This Is Why I Pirate

[Yobbles]

Increasingly I am starting to view buying games as buying a service... Similar to how you buy a plane ticket which gives you the right to fly from A to B at a certain time, but doesn't mean you own the seat. 5 installs thats it, 1 flight thats it. I factor that into deciding what price I am willing to pay.

Translation: I am a pussy whipped consumer and bow down to the corporate overlords.

 

[Corporate Goon]

If he were arguing for why he boycotts digital media, he'd be making a lot of good points. But he doesn't make a single coherent point about why he's entitled to get this stuff for free. Don't like the distribution methods? Don't like DRM? Don't like the contracts artists sign with their management? Fine, great. Super. Don't buy it. That doesn't magically give you the right to take it anyway. If this guy actually had some guts or a spine or any integrity, he'd simply do without if he didn't want to pay.

That's what it ultimately comes down to - all the chest-puffing about distribution models and DRM and everything else - it boils down to the fact that he wants the content, he doesn't want to pay for it, and he thinks he can get away with it. No integrity and no moral fibre.

 

[Bootleg Usher]

"A post on Guru3D.com from last week explains how the license for Ubisoft’s recently released Anno 2070 is good for three hardware changes. No, not for installation on three separate PCs, but three hardware changes."

Ouch. That is fucked up.

This is why people need to buy games that have no DRM. For example, Sins of a Solar Empire has pretty much nothing. I paid full price for it gladly. Great game, they got my money. If a few studios make a great game with little DRM and they sell like crazy, companies like Ubisoft will notice. The problem is people are selfish and will pirate it anyway while playing mental gymnastics with themselves to justify it.

 

[fattypants]

Increasingly I am starting to view buying games as buying a service... Similar to how you buy a plane ticket which gives you the right to fly from A to B at a certain time, but doesn't mean you own the seat. 5 installs thats it, 1 flight thats it. I factor that into deciding what price I am willing to pay.

Fair enough.

So if we can find a way to fly in an identical plane for free without any intervention on their part, we're good. Torrent Air, here I come.

 

[MavericK]

If he were arguing for why he boycotts digital media, he'd be making a lot of good points. But he doesn't make a single coherent point about why he's entitled to get this stuff for free. Don't like the distribution methods? Don't like DRM? Don't like the contracts artists sign with their management? Fine, great. Super. Don't buy it. That doesn't magically give you the right to take it anyway. If this guy actually had some guts or a spine or any integrity, he'd simply do without if he didn't want to pay.

That's what it ultimately comes down to - all the chest-puffing about distribution models and DRM and everything else - it boils down to the fact that he wants the content, he doesn't want to pay for it, and he thinks he can get away with it. No integrity and no moral fibre.

I think your user name is aptly appropriate.

 

[Showbiz]

If he were arguing for why he boycotts digital media, he'd be making a lot of good points. But he doesn't make a single coherent point about why he's entitled to get this stuff for free. Don't like the distribution methods? Don't like DRM? Don't like the contracts artists sign with their management? Fine, great. Super. Don't buy it. That doesn't magically give you the right to take it anyway. If this guy actually had some guts or a spine or any integrity, he'd simply do without if he didn't want to pay.

That's what it ultimately comes down to - all the chest-puffing about distribution models and DRM and everything else - it boils down to the fact that he wants the content, he doesn't want to pay for it, and he thinks he can get away with it. No integrity and no moral fibre.

That's right, Don't steal.

The government hates competition

 

[RealityCrunch]

Piracy...

 

[GameDad]

one of the reasons i use steam is that it goes directly to the makers, but even when i do i dont buy the full retail price, i wait for the sales, not only to save some money, but i think that paying the same price for electronic goods as i would for solid goods is a rape.

 

[NKDietrich]

Piracy...

I would if I could!

 

[arr4ws]

if it gives him a good conscience... good for him.... does he feel like robin hood or what?

 

[Gorankar]

Pay for it, and then play it for personal use on whatever device own is perfectly fair imho.
Buy, and crack, to avoid DRM, or online service requirements, legal or not, can hardly be considered immoral.
But, pirating it because it costs too much, or because of your politics, are just bullshit excuses of people that somehow feel they are owed something by society. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it. This stuff is not food, or shelter. Music, movies, and games, are all luxury items.

 

[wtiger]

I'm wondering what is the fundamental difference between "a painting, book, video game, or movie" and say a dump truck, a flavored beverage, or an air freshener

I suppose if you could create a dump truck, flavored beverage, or air freshener out of thin air at no cost to anyone there would be no difference. Those things would cost pennies if you could. Until someone figures that one out though, there is quite a difference.

