What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
202 Comments
- jayhawk88, on 07/02/2009, -17/+73Jebus.
"Rarely will you find a person who is living in studio apartment the size of a shoebox extolling the virtues of paying for music, because it’s super affordable. In the climate of recession and even outright global, financial failure, this argument is used less and less, but still used. If the average cost of an album is set at $15, then buying just three such albums a month could mean spending over $500 yearly on music. In more severe cases, that money can make the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on someone’s couch. It is in this writer’s humble opinion that, if you fall into this demographic – you are totally justified in listening to music you did not pay to listen to."
Or you could, you know, just do without any new music. Since it is a luxury item and all. WTF?
"So was the Boston Tea Party. So are the protests in Iran. Many things are illegal, that doesn’t make them wrong or even immoral."
Again, WTF? Comparing downloading music for free to fighting for independence? Hyperbole much? I'm sure people in Iran who are this very moment risking their lives to fight for the future of their country would be thrilled to hear how you shared their struggle by downloading the new Green Day album. Give me a break; this argument is tired, wrong, and quite frankly offensive on many levels.
Getting and listening to music is not an inalienable right people. It is a form of entertainment, and therefore by definition is a luxury. Furthermore, there are plenty of ways to get your music for fee that are completely legal. Attend free concerts held by any number of local artists in your area. Seek out music offered for free by the artists. Make your own music. But don't act like you're some kind of goddamn freedom fighter because you don't feel like dropping $15 for a CD. - yoshiboy, on 07/02/2009, -6/+54Obligatory: ***** THE RIAA!
- jboitnott, on 07/02/2009, -6/+38I'm a big supporter of my bands - but sometimes - if someone recommends a new one to me... then I want to download them for free to be sure I should buy it.
- appleofdischord, on 07/02/2009, -11/+42Except that when you download music you aren't "taking" it from someone else. They still have their copy, and now you have one too.
If I could copy a BMW, hell yeah I would. But to steal one? Naw. - mannypdesign, on 07/02/2009, -13/+42I can't believe they're equating piracy to the protests in Iran. Really? Because from where I sit, pirates have risked nothing compared to the Iranian protesters. Call me crazy, but a fine is a pittance compared to getting shot.
- Travelsonic, on 07/02/2009, -3/+32"We can clone things right? Say I clone your "hypothetical child", then I can keep it? It's just a copy.?"
Of course, as long as you don't kill mine in the process.
Applying scarcity and restrictions associated with physical property to data is stupid. - Feldoh, on 07/02/2009, -20/+40So.... According to this site just because I can't afford something doesn't mean it should not stop me to doing/obtaining it? I want a BMW but can not afford to buy the car. It's okay to just, you know, take it?
The article isn't saying you should be allowed to try it, but simply able to obtain music if you can't afford it. Dumb article in my opinion. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -7/+24I love these debates.
The biggest rebuttal to it all is, "You have absolutely no proof for any of these hypothetical situations."
Then you bring legit situations that are comparable. A friend RENTS a movie. Has a party. 15 of us watch a movie. Is that hurting the industry compared to me just downloading the thing myself? That usually gets some weird backpedaling going on.
In the end, all silly assumptions with absolutely nothing to back it up with. Then something like The Dark Knight breaks all kinds of records, and any attempt at trying to damn file sharers goes right out the window. - bradleyland, on 07/02/2009, -2/+18Some of these "logical" rebuttals just suck. In his argument for "It’s Not That Expensive to Just Pay For It", he seems to make the argument that music is a right (as in unalienable). It is not. Eating out is expensive too, and people who live in cramped studio apartments can't afford it, but it doesn't make it right to dine and dash just because you are poor. You can't fight one illogical argument with another. Also, "logic" doesn't imply validity. If you have a noisy neighbor, logic may dictate that killing him will product the desired silence. However, that doesn't make it "right".
There has to be a resolution of ideology between the extortionist tactics of the RIAA and the "Arrrgh! We be pirates!" attitude of today's youth. The bottom line is that music has value. Copying/downloading music is principally flawed. To say that music shouldn't be paid for is to say it has no value. If it didn't have value, people wouldn't risk lawsuit to obtain it. For some, pirating music is a form of open rebellion, but it is increasingly just something people do because they have no respect for the value of music. We have to do a better job of fighting this on both fronts, otherwise we risk losing it altogether. - atroxodisse, on 07/02/2009, -4/+20Gotta bury it. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but most of those weren't logical. Downloading pirated music is somewhat like civil disobedience. It's in a moral gray area. It isn't anything like stealing a loaf of bread, and most of the people downloading music wouldn't buy every song they download but nobody who downloads music would live a life without music so obviously there is some loss of income to the music industry. Studio time and equipment isn't free, and neither is promoting an artist. People don't go to concerts for bands they've never heard of. Granted, music sharing is a way to promote an artist but would anyone have this music to share in the first place if someone hadn't heard their music on the radio or MTV?
