Dubstepforum.com

i feel it's the same as digital copies as the original source is seeing no profit
rental places get the best of both world, they get to make money off of lending out a product, then sell off the excess copies when the popularity dies down, genius from a business stance
but from a copyright holders perspective it's no different than someone downloading a copy imo no profit is made or lost either way

deadly habit wrote:i feel it's the same as digital copies as the original source is seeing no profit
rental places get the best of both world, they get to make money off of lending out a product, then sell off the excess copies when the popularity dies down, genius from a business stance
but from a copyright holders perspective it's no different than someone downloading a copy imo no profit is made or lost either way

you really didn't answer the question. You just spun some facts and went around in a circle. you'd make a pretty good politician.

If I picked this up:

in a used CD shop...

instead of buying new (it is available new)...

how do you feel about that?

i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

nope as you had no intentions of buying it new in the first place
i'm not losing or gaining anything
you're the same as someone downloading a copy

deadly habit wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

nope as you had no intentions of buying it new in the first place
i'm not losing or gaining anything
you're the same as someone downloading a copy

you don't know my intentions. never assume that.... about anything or anyone.

Now..

Lets say I let some people hear this CD.. and then they ask for a copy of it.

would you rather me tell them to support the artists, and buy it new, or me burn them a copy?

deadly habit wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

nope as you had no intentions of buying it new in the first place
i'm not losing or gaining anything
you're the same as someone downloading a copy

you said the magic word. COPY. having the physical, tangible CD is NOT THE SAME as a Copy.

A copy is a illegally made duplicate.

I have that CD how exciting

i know your intentions atm are trying to get a rise out of me which isn't going to work
and as far as buy or copy that's your own and their own prerogative what they want to do
hell you yourself didn't "support the artists"

DRTY wrote:I have that CD how exciting

did you buy it new?

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

nope as you had no intentions of buying it new in the first place
i'm not losing or gaining anything
you're the same as someone downloading a copy

you said the magic word. COPY. having the physical, tangible CD is NOT THE SAME as a Copy.

A copy is a illegally made duplicate.

and does the same as a 2nd hand legit version, your point being?

deadly habit wrote:i know your intentions atm are trying to get a rise out of me which isn't going to work
and as far as buy or copy that's your own and their own prerogative what they want to do
hell you yourself didn't "support the artists"

That CD was a physical media that was made and sold. there are no laws that say you cannot resale and buy that CD.

Compensation is not exclusively the ONLY way to support an artist. I supported the artists on this CD, honestly Breakage more than anyone, by exposing other people to it. But I did get asked to copy this CD from a BUNCH of people. I refused. I take pride in saying I don't get down with piracy. I've actually converted a lot of people.

Two friends actually went and ordered that CD brand new.. because I didn't give them a copy!

deadly habit wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:

butt jolokia wrote:

deadly habit wrote:i would care less as fabric went bankrupt and collecting royalties from that that i'm still owed is near impossible atm

i'd rather it's bought new so i'd see some money, hell it prolly costs about the same, but you can buy it second hand or pirate it and it makes no difference to me

I bought it second hand used in a shop not long after it came out.

do you feel bad about that?

nope as you had no intentions of buying it new in the first place
i'm not losing or gaining anything
you're the same as someone downloading a copy

you said the magic word. COPY. having the physical, tangible CD is NOT THE SAME as a Copy.

A copy is a illegally made duplicate.

and does the same as a 2nd hand legit version, your point being?

fuck. you just arent getting it.

so many copies are made at a pressing plant. that costs a certain amount of money. so many vaiables go into the cost of the product, then the desired profit. ripping a cd and pre'n it makes people not buy the original product. whats so hard to understand?!?

so you in essence are legitimizing not directly supporting the artists on said cd by directly purchasing it the same way people who share pirated work with more exposure for said artists who may do the same as your friends
i thought it was all so simple?
i get how physical pressing and marketing and profit shares work
do you?

deadly habit wrote:so you in essence are legitimizing not directly supporting the artists on said cd by directly purchasing it the same way people who share pirated work with more exposure for said artists who may do the same as your friends
i thought it was all so simple?
i get how physical pressing and marketing and profit shares work
do you?

FFS dude... are you trolling teh Bass Hurtz ?!


1. PHYSICAL COPY OF CD (only so many made)

2. RIPPED CD AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON THE INTERNET (unlimited copies)

1. LEGAL

2. ILLEGAL

3. a ripped copy doesn't make physical medium any less available
4. when the medium is available people who will purchase do, people who copy/pirate had no intention to in the first place
5. if a medium is unavailable legitimately, there is no profits to be made or lost

I think that any kind of art is valuable. The value isn't necessary a monetary value, but since right now, money is the most common way to measure the value of something, it's going to be assigned a monetary value.

That being said, robbing an artist of money for making something that they love is despicable, which is why you'll never see me releasing on a major label. (Plus, majors don't like music that you have to think about, but that's neither here nor there)

I can understand both sides of the argument, but when it comes to buying a physical copy of something, you're honestly paying for the physical copy. If you're buying digitally, you're paying for the music itself, not the ability to hold something with the music on it. I believe in sharing my music, because I didn't make it for some asshole in a turtleneck to have on a shelf and never play, I made it for people to listen to and enjoy.

If those people are pirating it, I'm not too happy about that, but I know that a good portion of those people would pay to see me play live (promoters, holla at ur boi ), and I'm honestly I'm happy to know that somebody's consuming the music, and it means enough to them that they'd acquire it illegally.


TL;DR, piracy is way too much of a grey area.

deadly habit wrote:3. a ripped copy doesn't make physical medium any less available
4. when the medium is available people who will purchase do, people who copy/pirate had no intention to in the first place
5. if a medium is unavailable legitimately, there is no profits to be made or lost

3. irrelevant, but if we all just copy and give your CD for away for free, you can buy your CD when ever you want ?! lol
4. impossible to determine
5. well... we aren't even talking about that. are you hinting towards abandoned ware?

imagine you're 14 yrs old right now. your entire entertainment value system is based on what you can find for free, what you can't. think about the repercussions of that. in another decade, even if they get digital watermarking down to a science, there's 3 generations since napster that have grown up getting over on digital entertainment. this is why governments are stepping up with harder net laws and piracy measures. sure, there's people that will say thats a good thing, that changing the value system makes it more socialist, but understand that the best art requires dedication, persistance, and hard work, and if you can sit in front of your computer and contribute to devaluing entertainment as we know it, then don't have the audacity to gloat to other people how incredible it is to rob other people of their rights.

seckle wrote:imagine you're 14 yrs old right now. your entire entertainment value system is based on what you can find for free, what you can't. think about the repercussions of that. in another decade, even if they get digital watermarking down to a science, there's 3 generations since napster that have grown up getting over on digital entertainment. this is why governments are stepping up with harder net laws and piracy measures. sure, there's people that will say thats a good thing, that changing the value system makes it more socialist, but understand that the best art requires dedication, persistance, and hard work, and if you can sit in front of your computer and contribute to devaluing entertainment as we know it, then don't have the audacity to gloat to other people how incredible it is to rob other people of their rights.

It's a rare occurrence when I agree with you wholeheartedly. Keep up the good work.