 

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

No, that's not what copyright is. Copyright is a social contract, whereby society willingly grants a temporary monopoly to a creator, as an incentive for them to create, so that more works will available in the public domain than if nothing was done.

So.....why did people write books and such before copyright laws, which didn't appear in the form they are now until, I believe, Queen Anne's time in England.

Copyright has nothing to do with an incentive and everything to do with what is termed "rent-seeking".

 

[mrseb]

Hey! Author here. Thanks for the link -- and thanks for holding such an interesting conversation. It's always fun to see what kind of ideas/discussions that my posts spark -- and usually, reading such discussions gives me idea for more stories... and so the circle of life is complete!

One thing -- Mordred189 -- could you expand on why you don't like me, or what I've done to ET? I'm always willing to change objectionable things, if someone points them out

Cheers,
-S

 

[auspexd]

The problem with drm and copyright "piracy" in general is that the majority of people don't understand that all commercial software and media exists today as a limited license. When someone purchases something through itunes, the kindle store, steam or retail channels they are not actually buying a physical product, they are buying a license: That license is limited per the agreement of the publisher and the purchaser and by using such license the purchaser is in implicit agreement.

However, if the contract states that, for example, by agreeing to this license the purchaser must give one million dollars to the publisher or hop on one foot while reciting Lady Gaga lyrics then the purchasing party in this case might impugn the contract by suggesting the contract unenforceable or voidable through the act of unjust enrichment.

I own a OSS only laptop but I also own an Air. I know when someone gifts me a itunes giftcard (don't get me started on the horror that is the "giftcard") that the software or media licenses I purchase with it are in point of fact temporal and exist only until the publisher revokes said license. I don't particularly like that business model (see: OSS laptop for doing real work) but it doesn't change the facts of the sale.

99.9% of DRM including Ubisoft's "preventing you from playing our shitty games for your own good" campaign they launched with their latest Anno release is limited license. Sorry folks but if the contract states on the box or on install that you only have three hardware changes then it's only three hardware changes. That's it. Buying a limited license is like dealing with the Sith: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. The sooner people realize this fact, the better.

 

[FranklyShankly]

Fair enough.

So if we can find a way to fly in an identical plane for free without any intervention on their part, we're good. Torrent Air, here I come.

THis is definitely where comparisons to other industries always break down.

You can simply create a copy of software, or download it from someone who has created it. No other product can be so easily reproduced and distributed. So all of these comparisons are really apples to oranges.

 

[Stoly]

THis is definitely where comparisons to other industries always break down.

You can simply create a copy of software, or download it from someone who has created it. No other product can be so easily reproduced and distributed. So all of these comparisons are really apples to oranges.

Don't say the A word. You might get into trouble

 

[Deleted member 136890]

I am a little tired of the video game analogy, because of all types of media consumed games actually take a lot more to make than say, a song.

If you want a better analogy, why is an iTunes album 9.99$ when I can buy the physical CD from Amazon with S&H for 7$?

Not arguing with you, just I see 60$ for a game to be a rather discounted price for the amount of man hours put into developing them. CD's have always been around the 10-15$ price point and games have always been around the 50-80$ price point. Now that digital distributions are possible the price has not gone down and that I can agree with you on.

Not trying to put a wet blanket on what you said but how about that almost 3 BILLION dollar profit that ATVI made off the last 3 Call of Duty games.

60 dollars is a discounted price, my butt it is. Its a utter rape of your wallet. Again see my point of the 3 Billion in pure hard profit that ATVI has made so please dont say that 60 dollars is a discounted price.

 

[Kalabalana]

People have a finite amount of resources to spend on media. The current system essentially employs a buy before you try mentality which is a very inefficient process to create new customers/fans (corporations want you to play Russian Roulette with their services/products). Piracy allows everyone to dabble, it opens a company's intellectual property to a much wider audience. It allows people spend their money intelligently on the products and services they think most deserve it. This removes buyer's remorse, puts funds directly in the hands of the companies the end user believes most deserves them, and overall is good for the market. It also creates revenue for that market the user would not have ever have put money into because they would not even consider trying out the product/service.

Piracy negates the information blackout most media is shrouded in, and allows the end user to intelligently choose how and when to spend their money. Couple this with dynamic pricing models, a la Steam, and you have now have market that spends more money then it did before. ADAPT TO THE MARKET, MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISIONS, ADOPT BETTER BUSINESS MODELS.

