Copyright theft...

If you have any ideas on how compromising the value of assets is a good thing for the industry then please feel free to let me know. I have to give a presentation on new business models and monetisation strategies in music publishing next month, I'm an optimistic person but I think the good 'ol days of huge profits are behind us.

I mistakenly put 'industry' when I mean it will be good for music itself. Because record companies no longer want to deliver a good product based on a sense of what is good art, they'd rather release a Mr. Blobby record if they were sure it would outsell a decent group of talented musicians. Indie labels do exist still in the UK thankfully, who have the aim of releasing what they actually feel is a good piece of art, not a better selling product.



I'm not one to defend the business strategies the labels employed over the last decade or so - sticking your head in the sand is no strategy - however I think you're being very unfair on the artists here. To be able to do the things you suggest (touring, building a fanbase etc) you need capital, and usually a lot of it. This typically means an artist needs to get a big advance from their label and publisher to enable them to work before they start earning (if they're lucky). If the rights in the songs and the recordings are worth little, then there is no business in giving big advances and the industry slowly grinds to a halt... unless we can think of some way to stop the slide in mechanical income or replace it with an as-yet-untapped income source.

Essentially you are talking merely about profitability and benefit to a company. I'm sorry but I find it very sad that we have turned an art form into assessment on the basis of its profitability. I tell you this now, true musicians and I mean those who use it as a medium of self-expression, aren't seeking to become rich, because pursuing an artistic existence is about contributing something that is above personal wealth.

To suggest that a band needs a large amount of capital to build a fanbase is exactly what is wrong with the music industry. They invest excessive amounts in bands with the desire to see a return. Not because they believe in the musician, those who are truly talented build a fanbase on their own merit, by being good at what they do.

It is not expensive to record material, nor is it unviable to remove middlemen and have musicians deal directly with venues, working out a fee for the musician while the venue organises the gig. Unfortunately an industry grew up around recorded music, when it should merely act as the medium between the listener and the musician.

The death of the record label does not mean the death of music, one depends on the other, but music will survive. It's a very sad state of affairs that success on money terms should come into a discussion on whats good for music.

William Blake sold 20 copies of his magnum opus 'Songs of Innocence/Experience' in his lifetime but that was enough on its own, and thankfully with surviving copies we all get to enjoy the artwork. A Cheryl Cole book would outsell any classic if it happened to be released at the same time, and record companies do the equivalent all the time, they clog the pipes with shit essentially.

But we are arguing different things, I'm looking for artists who choose art for arts sake, because it is important man has something to escape or draw inspiration from. You want more fans, so a company gets more money, I say more fans so more get the message or enjoyment. Don't blame you though it can be hard to step back and view the absurdity of the corporate world at times.
 
heheh...You did not comment on the Apple case which highlights the sheer greed of music industry.

This whole scenario of piracy is about companies trying desperately to preserve their business models when they are not in line with the latest technology.

95% of the stuff I download are TV shows. Now when I can read reviews and talk about TV shows one day after they have aired in US, it makes no sense for me to wait even one week for that episode. In some countries it can be as much as one year or more. Technology is there right now to allow me to watch it ASAP, why the feck would I not use it? Just so the local company here can make a killing? After that too after procrastinating. And even then, I just bought a DVD set of Curb your enthusiasm because it is worth to have it, even though I could have downloaded all the episodes in less than a day.
 
Essentially you are talking merely about profitability and benefit to a company. I'm sorry but I find it very sad that we have turned an art form into assessment on the basis of its profitability. I tell you this now, true musicians and I mean those who use it as a medium of self-expression, aren't seeking to become rich, because pursuing an artistic existence is about contributing something that is above personal wealth.

To suggest that a band needs a large amount of capital to build a fanbase is exactly what is wrong with the music industry. They invest excessive amounts in bands with the desire to see a return. Not because they believe in the musician, those who are truly talented build a fanbase on their own merit, by being good at what they do.

