Kanye West's Tidal-exclusive album launch leads to mass piracy

TomSEA

TechSpot Chancellor
"In that case, he shouldn't be surprised if widespread piracy of his work continues."

Why? Whatever kind of man kanye may be, nothing gives people the right to steal the fruits of his labour. No one is forcing these pathetic 'fans' to listen to the album (and might I add that it's available to stream for free on his website); I think it's shameful that these people defend their actions so.
Music piracy isn't theft. Unethical, but not theft.
Not that want to become involved in this age old argument again, but I fail to see why it wouldn't be theft. The artist is losing out on potential royalty fees through unauthorised dissemination of his intellectual property, which is neither ethical nor legal.
The argument is that a lot of Pirates wouldn't buy the work anyways, therefore the artist lost nothing
That is nothing but a total cop-out crap argument by people who steal music, movies and games to "justify" their actions. What do you think the percentages are of people are who steal the item, then decide to buy that same item after they already have it? 1%? Less than 1%?
Try again.

According to a Columbia University study. . .frequent users of peer-to-peer "piracy" networks in the U.S. legitimately purchase 30 percent more music than non-P2P users.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html
Did you actually read that report? And did you see the sample size? "US RESULTS ARE BASED ON INTERVIEWS VIA LANDLINE and cellular telephones conducted in English with 2,303
adults, age 18 or older, living in the continental United States, during August 2011. The German survey is based on
phone interviews with 1000 people age 18 or older, conducted between August 24 and September 6, 2011. "
So you're going to run with their report that "30% of file sharers buy more than non-file sharers" based on a whopping 2,303 surveys - conducted over the phone no less - in a one month period, and no specific demographic information provided as fact for all file sharers.

If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.
 

Lionvibez

TS Evangelist
Kanye West - from self-proclaimed king to internet beggar with $50m+ of debt in... well, however many years that took.
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-kanye-west-53-million-in-debt-2016-2

Read the rest of this story.

"reports that sources close to the rapper say that the number is correct, but it isn't exactly personal debt.

It's the amount he has taken out of his own pocket to fund certain aspects of his fashion and music companies."

So that is 53 million worth of investments not personal debt.

Which is a very different story.
 

TomSEA

TechSpot Chancellor
"In that case, he shouldn't be surprised if widespread piracy of his work continues."

Why? Whatever kind of man kanye may be, nothing gives people the right to steal the fruits of his labour. No one is forcing these pathetic 'fans' to listen to the album (and might I add that it's available to stream for free on his website); I think it's shameful that these people defend their actions so.
Music piracy isn't theft. Unethical, but not theft.
Not that want to become involved in this age old argument again, but I fail to see why it wouldn't be theft. The artist is losing out on potential royalty fees through unauthorised dissemination of his intellectual property, which is neither ethical nor legal.
The argument is that a lot of Pirates wouldn't buy the work anyways, therefore the artist lost nothing
That is nothing but a total cop-out crap argument by people who steal music, movies and games to "justify" their actions. What do you think the percentages are of people are who steal the item, then decide to buy that same item after they already have it? 1%? Less than 1%?
Try again.

According to a Columbia University study. . .frequent users of peer-to-peer "piracy" networks in the U.S. legitimately purchase 30 percent more music than non-P2P users.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/music-pirates-study_n_2526417.html
Did you actually read that report? And did you see the sample size? "US RESULTS ARE BASED ON INTERVIEWS VIA LANDLINE and cellular telephones conducted in English with 2,303
adults, age 18 or older, living in the continental United States, during August 2011. The German survey is based on
phone interviews with 1000 people age 18 or older, conducted between August 24 and September 6, 2011. "
So you're going to run with their report that "30% of file sharers buy more than non-file sharers" based on a whopping 2,303 surveys - conducted over the phone no less - in a one month period, and no specific demographic information provided as fact for all file sharers.

If you do, I have a bridge to sell you, because this was a "study" that was conducted in a matter to deliberately show a specific result they wanted to champion.
 