 

[FranklyShankly]

People have a finite amount of resources to spend on media. The current system essentially employs a buy before you try mentality which is a very inefficient process to create new customers/fans (corporations want you to play Russian Roulette with their services/products). Piracy allows everyone to dabble, it opens a company's intellectual property to a much wider audience. It allows people spend their money intelligently on the products and services they think most deserve it. This removes buyer's remorse, puts funds directly in the hands of the companies the end user believes most deserves them, and overall is good for the market. It also creates revenue for that market the user would not have ever have put money into because they would not even consider trying out the product/service.

Piracy negates the information blackout most media is shrouded in, and allows the end user to intelligently choose how and when to spend their money. Couple this with dynamic pricing models, a la Steam, and you have now have market that spends more money then it did before. ADAPT TO THE MARKET, MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISIONS, ADOPT BETTER BUSINESS MODELS.

I'm not trying to defend the industries here, they do a lot of really shitty stuff in the name of protecting their IP.

But if you really think that a sizable percentage of people pirate something, and then actually go buy it if they like it, you are dreaming. That is just a fantasy that people would like to believe happens so that piracy can be justified.

It doesn't happen in any reasonable amount. Once someone pirates, and has access to a full version of the media, there is much less incentive to then go back and pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. Would it be great if it worked that way? sure.

 

[satsunada]

Wow.. that Ubisoft stuff is pathetic. The Supreme Court decision I can kinda understand but the merits behind it are a bit weak in my mind.

What i'd really like to know is why public domain rules haven't broadened with the advent of the age of information but, in fact, got worse. It's not like it was in 1830 where if you wrote a book, it's a miracle anyone could read it or even heard about it yet that book would become public domain faster than it does now. I think the more popular the item itself was, the shorter the time til public domain should be. I'm all for protecting the rights of artists but let's face it, most are reusing music that was done hundreds of years ago and using words and phrases in the common tongue that have likely been said before. The more popular the music, the more it's form bleeds into the language. Like that stupid "Friday" song, I'd imagine 10% of the planet has in some way heard of that stupid song. Once it hits a certain mark, copyright should no longer apply. Think of it as world meme day This only applies to music and film of course. Patents are a whole nother monster.

 

[eggrock]

Why is the United States Congress trying to enact SOPA and PIPA? Because I am a pirate.

Thanks.

lobbies such as the RIAA and MPAA wouldn’t have donated millions of dollars to morally bankrupt Representatives

Thanks to you assholes, too.

Copyright is broken

Voting with your wallet doesn't entitle you to something other people pay for.

Digital distribution systems still suck

They work well enough to pirate, don't they? Dumbass. Invalid reason.

Your [game/book/movie/song] is too expensive

Strangely, the only thing I agree with here are books in electronic format, which can be more expensive than paperbacks and are vastly more expensive than used copies. Everything else drops in prices, and... still not a reason to pirate. This douche wants to play the latest AAA title while his douche friends are still playing, instead of waiting for sales.

That is why I pirate: Because digital games, movies, and music are overpriced and don’t kick enough money back to the original artist.

Major flaw has already been pointed out.

 

[Whatsisname]

People wrote stories for a variety of reasons:

• They were commissioned to write them
• They wanted to tell other people about their life
• They wanted to entertain people
• They enjoyed doing it
• And others

I agree that copyright today is absolutely rent-seeking behavior, however it's intended purpose was the incentive.

So.....why did people write books and such before copyright laws, which didn't appear in the form they are now until, I believe, Queen Anne's time in England.

Copyright has nothing to do with an incentive and everything to do with what is termed "rent-seeking".

 

[NoOther]

I'm not trying to defend the industries here, they do a lot of really shitty stuff in the name of protecting their IP.

But if you really think that a sizable percentage of people pirate something, and then actually go buy it if they like it, you are dreaming. That is just a fantasy that people would like to believe happens so that piracy can be justified.

It doesn't happen in any reasonable amount. Once someone pirates, and has access to a full version of the media, there is much less incentive to then go back and pay for it out of the goodness of their heart. Would it be great if it worked that way? sure.

Are they? Can you provide statistics of how many people pirate and then do not buy? I know many people who follow this philosophy where they will download something, try it, and if they like it they will go out and buy it. Those particular people I have seen buy far more media than others. Do all pirates operate this way? Certainly not. Do most? I reall have no statistics that say one way or another. But to outright decry it as dreamland is a bit premature with no factual information to back it up. In fact, the facts that we do have, which strongly indicate that pirating is not at all hurting the industry like they claim, and if anything may seem to be helping it a little would point to the exact opposite of what you suggest here.