As for ease of use, I'd love to see your granny download bit torrent and set it up and even figure out what a torrent is. Compared with downloading a song off Amazon.com or itunes you aren't even in the same league for ease of use. In what universe does anyone think a teenager or 20 something who has been using the internet their whole life is in the same category as an adult who can't tell the difference between a web browser and an internet enabled application.
The business model of the music industry needs to change but that doesn't make it ok to pirate music, what makes it ok is that the system is unfair, and there needs to be a force driving the industry to something that is fair. There needs to be an agreement between the rights owners and the public. Fair use should be instituted again.
I pay for my music now. I get DRM free music or I rip the CDs that I buy because to me that's fair. - GrammerPants, on 07/02/2009, -5/+19Yeah that line really bothered me. If you can't afford it listen to the radio, don't use it as a excuse to take something you didn't pay for. Download all you want, but do the world a favor and drop the bull ***** excuses.
- Allanon, on 07/02/2009, -6/+20The argument the article made for "It’s Not That Expensive to Just Pay For It" is just stupid. It made it seem like music is a necessity and if they didn't get their three albums a month the person would die. If you can't afford to purchase music then watch music television, listen to the radio, or use free online music sites to get your music fix. There is no defense to pirating music just because you can't afford it, I know people do it but that doesn't make it right or ethical. Just because I can't afford to purchase something doesn't give me the right to get it for free.
- ancalagon73, on 07/02/2009, -2/+15But sometimes a great band comes out with a crap album and I want check it out to be sure I like it before I spend my money.
Yeah, I'm looking at you Metallica. - Lunarparcel, on 07/02/2009, -2/+14A few of these are indeed logical and sensible, but some of the points are very ignorant, myopic, or otherwise just plain douchetarded.
- FecalHurler, on 07/02/2009, -5/+15Hahaha... The douche who wrote this article argues that because you can't afford music, it's okay to steal it.
Is this the kind of ***** you believe? Theft doesn't suddenly become okay because you can't afford something.
I'm sure I'll get dugg down, but honestly that is the ***** worst argument I've ever heard. - CarpeFishem, on 07/02/2009, -4/+13Wow, nice straw man arguments here. Why is it that the only people pirates consider supporting are "bands"? What about record producers? Without the people who actually know how to engineer sound, you wouldn't get music recordings, period. They get paid a certain amount by the eeeeevil music companies to provide their services to record the album, often paying most of the budget to use a third party's studio, and get a large portion of their income through album sales. They don't have concerts to fall back on for profit.
What you pirates blissfully ignore is that record companies don't willfully gouge prices on CDs. There's more to producing them than the costs involved in burning the albums. They have to pay for the cost of the production of the album, the printing of the CD jackets, and other organizational functions such as promotions, talent scouting, market research, and the like. They lose money on some albums and make money on others; thus, the price of all albums are generally higher so that the losses of some albums are made up for by the profits from another. Businesses cannot change prices without changing costs, and you're an ignorant child if you believe that you deserve to own something that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars without paying for it. - Brysonic, on 07/02/2009, -4/+13I completely agree. I have no love of the RIAA but most of those arguments are pretty weak.
- Alabaster1234, on 07/02/2009, -5/+14The "You Don’t Support the Bands By Pirating Their Music" Section is a gross oversimplification.
Musicians make money off of records through both publishing and performance credits. Do they make 100% of the money... no, but then again they don't typically pay for the albums to be printed, marketed, distributed, etc. A musician that writes their own material makes substantial money off of record sales. Britney Spears who writes absolutely nothing, and in fact barely even sings on her album they might have a point... but not all musicians are equal when it comes to the input they put into their records.
The rest of the list about the quality of the music pirated they might have a point, but the last couple in the list really seem to be reaching. - greevar, on 07/02/2009, -5/+13$750-$150,000 per infringement isn't risking anything?
- chadsmith729, on 07/02/2009, -5/+13Dugg for the thumbnail
- uncleosbert, on 07/02/2009, -2/+9@ allanon
what you're saying isn't true. the music of mozart or the beatles doesn't lose value because of the numbers of copies that exist. as you say, the cds are copies, not originals. and those copies are often dumped in landfills instead of being sold, because the record companies price them too high. they are losing this market because they're banking on enforced scarcity.
to put it another way, does a famous photographer have the right to keep people from photographing something he has photographed, to keep the image from proliferating in the market and maintain his pricing? do authors have the right to keep me from lending a friend a book i've purchased second hand? does a library bring down the cost of shakespeare's plays at bookstores? - JoeB4ever, on 07/02/2009, -7/+14I hate when people justify pirating music. I'm okay if you do it, just don't think you're ***** Robin Hood.