It is not expensive to record material, nor is it unviable to remove middlemen and have musicians deal directly with venues, working out a fee for the musician while the venue organises the gig. Unfortunately an industry grew up around recorded music, when it should merely act as the medium between the listener and the musician.

The death of the record label does not mean the death of music, one depends on the other, but music will survive. It's a very sad state of affairs that success on money terms should come into a discussion on whats good for music.

William Blake sold 20 copies of his magnum opus 'Songs of Innocence/Experience' in his lifetime but that was enough on its own, and thankfully with surviving copies we all get to enjoy the artwork. A Cheryl Cole book would outsell any classic if it happened to be released at the same time, and record companies do the equivalent all the time, they clog the pipes with shit essentially.

But we are arguing different things, I'm looking for artists who choose art for arts sake, because it is important man has something to escape or draw inspiration from. You want more fans, so a company gets more money, I say more fans so more get the message or enjoyment. Don't blame you though it can be hard to step back and view the absurdity of the corporate world at times.
I was stumbling towards writing something along those lines but you've done a much better job. The whole 'building a fan-base' schtick is just about selling more product. Rock 'n' roll is meant to be played in small venues not stadiums - they're for playing football in.
 
Most artists who love what they do want their art to be seen/heard by as many people as possible. Alas, if it was as easy to reach your fans and earn a living from music without a publisher or label as you seem to think, everyone would be doing it. Sadly, it is not at the moment.

Here's the crux, artists want to create their art. They don't want to spend all their time fannying about with licensing, collection societies, promoters, booking agents etc. If only there were a company that could provide those services for them at a percentage of their income...

The 'record labels are evil' mentality has some historical truth but is overly simplistic.
 
I was stumbling towards writing something along those lines but you've done a much better job. The whole 'building a fan-base' schtick is just about selling more product. Rock 'n' roll is meant to be played in small venues not stadiums - they're for playing football in.

It's just the system doesn't make people deliberately destructive, they just don't seem to realise what they are doing, those who record industry don't actually see that they are a negative force. It's like the whole principal of false consciousness.

Oh well, I'm certainly not a Trotskyite or anything, i actually have entirely given up on politics but I will say something, humanity is driven to one thing and that is the search for happiness, yet happiness has no direct route, its a fleeting state that you can achieve as Bill Gates or as Joe Bloggs, because your mind will always adapt to the situation. Lottery winners and paraplegics show similar levels of life satisfaction 2 years after the respective events.

Okay I have no idea where I'm going but ive only slept 5 hours in 90 or so, I'm just going to fade out....:)
 
FortBoyard, I think you have a pretty Romantic view of the artist. Fame, money and getting laid have always been as big motivators as self-expression.

We could argue about the artist part forever so here is a dialectic approach - Even if there is a pursuit of fame, money etc then if they can still pull off good music thats okay, all that matters is the record company works to just put music out there and survive, working with artists that they merit on ability not looking for who'll make them the best profit margins.

The artist and the producer of the medium is a necessary relationship like the writer and the printer, but we need to strip it back to a much more simple approach.





Most artists who love what they do want their art to be seen/heard by as many people as possible. Alas, if it was as easy to reach your fans and earn a living from music without a publisher or label as you seem to think, everyone would be doing it. Sadly, it is not at the moment.

Here's the crux, artists want to create their art. They don't want to spend all their time fannying about with licensing, collection societies, promoters, booking agents etc. If only there were a company that could provide those services for them at a percentage of their income...

The 'record labels are evil mentality' has some historical truth but is overly simplistic.

Look I believe record labels are necessary, just those who support the artist and choose the ones they want.

One example of many would be Factory Records from the Madchester Scene, Factory Records - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I love record companies that believe in their product. I had an uncle who worked for Polydor and was on the Boyzone promotion team despite the fact he grew up a Rolling Stones/ Blues Rock fan. He didn't ever complain, but he certainly didn't think the music was good, now something about that is not right. If you can't see the major labels desire is for profit and naught else than you are the one who is being overly simplistic.
 