As for the whole debate over copyright, just because the system is broken, doesn't mean people should just up and revolt...oh wait, maybe it does. Is that not what the founding fathers of the USA did? When things get bad enough, it is almost the responsibility of the people to take action. Now, that does not mean I condone theft or piracy, and certainly not violence. But certainly protests, lobbying, boycotts, public demonstrations, etc are all within the realm of acceptability. So if you really want things to change, then really start forming groups and demonstrating your frustration. Yelling over forums with like minded individuals will get you exactly nothing.

Too often we decry what we feel is injustice, but only from the safety of our little hovels, instead of out in public. Even anonymous is mostly just a bunch of cowards hiding away doing mainly ineffective attacks on websites. If they really wanted to be the "Legion", they would organize real protests, with real demonstrations and march on the capital or in big cities, or hold large demonstrations outside of company headquarters rather than just sit behind a computer screen and provide Lulz... Let me put it this way, you are not part of the "99%" when you can't even get a large enough group together that the government will recognize.

 

[FranklyShankly]

Are they? Can you provide statistics of how many people pirate and then do not buy? I know many people who follow this philosophy where they will download something, try it, and if they like it they will go out and buy it. Those particular people I have seen buy far more media than others. Do all pirates operate this way? Certainly not. Do most? I reall have no statistics that say one way or another. But to outright decry it as dreamland is a bit premature with no factual information to back it up. In fact, the facts that we do have, which strongly indicate that pirating is not at all hurting the industry like they claim, and if anything may seem to be helping it a little would point to the exact opposite of what you suggest here.

I am unaware of any research that has been done on this topic. But those making the claim that people do go and buy it afterward need to proffer that evidence. Knowing a few people who say they do that is anecdotal evidence, and is probably also guided by confirmation bias. Ask yourself how many people you know who have pirated things. How many of those have they later purchased. You will remember the ones they say they did buy. You wont remember the multitude that they didn't.

 

[Kynnath]

The article had some interesting points. I'm not sure I share all of them (I was a pirate until I got a job and money, and don't pirate anymore), although he makes a fair amount of sense.

His argument, however, is flawed from the start. SOPA and PIPA are not about piracy. What they do to 'combat piracy' is insignificant, and given the lengths people regularly go to pirate, the additional cost of having to know IPs instead of domain names is laughable. What SOPA and PIPA target is lawful competition on the media space.

It used to be that content distribution was expensive. This lead to the means of distribution to be centralized in a few large companies that could afford the fixed costs. Selling one million copies of a disk required first creating and distributing one million physical copies. That ran for millions in investment.

Then along came the internet, and distribution costs plummeted. Selling a million copies now meant having a digital storefront where you could download or print smaller runs as demand required on a central location and ship out if someone wanted a physical copy. This has allowed a wealth of niche markets to be created, which the large distributors wouldn't normally target because the upfront costs wouldn't justify it.

This presents a challenge to the big media giants, because it's far more profitable if people just listen to a few artists they control than if they have to share entertainment money with a million micro producers they have no hold over. The solution? Raise the cost of entry back to the millions it took back in the day. How? Restrictive laws that give them the power to shut down anyone with no recourse or need to prove they have a case. The targeted individuals would face a long, expensive legal battle to defend their rights that most won't be able to afford, while others just won't make their start-ups in the first place.

You can see how the DMCA already does this on a smaller scale. YouTube is filled with examples of both actual corporations and trolls abusing the take-down request to shut down videos for weeks at a time. And that's just trying to get the site itself to recognize that there was no infringement. Imagine trying to make your case to a DNS, while your whole site is down for weeks and your funds are frozen.

It may read as a conspiracy theory, but just take a look at the law. Does it look like it's aimed at making unlawful behavior more difficult, or making lawful behavior onerous to the extent that you just won't bother?

A nice write-up on the law is found here. His views are a bit less extreme than mine, but still a good read. http://www.sea-of-memes.com/LetsCode47/LetsCode47.html

 

[sabar]

Good article. Now for a rant.

Copyright is useless in society. The only people it seeks to protect are the content distributors, not the actual artists.

How many writers that put fanfics on the net actually think and care about how often their works are reproduced? With the hundreds of thousands of original drawings and photos uploaded to the internet each day, in how many cases is that artist thinking about copyright? When a bored kid gets a sketch-pad and draws their surroundings, when do they care about copies?

