i just wanna share this...
as lately i have seen other sentiments about this..

from Paulo Coelho..A World Famouns Lyricist and Novelist..
The Author of "The Alchemist" , One of the Brilliant Minds of the Modern World
his thoughts about Piracy

http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2011/04/28/who-deleted-the-song-in-my-profile/

its always good to have a new perspective

the world have changed..
from Theatres to LPs to CDs to Mp3s
and we must adapt..

Piracy a Friend or Foe?
you decide...


i just wanna hear your own sentiments

 

You're always gonna get fierce views from both/all sides of the piracy debate, you always have, and no doubt always will do......Personally, it depends what the product is. For example, I've bought so so much music after having had pirate copies over the years too many to mention!!!. Would I have bought the music having not had the pirate copies?, probably not. It's the 'try before you buy' philosophy I guess. I've also bought plug ins, again after 'trying'them. Software dev's will argue that they have demo's (some do anyway). You have to sign your life away to get a 28-30 day demo, it's never a simple process. The plugs I've actually bought if I'm honest I used pirate versions for a lot longer than 30 days. I have a family, wife and kids, I have to be very sure of something if I'm gonna spend 2-3-4 even £500 on plugs. I want to make sure they benefit what I do 100%. I mean if I had bought all the plugs I have and never use (which is not many now-Thanks Budz).....well you know!!!.

Piracy a friend or foe????.......I reckon friend!!!!!....Good post!!

 

Paulo Coelho is a self proclaimed pirate... his agency caught him red handed pirating his own material *yes*

then he made an agreement that he will continue doing it but in a moderated and limited way... and he still does so... leaking his own materials for free that one can also purchase from bookstores.

 

Well that's a tricky dilemma of today's modern world.
It gives you the option to get software for "free" or to pay for it.
No good or bad. But the reality is still like this: if you go into a
shop you cannot grab the things you like without paying for them.

The good thing is that software producers get more and more flexible,
so they offer various options to test their products, getting away
from very annoying software protection systems.

In my opinion it is completely okay that artists have to get payed
right for the work they're doing! The masses cannot claim something
"for free" when in reality there's somebody who produced it with the
intention and will to create a niche in the market.

 

Good or bad thing ? It depends...

Music piracy can be a fantastic opportunity for some clever artists : the more they're known by a larger audience, the more they can ask higher fees for their gigs. It applies mainly to DJ's and this is why so many artists claims to be DJ's, even if they're really poor in the job (and as musicians). But for real performers such as Madonna, Prince, my cherished wife Lady Gaga (and even Justin Bieber), music piracy doesn't change anything.

On the other hand, software piracy is one of the reasons why we are literally submerged by crap music. Software (and in a major way, software piracy) allows everyone to make "music". If you combine this fact with today's ridiculously low storing and distribution costs, you will understand that isn't a good thing at all for the music's quality level. Of course some new talents otherwise unknown can be discovered, but the vast majority of this "new generation" is a big bunch of stinky shit.

 

" but the vast majority of this "new generation" is a big bunch of stinky shit. "

Word. *yes*

Everyone is a 'musician' now. *no*

 

Piracy has been with us since the start of life in all forms. It is simply the taking and sharing of something without the permission to do so.

Example. I wandering through the country side and notice a fruit tree, a field of flowers and the like. I stop to take of these before moving on.

The idea of owning ideas, thoughts and such as property is only valid because of the fear of prosecution and even death from a time long ago when laws were controlled by theifdoms.

 

I wouldn't say that today there are "not talented enough" musicians around.
But it gets more and more difficult to obtain the attention of the public, also because of the amount of sites that aim to offer a platform for musicians and in reality they're just doing business. It's just all scattered up! One thing is sure: with MySpace or Facebook alone nobody can really get more fans and supporters, it's just too anonymous, too cold! People want to hear real people, and music that touches their souls.

 

piracy is blessing and think about this with the products that have a big promotion but in the reality are not so great, for example big libraries like Symphobia 2, that cost the ''cheapest'' ammount of 1400 USD and really it's only a dispensable expansion


if i were bought that, trusting that the library it will be like much more, i will ended freakin out, but thanks to the piracy i can say that i don't need that thing

 

And don't you think, honestly, that's because it's more and more difficult for the public to "filter" real gems in all this bunch of shit ?
Personally, I think so, but maybe I'm too selective... (my old age - 50 - and my good memories of the golden 70's and 80's doesn't really help me to be indulgent...).

