Full Version: Piracy. Theft or not?
Radio stations and DJs pay licensing fees, what's your point?
We have veered off topic. As interesting a subject as this is it might be better if it had it's own thread started for it. It pertains only loosly to the original topic. And we don't want to get into bitching about specifics. I just want a discussion on the generic principle. If we get into specifics I fear it will degenerate into a flame war.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
Radio stations and DJs pay licensing fees, what's your point?
Radio stations and DJs pay licensing fees, what's your point?
Radio stations pay licencing fee's to FCC for the rights to brodcast on the airways not royalties to artist...The only thing I know of that DJ's pay are taxes.
Whats your point
Umm... radio stations pay royalties to the copyright holders too. The licensing fees to the FCC are required to broadcast and have nothing to do with the music being played. Take a look at the RIAA's site (http://www.riaa.com), they've pretty much covered every method for using copyrighted music and how to do so legally.
And I agree with Neo Neko about going slightly off topic and will no longer be discussing this (unless it's moved to a new thread).
And I agree with Neo Neko about going slightly off topic and will no longer be discussing this (unless it's moved to a new thread).
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
dude, maybe i'm the only mexican here.
dude, maybe i'm the only mexican here.
No, you're not.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
Here in Mexico there aren't any laws that punish \"copyright enfringement\" or whatever.
Here in Mexico there aren't any laws that punish \"copyright enfringement\" or whatever.
Wrong. There are laws that punish copyright infringement. One thing is that there are no laws and another that these are not enforced.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
the government knows and just lets ppl do it Why??? i think its a way to let ppl earn some \"dirty\" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like \"food\".
the government knows and just lets ppl do it Why??? i think its a way to let ppl earn some \"dirty\" money off the rich countries to buy something insignificant like \"food\".
That is not the reason why piracy is so widespread. The government wouldn't want that to happen, it lowers the confidence enterprises have on it and that is a big no, no. The reality is that the problem really overwhelms it, due to the corruption, the ineptitude of law enforcement and simple human nature (why buy something in a record store if I can get the same thing for one fourth the price?). Two thirds or more of the piracy in Mexico (music piracy, that is) comes from perfectly Mexican sources.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
- I have friends that think that 96-128kb/s mp3s are cd quality, therefore love p2p networks, kind of ppl that download and never buy. So 160kbps is even too much for the super fast 56k connections most ppl has. lol
cant believe ppl is happy with such crap...
- I have friends that think that 96-128kb/s mp3s are cd quality, therefore love p2p networks, kind of ppl that download and never buy. So 160kbps is even too much for the super fast 56k connections most ppl has. lol
cant believe ppl is happy with such crap... That doesn't happen only in Mexico. That happens everywhere.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
- Computers (this really hurts). Most ppl buy crappy 0 computers with 14\" monitors, sis mobos, no graphic acelerators, cheap speakers and stuff rather than a gf3 i hardly made it to sell for 0, it was to a friend...
- Computers (this really hurts). Most ppl buy crappy 0 computers with 14\" monitors, sis mobos, no graphic acelerators, cheap speakers and stuff rather than a gf3 i hardly made it to sell for 0, it was to a friend...
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
Myself, i have broadband, a 00 USD comp i built from parts i got from the US, i use divx 5 pro to backup my DVDs, i use AAC to backup my CDs, the only stuff i keep from the net are songs that are almost impossible to find in a cd here.
So if ppl never gets to recognize good quality original stuff, \"copyright rapism\" will never end.
Myself, i have broadband, a 00 USD comp i built from parts i got from the US, i use divx 5 pro to backup my DVDs, i use AAC to backup my CDs, the only stuff i keep from the net are songs that are almost impossible to find in a cd here.
So if ppl never gets to recognize good quality original stuff, \"copyright rapism\" will never end.
Why do you think people buy computers like this, really? And why does it hurt you? It's not that they don't value quality, it because quality means MONEY, and money is something the vast majority of Mexicans doesn't really have. Why would someone buy a GeForce3 if what they want is to type a document into Word or make a presentation? If "most people" had the money you have (hell, a broadband and a $1500 computer brought in parts from the US is something only like 5% of the Mexicans can afford), believe me, they would buy state-of-the-art equipment. Get real! Most people in Mexico have different priorities than you do in your pampered bubble of wealth.