- HCProgramr, on 07/02/2009, -2/+8I have no love for RIAA, yet haven't done anything even akin to piracy in a decade...and was a 'sampler' even when I did.
That said...this author is a tool.
Yes, some pirates do it in the name of civil disobedience, and as a social phenomenon should be getting more attention as proof that the current incarnation of copyright violates the spirit of the original law.
If the record execs had a dozen brain cells between them, they'd be able to see Public Domain for the potential cash cow it is: Free Advertising. How much are they spending to...
FOR THE LOVE OF F*CK WILL YOU PEOPLE FIX THE 'Humping Text Box' ALREADY!
...anyway. How much are they spending to defend a 30-year-old song against downloaders? How much do they make selling it through their back catalog? If A is greater than B, why are they bothering? Copyrights aren't Trademarks...they don't have to be defended or they're lost.
Instead, use the public domain as advertising. "Here, this is the stuff I made 10 years ago. If you like it, my new one hits stores next month, and we're touring in that area in 3." - drmitchell, on 07/02/2009, -3/+9I can think of three things wrong with this list:
1. FTA: "They [records companies] effectively buy the artist’s work, and act as though they own the rights to distribute it..." They don't ACT as though they own the rights to distribute it. They DO have the right to distribute it. That's what record companies do. And when an artist signs a contract with a record company, that's what the artist is agreeing to let the record company do on the artist's behalf. This, in and of itself, isn't evil. No, wait, it's not evil no matter how you look at it.
Evil is killing puppies just for the fun of it. This is just business.
2. While it's fun to demonize the RIAA, how do we expect artists to pay their rent? While I may be all for free culture, that's the dream utopia, right? While we're all waiting around for that utopia to happen, artists still need to pay the bills. How do we expect people to pay the rent (and therefore be able to actually make music) between the reality of today's capitalist market and this free-culture utopia of the future? I'm not suggesting that the RIAA is right or the right solution. But simply dismantling an entire system/industry and hoping that everyone's going to shrug and say, "okay!" is the very definition of naiveté.
3. Being an advocate for free music and/or free culture is not comparable to Iran. In fact, to make that comparison is insulting. Access to music is not a fundamental right. It's a privilege. Without access to professional music, you are still free to make your own music, to go to work, to vote, to breath the air and eat food. Without access to professional music, you will not die. It's a privilege, not a right, and therefore it is inappropriate to bring in the moral argument that breaking a law is okay. It isn't a moral law you're breaking. You're not fighting for your rights by downloading music without paying for it. You're simply enjoying a privilege. If you had to pay for it? Oh, boohoo! No one's going to shoot you in the back. So quit your whining. - BananaChips, on 07/02/2009, -5/+11I'll be the first to admit to piracy involving games, movies, music, etc (can't touch this in Canada) but I don't try to justify my actions. I know that piracy is wrong, I just don't really care because it is such an easy crime. The RIAA and MPAA and other organizations are also definitely in the wrong and when you buy this media legally you are indeed supporting them, but to me, if you have a problem with this maybe you should just man up and go without the media. Or pirate. But it becomes silly when you start justifying piracy.
Unless it is a publisher's specific wish to do so (think Radiohead.)
I know the whole deal about
- stealing takes something
- pirating copies something
but imagine if somehow, magically, you could pirate a plasma TV. You could copy a plasma TV. Big deal, you aren't stealing it right? I wonder what is going to happen to sales of plasma TVs. It's the same idea here. Granted the RIAA doesn't deserve this money but that's the way she goes. - Heiminator, on 07/02/2009, -2/+8ever heard of artists who create music to express themselves,without money being the main motivation and all....
- kanojo1969, on 07/02/2009, -1/+7Terribly written load of crap. I support the intent, but the article doesn't contain much logic, and each of the 'rebuttals' is just opinion without any figures, citations, or examination of counter-arguments.
If you want to just write your opinion that's fine, but label it as such. If you want to do an article with real rebuttals for RIAA arguments, it needs to be more thorough. Here's a template for each argument that you should follow to make the article worth anything:
They Say: <insert RIAA argument>
You Say: <summarise rebuttal> <cite opinions from legal authorities, numbers from respected research, any other URLs that back up your argument.
Then They Say: <insert RIAA counter-argument>
You Finish With: <counter-counter argument, again, citing precedents, research, opinions from respected authorities on the issue>
The whole point here is that the article author's opinions DO NOT BELONG in the article. If you are going to include any opinions, they need to be from respected industry/legal/government people.
The first argument about the cost is a perfect example. The author just tells us to use his own opinion that poor people should get free stuff. If you go using that line of thought in any debate, you'll be laughed out of the room.
Gah, not sure why I bother, ***** thing SUCKS. - eatrains, on 07/02/2009, -11/+16I'm so sick of the pirates trying to rationalize their actions by claiming they're fighting some noble revolution against the Man. Just admit you're cheapskates who feel entitled to the work of others.