EDIT :
As an example, back in 1981, when I was DJ in the first club "à la Studio 54" here in Brussels, I was going to buy my records every Friday in a shop which was specialized in UK & US imports. In less than 2 hour (yes : two hours !!!) I listened to everything that came out during the week in all styles of popular and "underground" music (pop-rock/soul/funk/funky/disco/new wave). In the heap, there were of course some big shit, and less fat too. On average, I listened to between 60 to 100 tunes (depending on the week) and bought about 25 to 50 % of that. When I quit the job, two years ago, I had to spend more than three hours a day to keep me in touch with only a very very small portion of the musical production. I can not compute how many records it makes but, believe me, what I know for sure is that at the end of the week I kept 10 to 20 tunes on my HDD, sometime less...
All is said.

 

I agree with you: It's difficult to filter "real gems" out of the rest.
With my age of 43 i'm very next to your generation! So we are mates.
Me too i was an active collector of records and supporter of bands and musicians in the 80ies. Especially for the Underground Scene and Independent Labels; i bought many records of New Wave and Punk music. That time was completely different: everybody bought "real physical audio products" and we recommended those records, all without the internet. The human relationships were better at that time, i believe; regarding these aspects. To me it seems a good way to get somehow "back to the roots" and seek real relationships to reinforce the interest of people.

 

I have no sympathy for record companies. Back in the days of vinyl records and when music was recorded by musicians and not looped and auto-tuned computers, I had owned over 800 albums and hundreds of singles as well. Then CDs came out and even though it cost the record companies much less money to burn CDs than it did to press vinyl albums, and it cost MUCH less to distribute and ship the smaller CDs and less ink to print the artwork and notes and tiny lyrics (which you need a Hubble telescope to read!), they still had the balls to charge us double for a cheaper to produce product. Yes, the audio was better...but it cost them less to make it. Did they care about the consumers who made them wealthy and pass the savings on to us? Should I care about them now? Obviously I am talking about the record companies, not the musicians. After all, the bands, musicians and artists are just employees of the record companies. In reality they are hired and contracted to do certain work for the companies and they get paid for it in royalties and advances. It's unfortunate that the artists don't have control of their entire works but they have no choice but to adhere to what the music "business" is.

Let's face it, when you buy a CD in a store or a song on iTunes you are not buying music. The music still belongs to it's copyright owner. You are buying the "right" to listen to it. So, since I had already spent a teenager's fortune to purchase all those songs, and they came out with a new format, am I supposed to spend double what I originally paid for the same songs to have the "right" to hear them again?

As far as new artists and new music is concerned, when we spend $1.29 on iTunes for the "right" to listen to a song, what are we really getting? We are getting a digital file. No case. No cover or artwork. No lyrics. No poster. No booklet. But mostly, something that is VIRTUALLY NO COST TO PRODUCE. How much does it cost you to make a copy of a file on your computer? (Yes, the original recording cost studio time. Although these days you don't need a $2,000 an hour studio. You can get equivalent sound quality with a powerful computer at home. Unless you need to record a real orchestra, expensive studio time is not as required as it was in the '70s or '80s.)

How do they get away with taking advantage of our love for music and ripping us off? Because artists are at their mercy and have to succumb to their meager percentages they offer. Because we have no alternative but to pay what they demand for something that, in a perfect world, should be free to all. When the record companies start being fair to the artists and consumers...so will I.

 

"... which you need a Hubble telescope to read!"

Your first post make much sense, Mr. Razbo. Welcome here.

@Kookaboo,

 

Some fresh news about music (Mafia) industry. It's a bit long (docs are included) but so revealing.
Translated from French by Google (and I - sorry in advance).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Graduated Response: when the boss of Universal and the Minister calls to one another by their first names...
By Guillaume Champeau
- published Monday, August 1, 2011 at 4:13 p.m.
- posted in Musique Numériques

Code:

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/19469-riposte-graduee-quand-patron-d-universal-et-ministre-s-appellent-par-leur-prenom.html

Exchanges of correspondence between the British government and the music lobby show that the proposed "graduated response" in Britain was already decided even before the conclusion of a public consultation that has been only an instrument of communication.

