Varnias Tybalt said:

Oh, so you think that the contract that "leeches" the artist in record sales wouldnt do that in the tour sales? That is if we talk about the Big, Bad, Record Companies... I had forgot about that excuse. "I already buy tickets for shows!" That's still less money for the artist from the record, no matter what the deal is with the company.

ymrar said:

Oh I buy movies that I like and know that I'll want to see again. Sure, divx rip's can be useful for evaluating if a movie is good or not (if I don't like the movie I delete it), but they don't hold much against seeing the movie at a cinema or the superior quality of DVD or BluRay. And frankly I like the look of having the real movie covers standing in my bookshelf. In fact, im quite a sucker for anything with "Collectors edition" written on it, in that regard.

It's just that I REFUSE to pay for a movie that I can't know for sure that I'll like. I shouldn't be expected to "gamble" on wether I think my money will be well spent or not. It's absurd to expect me to do that. Therefore I check out the movies on beforehand. Sure they will have awfully reduced quality in regards to sound and picture, but from that I can still make an assesment of wether I like the film or not, and if it's worth paying for to have a permanent copy of it.

But that's not how the movie industry want's me to think. They want me to base my entire opinions of inferior trailers that doesn't really reveal how good the movie is, but only shows a few amped up highlights in order to draw crowd interest. They'd rather want me to gamble with my money, like it was a game of blackjack. There is a chance I might be satisfied with buying the DVD or the tickets for viewing it on the cinema, but not a guarantee. And considering the vast amounts of crap that hollywood has produced the last few years, that chance for satisfaction has decreased a huge amount.

So you only piracy music then? How's that any different from movies? As I stated earlier tour revenues does not make up for record revenues.

Hey did you ever consider that some people dedicate thier times, money or even thier lives to something creative. Be it music, making video games, movies or even fine art. They work hard so we can enjoy all of those things. I know better then to pirate anything because I work on art sometimes. Now I haven't sold any yet but I just practice for fun. Some people have to sell art or music to make money and keep thier jobs. I don't think any company is a leech. They are just trying to do some thing they enjoy (like make RPGs for example) and make money off of it. Is trying to make money and doing something you love so wrong? I think not. 

ymrar said:

Oh yes they do. At least for the musicians. The only people losing money due to piracy is the record companies. Do you realize what an insignificant amount of money from royalties actually goes to the creators of the music?

Many musicians have realized this, that's why some of them even lets you download ALL of their songs from their websites, and this tactic works wonder due to the fact that they become exposed to many people, packing their live preformances with a paying audience.

Other "artists" who don't do this (meaning, pretty much all pop-musicians today) are just bribed pawns of record companies, and they don't have to feel cheated by me, because I don't listen to their crappy "music" anyway. (neither through bought CD's or downloaded MP3's)

But you already stated that you listen to obscure and unheard of. You download these songs too? Because many of these "small artist" pay the costs for the records themselves. Some of them have started even their own record companies.

Also, no matter what the royalty is. Royalty not gained, is royalty lost. Yes, not all artist have good contracts. Not all of them have bad either. Just like not all of us have good jobs. Not all of them are bad either.

I have no trouble of people listening to music someone offers free on their site, as I have no trouble with fan made products in RPG.

lordsneek said:

Yes, because I AM one of those people who dedicate my life and most of the money I earn on creative projects. The thing is, I have realized that such artistic pursuits is a personal matter. I make my art because I WANT to make art, not because I hope to be able to sell it or the rights of ownership to it, to some greedy, leeching distrubution company.

Now im not a public artist (meaning, VERY FEW of the works I've done has actually been revealed to the rest of the world), I create my art for my own satisfaction, not to impress others. But if I were a public artist, I wouldn't be so stupid or naive to think that I could "own" the experience of my work. As soon as someone else lays their eyes upon something that I've drawn or sculpted, the very idea, concept and experience of that work is as much their's as it is mine. The canvas, the paint, the plaster or the marble I might give shape and form to is nothing more than a tool to convey the thoughts and feelings I had while making the piece in question. I might be able to own, and put a pricetag on plaster, canvas or paint in a particular configuration, but it is impossible to put a pricetag or claim ownership on thoughts and feelings.

