Video Game Forums - View Single Post

Lurch1982 · 11-20-2003, 10:47 PM

I'm split on the issue.

1.) I agree with the artists that they should be able to profit off of their work. Sorry, but things like this completely erode the author's control over their work and will ultimately stifle creativity. Why should anyone want to create if they cannot make a living off of it? Sure, that's still a far way down the road, but to give people a blank check to blatently steal and rip off material. It devalues art, writing and music, as well as destroys author control over the material. If I write a novel, I don't want it available for free in fulltext on the Internet, nor would I want someone making copies or ripping me off. Open piracy being legal pretty much erodes any rights and controls over your work. Keyword being "your work." If I write a book, that means *I* wrote it, not my fans. Because of that, the logic that "musicians shouldn't care because its the fans" falls on its face....I wrote it, I want credit, and i want to live from it.

2.) I'm for it based on the fact that the industry blatently rips people off, I generally do everything in my power to not give them my dollar. I support smaller indy lables because I mostly listen to them anyway, and I will only buy CDs used or at 12 dollars or under. Anything over is grossly overpriced. If they fix the pricing scheme, I stop downloading. If they provide a non-p2p download service that I can afford and has a wide selection of artists, I'd pay for that...but what they do now is robbery and the industry is completely out of touch with the fanbase. Heavy-handed lawsuits only prove that the industry is out of touch...the real problem is overpriced CDs, not downloading. Make the CDs cheaper, and people start buying them.

11-20-2003, 10:47 PM	#4
Lurch1982 Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Katrinaland, USA Gender: Posts: 9,149 Thanks: 119 Thanked 202 Times in 125 Posts Points: 27,362.21 Bank: 166,050.89 Total Points: 193,413.10 Donate	I'm split on the issue. 1.) I agree with the artists that they should be able to profit off of their work. Sorry, but things like this completely erode the author's control over their work and will ultimately stifle creativity. Why should anyone want to create if they cannot make a living off of it? Sure, that's still a far way down the road, but to give people a blank check to blatently steal and rip off material. It devalues art, writing and music, as well as destroys author control over the material. If I write a novel, I don't want it available for free in fulltext on the Internet, nor would I want someone making copies or ripping me off. Open piracy being legal pretty much erodes any rights and controls over your work. Keyword being "your work." If I write a book, that means I wrote it, not my fans. Because of that, the logic that "musicians shouldn't care because its the fans" falls on its face....I wrote it, I want credit, and i want to live from it. 2.) I'm for it based on the fact that the industry blatently rips people off, I generally do everything in my power to not give them my dollar. I support smaller indy lables because I mostly listen to them anyway, and I will only buy CDs used or at 12 dollars or under. Anything over is grossly overpriced. If they fix the pricing scheme, I stop downloading. If they provide a non-p2p download service that I can afford and has a wide selection of artists, I'd pay for that...but what they do now is robbery and the industry is completely out of touch with the fanbase. Heavy-handed lawsuits only prove that the industry is out of touch...the real problem is overpriced CDs, not downloading. Make the CDs cheaper, and people start buying them.