Here's the crux, artists want to create their art. They don't want to spend all their time fannying about with licensing, collection societies, promoters, booking agents etc. If only there were a company that could provide those services for them at a percentage of their income....
Well there are a lot of small labels doing just that without palatial offices and all that other shite.
 
Well there are a lot of small labels doing just that without palatial offices and all that other shite.

Palatial offices? The lifts at our place have been broken for the past three days and I've had to take the stairs Pete, honest to god, stairs.
 
We could argue about the artist part forever so here is a dialectic approach - Even if there is a pursuit of fame, money etc then if they can still pull off good music thats okay, all that matters is the record company works to just put music out there and survive, working with artists that they merit on ability not looking for who'll make them the best profit margins.

Here's the uncomfortable fact that I have to wrestle with every day at work: by and large, shit sells. If we don't sign the crazy frog, someone else will and they'll make a load of money from it. The labels - not so much the publishers - that overly limit themselves and restrict their catalogue tend to be the ones who go out of business.

Look I believe record labels are necessary, just those who support the artist and choose the ones they want.

I love record companies that believe in their product. I had an uncle who worked for Polydor and was on the Boyzone promotion team despite the fact he grew up a Rolling Stones/ Blues Rock fan. He didn't ever complain, but he certainly didn't think the music was good, now something about that is not right. If you can't see the major labels desire is for profit and naught else than you are the one who is being overly simplistic.

Yes, they are a business - that is what businesses do. In our catalogue (publishing), yes we have Girls Aloud, James Blunt and the crazy frog, but we also have David Bowie, The Beatles and Queen.
 
You got stairs? Small labels have to parkour up the side of the building
 
Here's the uncomfortable fact that I have to wrestle with every day at work: by and large, shit sells. If we don't sign the crazy frog, someone else will and they'll make a load of money from it. The labels - not so much the publishers - that overly limit themselves and restrict their catalogue tend to be the ones who go out of business.



Yes, they are a business - that is what businesses do. In our catalogue, yes we have Girls Aloud, James Blunt and the crazy frog, but we also have David Bowie, The Beatles and Queen.

You shouldn't even worry about feeling uncomfortable, am I correct in saying that you didn't plan on working for a record company it was just a great job to get after your education?

That if a better payed, more interesting job in another industry was offered you would take it? If so than you need feel no responsibility for your role because it's not going to change if you quit on principle. The systems in place and you may as well utilise it.

It'd be a different story if you set out to work in the music industry to work for music you like, and you ended up instead supporting a system that is opposite to your beliefs on music as a whole.

If you set out to earn money, or enjoy your job then do it. I have no problem with most in the institution, just the institution itself. So I hope labels suffer as piracy rises.
 
You shouldn't even worry about feeling uncomfortable, am I correct in saying that you didn't plan on working for a record company it was just a great job to get after your education?

That if a better payed, more interesting job in another industry was offered you would take it? If so than you need feel no responsibility for your role because it's not going to change if you quit on principle. The systems in place and you may as well utilise it.

It'd be a different story if you set out to work in the music industry to work for music you like, and you ended up instead supporting a system that is opposite to your beliefs on music as a whole.

If you set out to earn money, or enjoy your job then do it. I have no problem with most in the institution, just the institution itself. So I hope labels suffer as piracy rises.

Oh no, I'm definitely a musical idealist who's sold out. Pretty much everyone in the industry is to be honest. Where I work (EMI Music Publishing, not the label) the place is filled with ex-musicians who's money dried up, producers who couldn't make a living and the rest of it. I did a music degree and did bits and pieces of production before landing a job at EMI, did some law and business training and have now managed to blag my way up the company somehow. Isn't that what everybody does? Pragmatism over idealism is the sad end for us all... but I love my job because it's interesting and great fun. What most people don't realise when they say things like 'it's the suits who run the industry', is that most of those 'suits' are musicians (obviously there's still the hawky lawyers and accountants around).
 