D

davislane1

Did you actually read that report? And did you see the sample size? "US RESULTS ARE BASED ON INTERVIEWS VIA LANDLINE and cellular telephones conducted in English with 2,303
adults, age 18 or older, living in the continental United States, during August 2011. The German survey is based on
phone interviews with 1000 people age 18 or older, conducted between August 24 and September 6, 2011. "
So you're going to run with their report that "30% of file sharers buy more than non-file sharers" based on a whopping 2,303 surveys - conducted over the phone no less - in a one month period, and no specific demographic information provided as fact for all file sharers.

If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.
Try harder, Tom. You disapproving of a study that contradicts your position isn't an effective argument.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
The Life of Pablo has already been illegally downloaded more than 500,000 times
Let me make it 500,001. I don't think I will care about the album, but I do object the notion of exclusives. At least if I pirate, I might actually find out what all the fuss is about. Then and only then will I have an opinion for his talent (or lack thereof). Ohh and the comment on South Park, I do have an opinion for that trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wastedkill

mojorisin23

TS Booster
"In that case, he shouldn't be surprised if widespread piracy of his work continues."

Why? Whatever kind of man kanye may be, nothing gives people the right to steal the fruits of his labour. No one is forcing these pathetic 'fans' to listen to the album (and might I add that it's available to stream for free on his website); I think it's shameful that these people defend their actions so.
Music piracy isn't theft. Unethical, but not theft.
Not that want to become involved in this age old argument again, but I fail to see why it wouldn't be theft. The artist is losing out on potential royalty fees through unauthorised dissemination of his intellectual property, which is neither ethical nor legal.
The argument is that a lot of Pirates wouldn't buy the work anyways, therefore the artist lost nothing
so if I steal a prius its ok... bc I'd never have bought one even for $100 anyway, right?
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
so if I steal a prius its ok... bc I'd never have bought one even for $100 anyway, right?
Stealing a Prius is actually taking it away from the owner, not the same thing, not even the same concept. Now if pirating copyright materials prevented them from further sales, then yes it would be theft. It's not theft, nothing was actually stolen. It is infringement of copyright, because rights to the copy were not paid for.

Now on the moral debate of whether the copy is worth paying for is a different matter. And a matter the studios don't care about, as long as they can pry cash from the consumers hands.

They can blame piracy all they want but the real issue is the same one that exist for Game Developers. There are simply too many studios reaching in the cookie jar, all wanting a share of what they think should be more. I have news for them, I don't see millions of people getting rich because they are not paying their dues. What I do see is producers and developers getting rich because they are getting their fair share.
 

Panda218

TS Evangelist
He told me I couldn't listen to it unless I subscribed to his shitty Tidal service. Well that is not true cause I found a torrent of it and had a listen then purged it from my machine. #sorrynotsorry
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
He should stop attempting to make albums, and go back to what he does best, "makin' dat b***h famus".......(Er, Taylor Swift)



EDIT...UM....BTW.....FWIW...I didn't pirate "Mr" West's album, and I'm willing to take a polygraph to prove it.....
 

Matti

TS Rookie
"In that case, he shouldn't be surprised if widespread piracy of his work continues."

Why? Whatever kind of man kanye may be, nothing gives people the right to steal the fruits of his labour. No one is forcing these pathetic 'fans' to listen to the album (and might I add that it's available to stream for free on his website); I think it's shameful that these people defend their actions so.

owh please, there really is only so far you can go with the white knighting.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Did you actually read that report? And did you see the sample size? "US RESULTS ARE BASED ON INTERVIEWS VIA LANDLINE and cellular telephones conducted in English with 2,303
adults, age 18 or older, living in the continental United States, during August 2011. The German survey is based on
phone interviews with 1000 people age 18 or older, conducted between August 24 and September 6, 2011. "
So you're going to run with their report that "30% of file sharers buy more than non-file sharers" based on a whopping 2,303 surveys - conducted over the phone no less - in a one month period, and no specific demographic information provided as fact for all file sharers.

