you do it because you like it and you don't make your living from it.

You say you'd be happy for me to have a scan and print it out. Firstly Thanks. But this is a parallel situation to people making free software and posting it up on the internet. You do it for fun and you are happy to share, this is one of the great things the internet has made possible. If you think pre-internet I'd have had to know you personally to get a copy of your paintings.

But consider this. You are told you are really good at Painting and that you can make a living as an artist. You quit your job and decide to dedicate all your time to painting. You setup a site on the internet where people can buy your paintings, maybe you also invest in a wide format inkjet printer and sell gicl?es (high quality inkjet prints) via the site. So you've invested time in the painting, money on materials (for the paintings), money on a printer, money on paper and inks for the gicl?e prints, money on getting a professional to set you up a site and getting it hosted, money on a decent web address, money on stuff for postage and packaging, money on a shop/industrial unit, maybe you are swamped and have to employ someone else to help with the site and the logistics. Would you still be so pleased if I got my hands on a print that I didnt pay for? But then it's not just me, I start selling prints myself because I also have a printer and I'm selling them cheaper, so much cheaper that you stop making money from your site, people are buying the prints from me now. You now cant afford the upkeep of the site, your bank account is well in the red as you had to borrow money to set your business up, you have to go bankrupt, you lose your house. Your wife leaves you. Still happy?

Ok a bit extreme but not entirely far fetched.

 

[KBC]

Another thing i'll feel smacked right on my face is that face that when someone claims they did the work i did.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Ok this is a pretty good example to work with. I take it you like painting and you are quite good at it but you do it because you like it and you don't make your living from it.

You say you'd be happy for me to have a scan and print it out. Firstly Thanks. But this is a parallel situation to people making free software and posting it up on the internet. You do it for fun and you are happy to share, this is one of the great things the internet has made possible. If you think pre-internet I'd have had to know you personally to get a copy of your paintings.

But consider this. You are told you are really good at Painting and that you can make a living as an artist. You quit your job and decide to dedicate all your time to painting. You sell to galleries, maybe you setup a site on the internet where people can buy your paintings, maybe you also invest in a wide format inkjet printer and sell gicl?es (high quality inkjet prints) via the site. So you've invested time in the painting, money on materials (for the paintings), money on a printer, money on paper and inks for the gicl?e prints, money on getting a professional to set you up a site and getting it hosted, money on a decent web address, money on stuff for postage and packaging etc etc. Would you still be so pleased if I got my hands on a print that I didnt pay for? But then it's not just me, I start selling prints myself because I also have a printer and I'm selling them cheaper, so much cheaper that you stop making money from your site, people are buying the prints from me now.

Firstly the example you give is not exactly the same as piracy, is it? I'm definitely not defending anyone who is making money off piracy. And that's not the media companies are fighting are they? Anyways if someone sells the same prints as me at a lesser price than me, then obviously I'm selling them at a price higher than they are worth, costs included. The same costs will apply to the other person as well, all other things being equal. Now since there are indeed artists who make a living in exactly the way you mentioned, by printing etc., I think that such copying and printing to the same quality is extremely unlikely as it doesn't make any sense to copy and print someone else's artwork at the same cost. In other words that example doesn't really work in reality.

Anyways, I take it the point you are trying to make is that if you make an investment into anything digital which can be by nature copied and distributed, then your investments are at risk. Which is absolutely true. Basically the problem is that if I make some artwork in the digital format, and hope to earn something out of it, the problem is that my target audience could get it for free without stealing anything for me. But that's the way it is. I can't say that the people were all thieves, that they copied to explicitly deny me making my living. I don't think anyone wants to deny any artist his mode of earning, but than technology has obviously changed the situation now. I can have everything now(digital) without ever stealing anything from you. So how do the artists make their living henceforth? Well, that's what the debate should be. Calling people thieves isn't going to help. In fact if we remove the middle men here, a good deal of all problems could be solved straight away. Again how much does an artist get off a legally sold DVD?

By the way, I have indeed given up my job to make a living as a digital artist. Still early days though.