Piracy is a kind of theft and therefore is wrong. Killing is also wrong, but is it wrong to kill in self-defense? Why is the music industry so afraid? Because they fear not to fill bank accounts as quickly as they are used to? The music and, in general, the entertainment industry is awfully bloated, not to say other piracy-whipped corporations like Micro$oft. Extreme piracy exists because these corporations exploit people by greedily sucking up their well-earnt money with over-priced goods.
Music industry is not going down because of piracy and neither is Microsoft. Were it not for piracy, many people would.
QUOTE
Originally posted by dologan
Why do you think people buy computers like this, really? And why does it hurt you? It's not that they don't value quality, it because quality means MONEY, and money is something the vast majority of Mexicans doesn't really have. Why would someone buy a GeForce3 if what they want is to type a document into Word or make a presentation? If \"most people\" had the money you have (hell, a broadband and a 00 computer brought in parts from the US is something only like 5% of the Mexicans can afford), believe me, they would buy state-of-the-art equipment. Get real! Most people in Mexico have different priorities than you do in your pampered bubble of wealth.
Why do you think people buy computers like this, really? And why does it hurt you? It's not that they don't value quality, it because quality means MONEY, and money is something the vast majority of Mexicans doesn't really have. Why would someone buy a GeForce3 if what they want is to type a document into Word or make a presentation? If \"most people\" had the money you have (hell, a broadband and a 00 computer brought in parts from the US is something only like 5% of the Mexicans can afford), believe me, they would buy state-of-the-art equipment. Get real! Most people in Mexico have different priorities than you do in your pampered bubble of wealth.
well, dude, i know TONS of ppl that like computers and still spend their money on tequila or any other bogus and more expensive stuff
quality can be available here in mexico. Hey, im not rich, not even close, but yeah i might be in high mid class. Theres no quality because ppl sticks to crappyness. I of course know that most of ppl dont even know there are much better games in the pcs than they are on ps2 or even xbox, but rather need the computer just for homework.
Dude pls take a look at the malls, you can see Vaios for $3000 or $2500 that many ppl buys, and still have crappy pieces, the thing its not the money, its the lack of knowledge. All those computers are mainly the stuff US doesnt want, and ppl looks at it like :eek: You can call me rich when i own a bmw and a $4000 USD PC, until that you don't know me, so pls get out of your "pampered buble" of lameness
So the lack of knowledge is my point, ppl dont look at the third parties that are hurt cuz of their actions, and greedy companies hyppin very little "sale decrease" (it doesnt deserve to be called a loss, cuz they dont own anything the got ripped off) its all because all these thefts exist.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Trelane
Umm... radio stations pay royalties to the copyright holders too.
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
Umm... radio stations pay royalties to the copyright holders too.
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
look at di.fm
Its the bigest free internet radio site in the internet and it is about to be shut down by the RIAA because of that. Damn DMCA also because of the royalties it owes to Fhg because of the use of mp3 format
QUOTE
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies.
Good riddance to greedy @ssholes. There is ONLY ONE reason I refuse to buy CD's. Not P2P. Not broadband. Not cd burners.
If everyone decides to download stuff and stop buying CDs, then the industry dies.
The RIAA.
Until these greedy losers take a PERMANENT hike, I'll NEVER buy another CD. PERIOD. That's why record sales are down. Because people like me have no interest in making these RIAA @ssholes who take such great pride in abusing BOTH customers and artists even richer. I support the artists I like the old fashioned way - by going to their shows and buying their t-shirts!
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
Its the bigest free internet radio site in the internet and it is about to be shut down by the RIAA because of that. Damn DMCA also because of the royalties it owes to Fhg because of the use of mp3 format
We're NOT talking about webcasts. We're talking about traditional broadcasting radio stations. Trelane needs to either PROVE his assertion or admit that he's wrong.
Its the bigest free internet radio site in the internet and it is about to be shut down by the RIAA because of that. Damn DMCA also because of the royalties it owes to Fhg because of the use of mp3 format
P2P neutralizes the high cost of pressed music CDs.
Suppose I want Eminem's new "The Eminem Show" CD. Between the online stores and local retailers, say I can't find it for less than $13.99. The solution? Download the album over P2P and burn the converted WAVs to a CD-R. A year or so from now, go to half.com or eBay and buy the pressed CD used for about $5, tossing the CD-R.
Remember Santana's 2000 Grammy winner "Supernatural" CD?. Half.com is selling used copies now for $2.50. Lauryn Hill's 1999 Grammy winner "The Miseducation Of..."? $4.00 even.