Oh no, I'm definitely a musical idealist who's sold out. Pretty much everyone in the industry is to be honest. Where I work (EMI Music Publishing, not the label) the place is filled with ex-musicians who's money dried up, producers who couldn't make a living and the rest of it. I did a music degree and did bits and pieces of production before landing a job at EMI and have now managed to blag my way up the company somehow. Isn't that what everybody does? Pragmatism over idealism is the sad end for us all... but I love my job because it's really interesting. What most people don't realise when they say things like it's the 'suits' who run the industry, is that most of those 'suits' are musicians (obviously there's still the hawky lawyers and accountants around).

I complete understand why you've done what you've done. I'll end up doing it as well most likely I'm just a few years back and firmly in the idealism phase.

Not with music though, with writing. Until that day may I annoy everyone with my contradictions and snobbish beliefs.

A job you can enjoy is invaluable too. Just have a kid and turn him/her into the next great musician.
 
I think the only real hope for the entertainment industries long term - especially the music industry - is to aim for a 'feels-like-free' model. For example, a music download / steaming package that comes bundled in with your ISP or mobile contract so the consumer doesn't really feel they're paying their 15-20 quid a month for music.

Sounds about right. Give people a reliable and easily affordable way of getting the content they want and they will adopt it in droves.
 
SGAE (Spanish performing rights society) is right though. Surprisingly, your TV license or subscription fee does not cover the right to play copyrighted music in a public place, even that contained within the broadcast. You will need a license from the relevant performing rights society for that.

You misunderstand me, and the situation slightly. Firstly, there is no TV licence in Spain (bars pay a small fee per item for the use of terrestrial TV/Radio/CD Players, etc.) and a satellite subscription fee for a bar/restaurant in Spain is around 10 times that of a household. When you subscribe, they send you several stickers to place in the window that says that you have paid the public place subscription fee. SGAE inspectors sometimes arrive to check that you are not using a domestic card, and if you are can confiscate the card and the equipment. I never actually had a visit from a SGAE inspector, but the problem was that they kept insisting that the bar in question was a disco, where the payments are structured totally differently and are very expensive. They were taking the piss basically.
 
heheh...You did not comment on the Apple case which highlights the sheer greed of music industry.

This whole scenario of piracy is about companies trying desperately to preserve their business models when they are not in line with the latest technology.

95% of the stuff I download are TV shows. Now when I can read reviews and talk about TV shows one day after they have aired in US, it makes no sense for me to wait even one week for that episode. In some countries it can be as much as one year or more. Technology is there right now to allow me to watch it ASAP, why the feck would I not use it? Just so the local company here can make a killing? After that too after procrastinating. And even then, I just bought a DVD set of Curb your enthusiasm because it is worth to have it, even though I could have downloaded all the episodes in less than a day.

You seem to have rather missed the point. The debate is whether or not it is morally wrong to illegally download content. The fact it is more convenient for you to illegally download your entertainment makes no difference to the ethics involved.

It's inconvenient for me to queue up and pay for a book in a book-store. Much easier to walk in, pick one up and walk out. That's no defence though.
 
It's ethically wrong IMO when you know that what you are doing is illegal. That said however, talking about the law, with downloaded content, I personally feel that the law should come down hard on those that copy and disseminate, not necessarily those that pick up on it. It should be considered more of a broadcast medium rather than a point of sale. I suppose an analogy you could use is a pirate radio station - I don't know, but surely it's not illegal to listen to a pirate radio station is it, to pick something up that's freely there in the ether? Someone could correct me here, but the illegality there is purely on the head of the pirate broadcaster? The problem with P2P systems however, be it bit-torrent or Sopcast is that the user also becomes the broadcaster, and are themselves disseminating the material. Ethically it's wrong if you know that the material is copyrighted and that you are in fact gaining something for nothing, but I don't see how it should be illegal per se. You could argue that you can't control it due to the internationalisation of the system, but Radio Caroline was a boat floating in International waters wasn't it?
 