If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.
IIRC, TV ratings are based on the same size samples. Er..., I believe they're called the "Neilson Ratings". http://tvline.com/2014/05/29/tv-ratings-nielsen-to-increase-sample-size/
This is worth investigating more thoroughly.
 

TheBigFatClown

TS Evangelist
"In that case, he shouldn't be surprised if widespread piracy of his work continues."

Why? Whatever kind of man kanye may be, nothing gives people the right to steal the fruits of his labour. No one is forcing these pathetic 'fans' to listen to the album (and might I add that it's available to stream for free on his website); I think it's shameful that these people defend their actions so.
Music piracy isn't theft. Unethical, but not theft.
Not that want to become involved in this age old argument again, but I fail to see why it wouldn't be theft. The artist is losing out on potential royalty fees through unauthorised dissemination of his intellectual property, which is neither ethical nor legal.
The argument is that a lot of Pirates wouldn't buy the work anyways, therefore the artist lost nothing
That is nothing but a total cop-out crap argument by people who steal music, movies and games to "justify" their actions. What do you think the percentages are of people are who steal the item, then decide to buy that same item after they already have it? 1%? Less than 1%?
I won't defend piracy straight up. But I have an interesting question for you. Is it ethnically wrong to wait for price drops on movies, games, dvds, blu-ray discs if intend to buy them in the future? The decision to wait until something is dirt cheap or even free results in lost revenues for the artist, developer, movie studios. So my point is that because people make a conscious deliberate action that results in lost revenue for an artist can't possibly make it right or wrong. People who write a negative review for a video game hurt artists revenue also. Maybe it should be illegal to review products. A pirate without a voice may be doing less damage than 1 person with a voice.

What about pirates who download just because they can...pirates who download just to collect...when something becomes impossible to control....you really need to find ways to adapt...like Steam did....like Gabe Newell did...make pirating your intellectual properties less desirable than purchasing the intellectual properties. It's really the only way to win.

Am I a thug or criminal for not watching television commercials that plague broadcast television? Should I go to jail for hitting the mute button or switching channels with my remote during a commercial? That might result in lost revenue for a company who paid for a commercial I refused to watch.

I don't have solid answers to these questions but maybe its not so black and white. Maybe that's the reason why.

If you can stream the music for free on this website mentioned in the article then they are letting you listen to the music for free for watching ads, which in the end, you don't have to watch anyway.

Scroll the video off the page, hit the mute button, done. Hope that doesn't make me a criminal.

The bottom line is we live in a different world than we did 20 years ago. Adapt or die. Anyway you have to survive. Crying about the problem every 12 months isn't the solution. Adapting is.
 

Evernessince

TS Evangelist
It's very simple. A theft requires something be taken from someone.
Well yes, by infringing on the copyright holders rights and obtaining his intellectual property without permission your essentially taking away potential profit, you go on about this in your next sentence even.

If someone steals a physical copy of music, it is theft. There is actual property loss. If someone copies it and gives that copy to a stranger, by definition, it isn't theft–it is copyright infringement. Legally, that is a licensing violation.
Which is defined as Criminal Copyright Law in the United states, "Criminal penalties, in general, require that the offender knew that he or she was committing a crime" The old "I didn't know I was doing anything wrong" shouldn't be an acceptable excuse anymore for this.

The idea that this is somehow theft is retarded. First, it assumes that if a copyrighted work is illegally downloaded that it would have otherwise been legitimately purchased. Second, it creates the absurd scenario wherein burning a playlist of music for a friend who does not own the tracks makes you both thieves.
Your First statement is a little absurd, your suggesting that if the digital media I want is not available for purchase where I live that it automatically makes it legal to pirate? I'm not 100% if that's where you stand with that but it's what I make of it.

For your Second statement, no, not thieves, just that your copyright infringing, this still falls in to the criminal code seeing as how you intentionally copied the music.