- dylbrwn2, on 07/02/2009, -4/+9Whoa, strawman there Feldoh.
- KMFDM781, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5You have to remember that this particular "big corporation" is responsible for suing people for $80,000 a song, worrying about nothing but profit, intimidating old people and children, shilling the populous for years with overpriced music albums that cost a fraction to produce ($20 for a CD is absolutely ludicrous, most of which is filled with 2 good singles and the rest is garbage.) and giving the artists a mere fraction of the money from album sales while keeping rights to the songs.
- dalittle, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5People want to own what they buy. The trail of wreaked rental and subscription businesses proves this over and over.
- j035u5, on 07/02/2009, -0/+5I dunno why this is getting dugg down. Its not as if the friends cant replay the movie as much as they want after downloading it.
- Bisclavret, on 07/02/2009, -4/+9I download because I want free crap, not because I'm protesting.
- mattmedwards, on 07/02/2009, -3/+8One way of testing the moral validity of your actions is if they can be applied universally.
If you believe that piracy is not theft, that it is moral, then you believe that it is OK for everyone to do it.
Of course if this happened - if everyone pirated their music - then no one would make money from their labor of creating the music. Professional musicians would cease to exist as they do now.
Face it - piracy is stealing. Just because it happens to be easy does not make it right. - darkism, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4FLAC is good. Transcode to whatever you like, or leave as FLAC, or burn, or whatever.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -10/+14Where does this deep hatred for large corporations come from? Of course most people realize that downloading music doesn't really hurt the bands (except that it does, because with poorer sales the bands get less marketing/distribution support from the labels). But just because you're stealing from a big evil corporation doesn't make it right.
- HardMoneyMan, on 07/02/2009, -5/+9Lost revenue is lost revenue. To say that copying is not stealing is nothing more than clever semantics. Just because you can copy something without taking it doesn't change the fact that it's not and never was your property.
I agree there needs to be a revolution in the industry, but making everything free will only destroy the industry. At least the old pirates knew what they were doing was wrong. - Lunarparcel, on 07/02/2009, -6/+10If I could vote this post up more than once, I would.
Well done, sir. - drmangrum, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5Reads more like piracy advocates trying to justify their actions.
Whether you agree with the recording industry's business model or not is irrelevant. It's stealing. No matter how much you try to justify it, it's still stealing. Someone can steal food to feed their starving family, that doesn't make it legal. - bobbi21, on 07/02/2009, -4/+8There's a small difference in the principle though. Iranian protesters are protesting because they think the government has wronged them and they want to set things right.
ppl who pirate music do so because they want free music. THEN the RIAA started calling them on it and then some were talking about how the government is wronging them. Despite that, how many ppl download just to say f*** you to the government? If that were the case ppl would just dl any and every song, paris hilton, britney spears etc as a sign of protest. But they don't. They dl the songs they want to hear. They want free music first. They justify their stance by saying the RIAA is a dick or believe that music SHOULD be free but they dont' do it as a form of protest primarily. What would be a form of protest would a protest. - drmangrum, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6That's a horrible argument all around.
NOBODY can fairly say they wouldn't have bought the CD if it wasn't downloadable for free. However, since you wanted the song, and the only to legally get that song is to either buy the CD or through a piecemeal service like iTunes, then you would HAVE to buy it. If you downloaded it without buying from an authorized outlet, you stole. It's that simple. There is NO counter-argument. There is no gray area. - samard2002, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6Digg is so balanced. We get a rebuttal to anti-piracy arguments, without ever seeing an anti-piracy article on the main page. All we get are pro-piracy links and now rebuttals to the non-existent anti-piracy submissions.
- greevar, on 07/03/2009, -0/+4"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
- Willtheway, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4I'm not so sure about the argument about piracy not breaking the law. That sounds like it would justify the guy who killed Tiller.
- rnstech, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3If you have a moral problem with downloading music, then don't do it. If I do it, I know what I'm doing and if I get caught, I'll do what I have to do. In the mean time, I'll be exposed to a much larger quantity of music, and thus have a much higher chance of finding quality, than you.
- rocknog, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6Indeed. I suspect if you look at the average music-listener's library, there will be far more albums which that person purchased because he was able to download and listen to first than albums which he would've purchased had he not been able to download them.
- qXdc, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6All of these arguments could be made to justify robbing banks.
- BrettersonX, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3MTV plays music?
- appleofdischord, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6I prefer VBR myself.
To be perfectly fair, you can take a lossless format and convert to anything you want, but not the other way around. It's just a bit of extra effort. - saranagati, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4No matter what the reason that people are stealing the music, it is a revolution of how companies can abuse copyrights to get ridiculous ROI's on the material.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is