With that loose definition, then I suppose a lot of things are theft. Don't think this is legally the case though which is why I don't accept arguments like, "You wouldn't steal a car."

6219_498d_800.jpg
 
I was absolutely disgusted when I discovered my E.P was up on a file sharing site :)

No to be honest I don't give a feck
 
You seem to have rather missed the point. The debate is whether or not it is morally wrong to illegally download content. The fact it is more convenient for you to illegally download your entertainment makes no difference to the ethics involved.

It's inconvenient for me to queue up and pay for a book in a book-store. Much easier to walk in, pick one up and walk out. That's no defence though.
You do know that in some countries, in fact in lot of them they do not even air all the US tv shows. In many, they are as much as one season behind.

People in US can already watch loads of shows on sites like Hulu legally and do not download too much stuff anymore. Same provision can be made for rest of the world easily. Only roadblock is the greed of local TV companies in other parts of the world. I reject such "ethics".
 
So it now comes down to not having patience? It's the "I want it now or I'll scream and scream and scream" mindset that 8 year olds often show?
No

I still wait for a good movie to hit the cinemas wherever I am, even if a good screener copy is available.

We are in the age of internet, meaning I can discuss the latest news in the world with people from Africa,Europe, Asia, US etc. Same with TV Shows.

What in your opinion should be the reason that Hulu should be barred from streaming outside US? Only obstacle I can see is permission from local countries to broadcast that particular content or label it accordingly.
 
No

I still wait for a good movie to hit the cinemas wherever I am, even if a good screener copy is available.

We are in the age of internet, meaning I can discuss the latest news in the world with people from Africa,Europe, Asia, US etc. Same with TV Shows.

What in your opinion should be the reason that Hulu should be barred from streaming outside US? Only obstacle I can see is permission from local countries to broadcast that particular content or label it accordingly.

There is a huge difference though, crappy.

Hulu streams content in the US alone because it has the online rights for those TV shows for the US alone. If someone in India, for instance, is willing to pay bottom dollar for acquiring Indian television rights for Curb Your Enthusiams (as Zee English/Cafe - used to), then HBO would gladly sell it to them.

But often due to budget constraints, they decide to wait for a while till a particular show's hype has settled down to acquire rights. Scrubs, for instance, would be circa Season 6 in here. Still, if there is a demographic base that warrants immediate acquisition, then Asian networks do acquire them. American Idol and Tonight Show are two such programs which air within 24 hours of their US airtimes.

I do miss watching loads of TV shows. If there is one reason to justify downloads, it would be the need to watch quality art on demand. I really do not want ownership of the content, just the entertainment without the time lag (which is what you're alluding to). I'd gladly welcome website like allsp, for instance.
 
My college has blocked my internet for a month for downloading a film from BitTorrent. 'Kinell. I didn't even know they could see that sort of thing. All my mates download shitloads of music, which I don't, as well as films and none of them have been caught. Bah.
 
Of course they can monitor your usage.

I bet that interracial midget man of vigour and esteem collection isn't looking like such a good idea now, is it?

Disgusting.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/nyregion/at-92-movie-bootlegger-is-soldiers-hero.html?_r=1

At 92, a Bandit to Hollywood but a Hero to Soldiers
By ALAN SCHWARZ
MASSAPEQUA, N.Y. — One of the world’s most prolific bootleggers of Hollywood DVDs loves his morning farina. He has spent eight years churning out hundreds of thousands of copies of “The Hangover,” “Gran Torino” and other first-run movies from his small Long Island apartment to ship overseas.