In France, those who have followed the debates in the National Assembly during the consideration of the web laws have probably remembered an incredible sense of decay of democracy, crushed under the weight of lobbying. Against the best arguments of the opposition, against the most implacable legal demonstrations - some of which were confirmed by following the Constitutional Council -, government and majority bind, not to counter them, but to ignore them.

In Britain, the British discover why they feel like us, after the adoption of the Digital Economy Act (DEA), which introduced a form of "graduated response" to fight against piracy. Feeling that it was a sensitive issue, the British government had opened on 16 June 2009 to September 29, 2009 a public consultation on how to respond to file sharing on P2P networks. But documents revealed by WhatDoTheyKnow

Code:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/correspondence_with_representati

(after almost a year of procedures to obtain) shows that the government has launched this consultation as pure form, without any intention to consider the answers.

When the Minister's Special Adviser met Universal's lawyer:

Secretary of State Peter Mandelson, in charge of the case, met the big boss of Universal Music, Lucian Grainge, on the first days of July 2009, just in the middle of the public consultation. The latter then sent to his "Dear Peter" a letter

Code:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49496/response/197387/attach/3/LUCIAN%20GRAINGE%204.pdf

summarizing the content of their discussions, in which Grainge said that "the government needs to prepare (...) a legal obligation for ISPs to attack experienced file sharers by cutting their speed and suspending their accounts and blacklist them." The director of the label then suggested a quick meeting between their teams and the government, to "see this and agree on what to do."

In an email, seen on page 11 of this document

Code:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49496/response/197387/attach/4/FINAL%20reply%20to%20mandelson%20FoI%2010%202228%20pdf%20version.pdf

, the Secretary of State recalled within an array the sequence of government actions concerning "graduated response". We discover that a week after receiving this letter from Lucian Grange, Secretary Peter Mandelson told his staff: "I think we should consider ("graduated response")," and adds that "officials are to meet and discuss as soon as possible, as Lucian suggested."

Despite the attempt to conceal the name (in fact behind a readable PDF badly censored), we find in the same table as "Geoffrey Norris and officials met with Universal's legal counsel" on July 31, 2009. BTW, Norris is Mandelson's special adviser...

Order is then given, in August, before the conclusion of the public consultation, to precipitate the study of "technological measures" that could take Ofcom (telecoms' regulator) to implement the "graduated response".

On page 10, the Secretary of State is worried by government communications on DEA, the UK web laws, and gives instructions: "Please tell to Kevin and press officers that we must be seen to be measured, as performing a real public consultation, and to be sensitive to people who may inadvertently fall within the scope of the law."

Since then, operators are struggling to resist the introduction of the "graduated response", in vain.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Note : As PDFs where badly censored, you can read all masked contents after a simple copy/paste procedure in a text editor (LOL) e.g. on page 7 of this document

Code:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/49496/response/197387/attach/4/FINAL%20reply%20to%20mandelson%20FoI%2010%202228%20pdf%20version.pdf

there is a entire censored paragraph. This was his (very informative) content :

"LG: Universal have entered into an arrangement with the Internet Service Provider (ISP) Virgin to target legitimate broadband users with a £10 "all you can eat" offer. There is a commercial risk with this strategy, which could be like "putting a Coca Cola pipe in your house which would then supply the whole street". In return for a fixed fee revenue share Virgin have agreed to anti-piracy measures, including pop-up warnings on screens. As ISPs can monitor the amount of power used by specific users and the sites connected to, it is possible for ISPs to pass on any details to owners of particular rights, who could then get take legal action."

 

Strange too is that sites which are distributing "shared" software, music etc. are getting more and more fascist, strict and limiting. Example: www.avaxhome.ws/ or YouTube! You cannot even publish good links to let people know about something. Boooh!!

In my opinion the world-wide-web is still too much egoistic-interest-controlled.

 

try before buy ,makes better buy ,better buy makes better software ,better software makes better music ,better music makes better people ,better people make better babies ,better babies +oo