I have many burned albums but I regularly replace them with the pressed CD when the used price becomes palatable. I have no trouble sleeping at night with this form of "piracy". I simply buy and own too many pressed CDs to justify paying $12, $15 or $18 each time I add another. $5? No problem. And that's basically what I do.
Ah, yes, rationalization. I look at it this way: time is finite. If I owned 5000 CDs (I know a few who do), I can't listen to each of them with much frequency. So I refuse to pay a high price for each album. Used product takes care of the need to develop a collection while keeping a lid on expenses.
Suppose I want Eminem's new "The Eminem Show" CD. Between the online stores and local retailers, say I can't find it for less than $13.99. The solution? Download the album over P2P and burn the converted WAVs to a CD-R. A year or so from now, go to half.com or eBay and buy the pressed CD used for about $5, tossing the CD-R.
Remember Santana's 2000 Grammy winner "Supernatural" CD?. Half.com is selling used copies now for $2.50. Lauryn Hill's 1999 Grammy winner "The Miseducation Of..."? $4.00 even.
I have many burned albums but I regularly replace them with the pressed CD when the used price becomes palatable. I have no trouble sleeping at night with this form of "piracy". I simply buy and own too many pressed CDs to justify paying $12, $15 or $18 each time I add another. $5? No problem. And that's basically what I do.
Ah, yes, rationalization. I look at it this way: time is finite. If I owned 5000 CDs (I know a few who do), I can't listen to each of them with much frequency. So I refuse to pay a high price for each album. Used product takes care of the need to develop a collection while keeping a lid on expenses.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
well, dude, i know TONS of ppl that like computers and still spend their money on tequila or any other bogus and more expensive stuff
well, dude, i know TONS of ppl that like computers and still spend their money on tequila or any other bogus and more expensive stuff
That's because they have different priorities and prefer to get pissed than to have better quality equipment. If they buy that, most likely it will be because it suits their needs. You do have a point though, that people often don't care enough to find the best deal.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
You can call me rich when i own a bmw and a 00 USD PC, until that you don't know me, so pls get out of your \"pampered buble\" of lameness
You can call me rich when i own a bmw and a 00 USD PC, until that you don't know me, so pls get out of your \"pampered buble\" of lameness
That depends on what you call rich. You are definitely rich in the eyes of the vast majority of Mexicans. Bringing stuff from the US is not really cheap considering the transport costs and even though what you say is true, that things here are more expensive and worse than there, bringing them over the river without paying customs is not quite legal either, afaik. I never called you rich, but you do have a better economical level than 95% of the people in this country.
Anyway, what does lame quality have to do with piracy? Buying a "pato" computer with lowest-end components is not illegal in this country, so if people want to get ripped off, so be it.
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
I'm partially wrong. Congress ruled that performance royalites do not need to be paid to the RIAA. However, BMI and ASCAP do collect royalties for using a song on radio and TV. These royalties supposedly go to the songwriters. Royalties are paid, just not to the RIAA (unless it's a webcast).
Relevant links:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Audio/20020405_joint_co_comments.html
http://www.riaa.com/Music-Rules-3.cfm (3rd paragraph)
http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-...-7250889-1.html
If you ask me, it's all a muckin' fess.
QUOTE
Originally posted by mithrandir B]
I have many burned albums but I regularly replace them with the pressed CD when the used price becomes palatable. I have no trouble sleeping at night with this form of \"piracy\". I simply buy and own too many pressed CDs to justify paying , or each time I add another. ? No problem. And that's basically what I do.
I have many burned albums but I regularly replace them with the pressed CD when the used price becomes palatable. I have no trouble sleeping at night with this form of \"piracy\". I simply buy and own too many pressed CDs to justify paying , or each time I add another. ? No problem. And that's basically what I do.
True "try before you buy" philosophy in the subclass of "try for a year before you buy used".
QUOTE
Originally posted by mithrandir
Suppose I want Eminem's new \"The Eminem Show\" CD.
Suppose I want Eminem's new \"The Eminem Show\" CD.
Errm... should I suppose that you [b]really want that one?
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
We're NOT talking about webcasts. We're talking about traditional broadcasting radio stations. Trelane needs to either PROVE his assertion or admit that he's wrong.
We're NOT talking about webcasts. We're talking about traditional broadcasting radio stations. Trelane needs to either PROVE his assertion or admit that he's wrong.