They don't. The problem is 100% with the "old guard" publisher types. Yeah, the middle-men who take 90% of the artists revenue.

Think about it. The very idea of someone owning information. It is absurd. How can someone own numbers? Words or sounds or lines arranged in a certain way? Copying data from computer to computer is a violation of copyright. What about copying from brain to brain? People with good ears can memorize a song if they hear it enough. Each note and its length, plus lyrics. Information has been duplicated, re-created. I can teach it to others and write it down. But why does someone else own it? I hope brains are never connected to computers or I guarantee we will lose the rights to our own minds to the MPAA.

Think about it deeply. Don't think about what has been drilled into your brain by society. It really makes no sense.

People truly create new things because they love to do it, regardless of compensation or ownership. A real artist, a real programmer, a real photographer wouldn't stop making new things if copyright law was gone or reduced.

Here is my solution. Copyright law should be 5 years from the creation, then public domain. Patents should be 7 years. Medical breakthroughs 2 years. All copyright is voided immediately when the creator dies. That is far more than enough time to get paid off something. If you can't come up with something new every few years then that is pathetic. There are FAR too many cases of these insane 100 year copyright lengths applying to one-hit wonders from long-dead people.

Copyright isn't meant to protect you. It isn't meant to help indie artists and game makers who actually care. It's made so Disney corp can stay afloat from something they made 20-80 years ago because they have failed to do anything of note in the past 10 years. It is there so the recording and movie industry can re-re-re-release things from 30 years back. It is there so game companies and Hollywood can continue to churn out crappy sequels that no one wants at premium prices.

We do not have a right to free things, but we ought to have a right to information, and we don't. Most civilized countries are considered to have liberty and freedom, yet one of the basic human functions, the gathering and repetition of information, could not be any more restrictive.

How different would the world be if x86 had no more rights? Cheap chips everywhere?
What if Lucas lost the rights to Star Wars early? No crappy prequels/reworks?
What if the book 1984 was in the public domain? More awareness by people?
What if mickey mouse was in the public domain? Tens of thousands can draw him from their own memory by now anyways, but it is restricted still?

Copyright just stifles innovation when it lasts 90 years! Same deal with most patents too. Companies are forced to re-invent the wheel to engage in market competition with that company that patented the wheel. It is wasted money, wasted human resources, and wasted time.

It's funny indeed that the age of information has made laws more restrictive. But laws do not imply actual restriction. The common person still violates these new laws by sharing music/video/etc each day. It is just proof that copyright means nothing to the common citizen.

They just never have taken a step back and looked at how we got here and why.

 

[nerdydesi]

For PC games with ridiculous DRM, I still buy a legit copy of the game and then crack it. Problem solved. I won't entirely pirate the game like many others, that's just ridiculous. These same people will then complain when developers suddenly go console-exclusive.

 

[Kynnath]

Consoles exclusives are just using piracy as a scapegoat. Piracy is just as rampant on the consoles. It's just cheaper to develop for consoles because the hardware platform is fixed. Having to support a million different configurations is expensive. But saying 'we're not developing for the pc because it's inconvenient' after they've had us buy more and more expensive computers for years would hurt sales (since pc gamers also own consoles).

So they point at piracy and use that as an excuse, then still charge $60 bucks for the game.

 

[Q-BZ]

Consoles exclusives are just using piracy as a scapegoat. Piracy is just as rampant on the consoles. It's just cheaper to develop for consoles because the hardware platform is fixed. Having to support a million different configurations is expensive. But saying 'we're not developing for the pc because it's inconvenient' after they've had us buy more and more expensive computers for years would hurt sales (since pc gamers also own consoles).

So they point at piracy and use that as an excuse, then still charge $60 bucks for the game.

Sums it all up.

 

[nutzo]

they should have a download system like valve where movies are sold online in digital format. you dont have to keep the movie on your hard drive, but you can download it before you watch it so you dont have to watch a sd stream or deal with buffering. and if a new format comes out in the future, youre not screwed.

This.

One of my problems with Netflix was pausing during streaming HD movies, especially on a Friday/Saturday night. he problem wasn't my internet connection, since I could run a test and it would show 9-10mb/sec. The same movies usually didn't have the same problem during "off" hours.

The other problem is when traveling. I don't always have a high-speed internet connection available, and it would be nice if I could queue up a few movies on my laptop so I could watch later. Instead I have to rip DVD's if I want to bring something along to watch.

 

[wonderfield]

Copyright isn't meant to protect you.