“Big Hy” — his handle among many loyal customers — would almost certainly be cast as Hollywood Enemy No. 1 but for a few details. He is actually Hyman Strachman, a 92-year-old, 5-foot-5 World War II veteran trying to stay busy after the death of his wife. And he has sent every one of his copied DVDs, almost 4,000 boxes of them to date, free to American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With the United States military presence in those regions dwindling, Big Hy Strachman will live on in many soldiers’ hearts as one of the war’s more shadowy heroes.

“It’s not the right thing to do, but I did it,” Mr. Strachman said, acknowledging that his actions violated copyright law.

“If I were younger,” he added, “maybe I’d be spending time in the hoosegow.”

Capt. Bryan Curran, who recently returned from Afghanistan, estimated that from 2008 to 2010, Mr. Strachman sent more than 2,000 DVDs to his outfits there.

“You’re shocked because your initial image is of some back-alley Eastern European bootlegger — not an old Jewish guy on Long Island,” Captain Curran said. “He would time them with the movie’s release — whenever a new movie was just in theaters, we knew Big Hy would be sending us some. I saw ‘The Transformers’ before it hit the States.”

Jenna Gordon, a specialist in the Army Reserve, said she had handed out even more of Mr. Strachman’s DVDs last year as a medic with the 883rd Medical Company east of Kandahar City, where soldiers would gather for movie nights around personal computers, with mortar blasting in the background. Some knew only that the discs came from some dude named Big Hy; others knew not even that.

“It was pretty big stuff — it’s reconnecting you to everything you miss,” she said. “We’d tell people to take a bunch and pass them on.”

White-haired, slightly hunched and speaking in his Depression-era Brooklyn brogue (think Casey Stengel after six years of Hebrew school), Mr. Strachman explained in a recent interview that his 60-hour-a-week venture was winding down. “It’s all over anyways — they’re all coming home in the near future,” he said of the troops.

As he spoke, he was busy preparing some packages, filled with 84 discs of “The Artist,” “Moneyball” and other popular films, many of them barely out of theaters, to a platoon in Afghanistan.

As for his brazen violation of domestic copyright laws, Mr. Strachman nodded guiltily but pointed to his walls, which are strewed with seven huge American flags, dozens of appreciative letters, and snapshots of soldiers holding up their beloved DVDs.

“Every time I got back an emotional e-mail or letter, I sent them another box,” he said, adding that he had never accepted any money for the movies or been told by any authorities to stop.

“I thought maybe because I’m an old-timer,” he said.

In February, Mr. Strachman duplicated and shipped 1,100 movies. (“A slow month,” he said.) He has not kept an official count but estimates that he topped 80,000 discs a year during his heyday in 2007 and 2008, making his total more than 300,000 since he began in 2004. Postage of about $11 a box, and the blank discs themselves, would suggest a personal outlay of over $30,000.

Born in Brooklyn in 1920 to immigrants from Poland, Mr. Strachman left high school during the Depression to work for his family’s window and shade store in Manhattan. He became a stockbroker on Wall Street — “When there were no computers, you had to use your noodle” — before retiring in the early 1990s.

After Mr. Strachman’s wife of more than half a century, Harriet, died in 2003, he discovered a Web site that collected soldiers’ requests for care packages. He noted a consistent plea for movie DVDs and wound up passing his sleepless nights replicating not only the films, but also a feeling of military comradeship that he had not experienced since his own service in the Pacific during World War II.

“I wouldn’t say it kept him alive, but it definitely brought back his joie de vivre,” said Mr. Strachman’s son, Arthur, a tax accountant in New York.

Mr. Strachman has never ripped a movie from a store-bought DVD and does not even know how; rather, he bought bootlegged discs for $5 in Penn Station before finding a dealer closer to home, at his local barbershop. Those discs were either recordings made illegally in theaters or studio cuts that had been leaked.

Originally, Mr. Strachman would use his desktop computer to copy the movies one tedious disc at a time. (“It was moyda,” he groaned.) So he got his hands on a $400 professional duplicator that made seven copies at once, grew his fingernails long to better separate the blank discs, and began copying hundreds a day.