It would be like claiming copyright on capitalism or communism itself. Or claiming ownership on Pythagoras theorem. It's just thoughts, they only exist in our heads and they copy eachother all the time just by being spoken of in a social setting. No one seems to mind that, so why should it be any different with other experiences, such as seeing movies, listening to music or appriciating artistic pieces in general? It's absurd.

What's also absurd is that some overly romantic people expect that they can earn their entire livelyhood through art. It's absurd to expect that you, as a singer, should be able to make the same amount of money that Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera does. Art doesn't normally entail income, you've just been extremely lucky that you have actually been able to sell the medium of your art if you have.

So yes, doing "what you love" and making money off of it at the same time, is wrong in this regard. Or at the very least, i'ts wrong to assume that you're going to make money off of it if you want to call yourself an artist...

ymrar said:

I think that's a bad analogy. If you're an artist that's being offered a contract by a record company, you should make damn sure that the contract is something favorable to you. But most artists don't, because they're so horny over the idea of getting famous, so they're willing to get completely shafted over the royalties by their record company.

I don't really listen to those at all. Fame-loving attention-whores generally make bad music...

So if you want to make a living out of something that you actually like, and people are willing to pay you for it, you're a whore? Wow! Someone's bitter...

Varnias Tybalt said:

What if some people don't care about fame but instead just want to be remembered as someone great, someone that can make the world a better place. I think that some day I will be like that. Now you may say that it is a foolish if not childish dream until you are blue in the face but that won't mean it can't happen. As for the money, well you just need money to get by in today's society. It's a fact of life.   

ymrar said:

jadrax said:

:DD OMG. Ok that's it. Now this topic has officially derailed a. lot. I'll stop right here.

ymrar said:

rather, if you EXPECT to be able to make a living out of something you like, and compromising what you like in order to bring in more cash, you're a whore.

For instance, I like playing RPG's, but I don't expect to make money out of it. In fact, I lose money to it due to buying books for it. Does that persuade me from not playing? No.

Why should it be any different with singing, painting, sculpting, writing etc. etc.

Here's the trufh for ya. While our decadent, developed-country lifestyle allows us to indulge in "fun" pursuits like listening to music, looking at paintings, playing RPG's etc. etc. We don't actually NEED it. What people DO need on the other hand is accomodations, food to eat and other means to stay healthy and living. That's what we NEED, and that's what money should generate income from.

Remember, that while we spend money on so much stuff we don't need, people in other parts of the world are starving to death. If they had the same amount of money we spent on shit like computers, RPG's, paintings, CD's, DVD's etc. etc. they could survive. But they don't. We're priviliged that way, and also a bit naive when you expect that you can make money of doing something that other people don't really "need".

I don't suffer from that kind of naive thinking myself. I don't expect to be able to whore out my art for the highest bidder, I expect to having to work for a living in industires that provide people with what they need (not what they "want"). That doesn't make me bitter, it makes me realistic...

Or maybe bands realise they can't...

Manufacture CDs, design adverts and album covers, create websites, book gigs, send out promotional material, manage road crew wages, etc...

on their own.

lordsneek said:

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, then making money of your ideas would be the least of your concerns. People who want the world to be a better place don't sit around arguing over copyright infringements, they travel to third world countries and help the poor and war-torn people in any way they can. They often suffer for it, some times financially and sometimes they even die trying.

A person saying: "I want to make the world a better place... But also make money doing it" is nothing short of a selfish whore. It's blatantly obvious that they are driven by selfish desire to make money and achieve fame.

So please, spare me the hypocrisy and sanctimonious bullshit about "making the world a better place"...