It is, actually. That is its exact purpose.

 

[TheCAD]

He's right, if serious.

The major problem for television/movie companies is that they refuse to offer good distribution system for their product.

If you ask them why people pirate its because they don't want to pay for the product. That is only part of the reason. The convenience, availability of content, quality of content, ease of use and a thousand other things the pirates actually do better then the film/movie industries are actually a larger part of why their content is being pirated.

If you miss a TV show and want to pay to download the 720p file the next day and are willing to pay for it...how do you do that?

You can't. They act as if people are stealing a product they are offering. They aren't. People are stealing a product that doesn't exist.

 

[messerchmidt]

I am more logical, why pay when you can get it for free!

 

[nutzo]

Here is my solution. Copyright law should be 5 years from the creation, then public domain. Patents should be 7 years. Medical breakthroughs 2 years. All copyright is voided immediately when the creator dies. That is far more than enough time to get paid off something. If you can't come up with something new every few years then that is pathetic. There are FAR too many cases of these insane 100 year copyright lengths applying to one-hit wonders from long-dead people.

I agree. But while I think a 100 year copyright is way too long, I think your numbers might be a little low.

 

[Monkey34]

Reminder:
Rule # (18) You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

"Breaking any of the above listed forum rules can result in the loss of posting privileges and possible loss of your forum account. [H]ard|Forum also reserves the right to ban any user, at any time, and for any reason."

A couple of you switched from the article discussion, to "hey, I pirate..."


On another note......I agree with the reasons, but for me, it doesn't justify the act. They could easily stop most of it by moving forward instead of having a death-clutch on a screwed-up system. AND try to stop screwing the customer.

 

[NoOther]

I am unaware of any research that has been done on this topic. But those making the claim that people do go and buy it afterward need to proffer that evidence. Knowing a few people who say they do that is anecdotal evidence, and is probably also guided by confirmation bias. Ask yourself how many people you know who have pirated things. How many of those have they later purchased. You will remember the ones they say they did buy. You wont remember the multitude that they didn't.

One, you must not have read everything I said, because I said there is no research I know of on how many people buy after they pirate. But that is just it, you are accusing of annecdotal evidence, while being a victim of it yourself. However, based on how little piracy actually does affect publishing companies and seeing many times sales surge even despite piracy, one would be lead to question where those purchases come from? If there is rampant piracy and yet still strong sales, that would lead one to believe that at least some portion of pirates are then also buying.

As for how many people pirate and then buy or not buy games, I think the exact opposite is true. I am more likely to know who "doesn't" buy the games because often times they are the same ones that then can't play online with anyone. So no, I absolutely remember more of those that never buy the games. And still the ratio of those that I know who buy them later to those that don't is about 5:1. But obviously my experience is not going to be the same as others and my sample group is exceedingly small compared to the overall population.

But still due to the actual sales numbers and to some personal experiences I certainly do not think it is some dreamland scenario.

 

[Whatsisname]

No it is not. It's purpose is to enrich the public domain. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", that is it's purpose.

It is, actually. That is its exact purpose.

 

[wizdum]

I find it funny that artists believe piracy is the only reason they are not making tons of money. Newsflash, you're not making money because the RIAA doesn't want you to make money. With SOPA they could have taken it even farther by deleting your twitter account, facebook page, website, and youtube page. You are their competition, they don't give a shit about you. Want to make a lot of money and be an artist? Put down your playthings and get a real job. No one makes money by making music, they make money by selling crap once the RIAA has told people they are "popular". Make music because you enjoy it, not because you just want money.

 

[NoOther]

I find it funny that artists believe piracy is the only reason they are not making tons of money. Newsflash, you're not making money because the RIAA doesn't want you to make money. With SOPA they could have taken it even farther by deleting your twitter account, facebook page, website, and youtube page. You are their competition, they don't give a shit about you. Want to make a lot of money and be an artist? Put down your playthings and get a real job. No one makes money by making music, they make money by selling crap once the RIAA has told people they are "popular". Make music because you enjoy it, not because you just want money.

Im sorry, were you being serious here? Because there are many artists that don't follow the line of the RIAA and MPAA. There are also many artists with independent labels. And as far as not being able to make money as an independent artist, that is also ridiculous. There are many artists making money off of what they created by themselves. So you can absolutely make money by making music. Your comment about selling crap is ridiculous since you have to sell something to make money, doesn't mean you can't create and sell, which many people do.

In short, don't generalize the entire artist community as piracy haters and lazy bums who don't want a real job.