Last month, in black grandpa shoes and blue suspenders that hoisted his trousers up to his sternum, Mr. Strachman and his spindly hands steered a master copy of “The Artist” into the machine, fed the seven other bays with blanks, and pressed “Record.” Six minutes later, in went “The King’s Speech.” Then “Moneyball.”

He eventually stuffed the maximum of 84 discs (12 titles, 7 each) into a United States Postal Service fixed-rate box, secured it with several yards of packing tape and scrawled out a packing slip for the Massapequa Park post office. The contraband, which he said could take up to three months to arrive, was addressed to an Army chaplain.

“Chaplains don’t sell them, and they fan out,” Mr. Strachman said. “The distribution is great.”

The movie studios are less enthusiastic. Although the most costly piracy now takes place online through file-sharing Web sites, the illegal duplication of copyright DVDs — usually by organized crime in Eastern Europe and China, not by retirees in their 90s in the American suburbs — still siphons billions of dollars out of the industry every year. And while Mr. Strachman’s movies were given to soldiers as a form of charity, studios do send military bases reel-to-reel films, which are much harder to copy, and projectors for the troops overseas.

Howard Gantman, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said he did not believe its member studios were aware of Mr. Strachman’s operation. His sole comment dripped with the difficulty of going after a 92-year-old widower supporting the troops.

“We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to them while they are away from home,” Mr. Gantman said.

Careful to minimize his malfeasance, Mr. Strachman said he had kept no copies for himself and had destroyed every master disc soon after the new releases came in.

Before long, the sole evidence of his operation will be on his walls and on a little bookshelf, next to his cholesterol-control pills and a few envelopes of farina, where seven three-ring binders overflow with letters and pictures, most addressed to “Big Hy,” from appreciative soldiers.

“Our downtime is spent watching movies as we clean our weapons,” one handwritten note said.

Another accompanied a flag from a combat mission over Afghanistan: “I can think of no one more deserving than you, and no one who understands what this flag stands for and means to our veterans.”

The fun will stop soon, Mr. Strachman said. “I’m not sure who’s going to be left over there anymore,” he said, happier for the soldiers’ return than for his need to find another hobby.

And with that the duplicator beeped, spitting out seven more copies of “The Artist.”

Mr. Strachman scooped them out of their trays, put a rubber band around them and inserted the stack into a box, perhaps his very last.

This is an interesting story.
 
Copyright "theft" can't be compared to theft though. You steal a DVD and the store can't sell it. You pirate the DVD but the studios can still sell it.

Not to you they can't,you have it, no need for you to buy after pirating it. At least that is how the theory goes.

Besides new copies of the DVD can be made and stores always build some theft loss into their prices anyways.
 
From a personal point of view the stuff I download and don't buy I wouldn't buy anyways. Simple as that. If I had access to some kind of service like Netflix I'd use it but I live in a country where studios and big corporations don't bother servicing.

I have a nice collection of DVD and Blu-Ray and I'm one of the people that think that piracy has not hurt the industry and I use the increasing sales figures as proof that a lot of other people are like me.

When someone cuts out the middlemen I don't pirate it. I bought Louis CK's standup, I bought Radiohead's album.

Same with computer games. I buy games via Steam. I like that medium. Some might criticise my philosophy on this but I don't feel bad in the slightest because I know for a fact that stuff I like I buy, piracy or no piracy.
 
I bought 3 CDs from my local record store - it's a proper independent store, so it's not some big-time corporation - and ended up $52 lighter and with maybe 10 songs between the three albums that I'll listen to more than a few times.

I'm not saying it's right, but you're asking me why I download stuff, that's why. It's not fair, but then again I'm not perfect!
 
I was absolutely disgusted when I discovered my E.P was up on a file sharing site :)

No to be honest I don't give a feck

I bet you were chuffed to bits Kinky.

Why? Because you make sod all from the profits of your record while your popularity increase from the spreading of your material is invaluable to you.

Am I right?