I once recorded a CD featuring a copyrighted piano piece by Chick Corea ("No Mystery"). This may have been done in violation of copyright laws, as I recorded and burned the piece to CD and distributed it to an individual for personal, non-financial gain. I did not compensate Chick Corea, Polydor Records, or instruct the recipient of said CD to buy the track.

Is that theft?

If it isn't theft, how is downloading a music file theft when the end result is exactly the same?
Again, it's technically not theft, read for yourself bellow, try to understand that just because your not using the word theft to describe piracy, rightfully so, it's still an illegal act which can result in fines more than jail time. Albeit some have faced jail time but those are usually specific cases, for example the owners of the file sharing site that promote piracy. The law is the law, unfortunately at times, and if your breaking it, well good luck to you, just stop assuming that because piracy is not exactly the same thing as theft that it shouldn't be illegal.

I'm not a lawyer, but think I have a good understanding of the laws, more so those that I break from time to time.

"The terms piracy and theft are often associated with copyright infringement. The original meaning of piracy is "robbery or illegal violence at sea", but the term has been in use for centuries as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement. Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft."
Yes and if we actually applied the law to everyone who illegally copied music or videos there would be very few people not in jail. Frankly the laws for copyright protection are contrived and the punishments are ridiculous. How exactly do you match the psyche of an actual thief to a person merely copying 0s and 1s on a computer. Am I to assume in that case that you think everyone thinks like this because it's getting rather hard nowadays to find someone who hasn't violated some law or grey area dealing with copyright.

Is it wrong to copy material you didn't pay for? Absolutely. Does it deserve the same punishment as a thief? no. Every crime should have a unique punishment. How does huge fines and prison time correct their metal pattern?
 

Technician

TS Addict
In my country we get everything for free. Movies, music, software, porn. Almost everything that runs here is torrented and gotten for free any way you take it. Digital rights dont have value here. So nowadays its hard to not get something for free when soo many others are doing the same thing
In Mother Russia, music plays you.
 
C

CortyDK

I suspect nobody wants to pay for that kind of music anymore. There are thousands of artists exactly alike. None special. Why pay for something you can hear for free just by listening to someone else. We have the exact same problem here in Denmark. The majority of new artists releasing albums sound like they just walked of the X-Factor stage. The fact there are piracy around tells me more about thew artists than the ones downloading the music.

I'm happy to say that my most treasured music is on vinyl, bought from new or 2nd hand, I like the physical medium in my hands... Perhaps I should dust of the old reel-2-reel recorder and se if it still works. :eek:)
 

Technician

TS Addict
Sorry to bust your bubble, but I really did not know who this guy is. So saying I'm pretending is essentially a kinder way of saying I am lying.

I choose not to watch TV, I choose not to have a radio in my home, nor do I drive, and if in a car I ask if they can turn the radio off. I only have my computer and the internet. I buy no newspapers, visit no news websites, just Techspot, Cyclingnews, VeloNews (plus stuff like weather and shopping) subscribe to Netflix and MotoGp. I have never liked rap (except in the 70's when it originated), no one I know does either. I avoid the TV on Netflix as well, so I have never watched a single episode of South Park either. YouTube is great for the European bicycle races and cyclocross, even if sometimes they are not in my language

If it helps you to understand this lifestyle evolved because I am a veteran with some problems that the bad news and the propaganda (mainly advertising although a subtler form is in the content itself) exacerbates, so I started by cutting news off. It progressed from there. You cannot fail to hear about events such as elections etc, then I do online research. I'm not on Facebook or Twitter or on any other site than this one.

I found when I cut all that stuff out, not only did I feel better, but I had a lot more time for the things I really like. I do understand this lifestyle is pretty foreign to most folks.
We do a lot of reading together as a family, each taking a turn reading aloud to the rest.
I saw part of a south park episode, it was a cartoon so I switched it off, not sure if all episodes are like that or not, but a cartoon? Really? I stopped watching cartoons years ago as a kid.
 

Technician

TS Addict
I suspect nobody wants to pay for that kind of music anymore. There are thousands of artists exactly alike. None special. Why pay for something you can hear for free just by listening to someone else. We have the exact same problem here in Denmark. The majority of new artists releasing albums sound like they just walked of the X-Factor stage. The fact there are piracy around tells me more about thew artists than the ones downloading the music.

I'm happy to say that my most treasured music is on vinyl, bought from new or 2nd hand, I like the physical medium in my hands... Perhaps I should dust of the old reel-2-reel recorder and se if it still works. :eek:)
I have an awesome TEAC reel to reel. The deck works fine still but the old tapes get flat from sitting as each layer demagnetizes the ones above and below it. Sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CortyDK

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
I find it hard to comprehend why the theft of Kanye West's album, is even sparking a copyright debate.

To me, if you want to record and sell "gangsta", then "gangstas" will listen to it.

So what do people do when they're gangsta? Well, they sell crack, carry guns, sell heroine, commit armed robberies and so forth. Why anybody in their right mind would expect them to pay for a stinking album is beyond me.

Gangsta wannabe pirate albums whilst they think about committing bigger crimes .

And ya know, all the shameless pirates of that garbage have exactly the same excuses which make the rounds here, plus a few more.

"I gotz me deez kidz", I gotz me me raghts, Kanye's one of us, he'd want me to have this, ad naseum".

West can't possibly believe he's mainstream in anything but an ethnic sense. Maybe he should do what "Puff Daddy" did, and pay somebody to design a clothing line for him, and slap his name on it.

I know many of the rest of us who enjoy actual, "music", would be deeply moved with gratitude. (But I don't even own a suit, so he'd have to skip one meal of "grats" < (see what I did there), on account of me.

Sorry Kanye, feel free to say a few obscene things about me in your next "album to be named....,er I mean stolen", later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
...[ ]....Am I a thug or criminal for not watching television commercials that plague broadcast television? Should I go to jail for hitting the mute button or switching channels with my remote during a commercial? That might result in lost revenue for a company who paid for a commercial I refused to watch.
...[ ]....
Provably, no. Every interest on this planet feels they are entitled to your "disposable income" in its entirety. And every interest group on the planet will piss and moan to high heaven if they don't get it. The doctors think they should get all your money ditto the other guys lawyer, your ex wife, and so does any advertiser on the planet. But, that's just too bad.There's only so much to go around.

The only other use of the word "broadcast" I've ever heard is in conjunction with spreading seed. With. OTA TV, ads are "broadcast". And like seed, some of it falls on stony ground, while some of it lands in a fertile valley. Mother nature, as a farmer, has calculated acceptable losses, and made allowances for them. Not every seed gets to germinate, nor every ad slot sells something to everyone it reaches.

I'm absolutely certain the the "Summer's Eve" makers, don't expect you to go out this weekend and buy a full line of feminine hygiene products. Now, if you ignore the Budweiser ads, the Bush family might have a problem. (Those Clydesdales eat like you wouldn't believe. Some of them weigh over a ton :eek: ).

With that said, not every one can afford a Cadillac, not everybody in the country is without car insurance, and so forth. (And face it, if every insurer could in fact, "save you 10% on your car insurance", if you shopped around long enough, one of them would just about owe you money).

TV advertisers gauge ratings of programs and spend money on ads accordingly. This has been going on since TV hit the American home. Advertisers know this, they pay their money, and they take their chances. There are those who simply won't listen to, or buy from any ad they see on TV. The statisticians have accounted for the likes of you, and everybody knows you're bound to happen. They've gotten over you and your mute button, and now you need to forgive yourself....!(y):cool:
 
Last edited:
C

CortyDK

I have an awesome TEAC reel to reel. The deck works fine still but the old tapes get flat from sitting as each layer demagnetizes the ones above and below it. Sad.
AKAI GX-747, safely tucked away in a closet. Yes, old recordings degrade. I was lucky to purchase some unused Ampex 456 tapes from a recording studio that went digital. still in airtight plasticbags. Could be a trip down nostalgia lane to make a tape or two with my favourite music.