Rock On
I worked for a summer as an intern for a local Hard rock radio station. The record labels payed a fee to have certain records of theirs played on a regular basis!!!
QUOTE
Originally posted by dologan
That's because they have different priorities and prefer to get pissed than to have better quality equipment. If they buy that, most likely it will be because it suits their needs. You do have a point though, that people often don't care enough to find the best deal.
That depends on what you call rich. You are definitely rich in the eyes of the vast majority of Mexicans. Bringing stuff from the US is not really cheap considering the transport costs and even though what you say is true, that things here are more expensive and worse than there, bringing them over the river without paying customs is not quite legal either, afaik. I never called you rich, but you do have a better economical level than 95% of the people in this country.
Anyway, what does lame quality have to do with piracy? Buying a \"pato\" computer with lowest-end components is not illegal in this country, so if people want to get ripped off, so be it.
That's because they have different priorities and prefer to get pissed than to have better quality equipment. If they buy that, most likely it will be because it suits their needs. You do have a point though, that people often don't care enough to find the best deal.
That depends on what you call rich. You are definitely rich in the eyes of the vast majority of Mexicans. Bringing stuff from the US is not really cheap considering the transport costs and even though what you say is true, that things here are more expensive and worse than there, bringing them over the river without paying customs is not quite legal either, afaik. I never called you rich, but you do have a better economical level than 95% of the people in this country.
Anyway, what does lame quality have to do with piracy? Buying a \"pato\" computer with lowest-end components is not illegal in this country, so if people want to get ripped off, so be it.
Well ok, but not 95%, maybe 75% or so...
I payed the customs for all those parts, my father imports other stuff from the US so the shipping aint an issue
And yeah, maybe by the time ppl realizes that q3 wont run on a sis vid card integrated to the mobo well start to get fine stuff over here. At least you can already get a gf1 for a "fair" price.
And that try before you buy sounds good, he at least bought the cd, but i think its a little useless to try with crappy mp3s
RIAA can go to hell as long as lossless formats dont get to the mainstream p2p networks. Lets face it, the vast mayority of internet users over the world are on phoneline, from that a very little amount has the time and patience to dl mp3s, and its even lower the percent of ppl that owns a cdrw drive. By that, they might get the point that such time and money isnt worth the bad quality and just get the original cd, but as i said, there is still a lot of ppl that believe 128kbps mp3 is cd quality, maybe its dumb to say it in this audiophile forum, but 256 is cd quality and anyway i dont like mp3 even that high. On my point of view 192kbps AAC sounds much better
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Good riddance to greedy @ssholes. There is ONLY ONE reason I refuse to buy CD's. Not P2P. Not broadband. Not cd burners.
The RIAA.
Until these greedy losers take a PERMANENT hike, I'll NEVER buy another CD. PERIOD. That's why record sales are down. Because people like me have no interest in making these RIAA @ssholes who take such great pride in abusing BOTH customers and artists even richer. I support the artists I like the old fashioned way - by going to their shows and buying their t-shirts!
What about the recording studios, the managers, and everyone else besides the artists and the RIAA? They too get robbed when someone chooses not to buy a CD because they already have a "good enough" copy of the intellectual property.
Good riddance to greedy @ssholes. There is ONLY ONE reason I refuse to buy CD's. Not P2P. Not broadband. Not cd burners.
The RIAA.
Until these greedy losers take a PERMANENT hike, I'll NEVER buy another CD. PERIOD. That's why record sales are down. Because people like me have no interest in making these RIAA @ssholes who take such great pride in abusing BOTH customers and artists even richer. I support the artists I like the old fashioned way - by going to their shows and buying their t-shirts!
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone; Hillary Rosen comes right after Ari Fleischer (Dubya's press secretary) on my list of disgusting representatives of corrupt establishments. (please ignore that stab at the head of the US executive branch
) But rather than feel good about robbing from the rich, I have a moral objection towards screwing over the rest of the people involved with the production of CD's. My dilemma is so great that I've stopped downloading music entirely, and since radio is a joke, I get all my music by borrowing friends' CD's, sampling them, and then going to the used records store to purchase my own copies.
(Off-topic: Fair Use law allows anyone who purchases a copyrighted work to resell it at will. This means that if I'm done with a CD, I can give it or sell it to someone without any permission from the copyright owner, as long as it means I'm totally transferring my license to listen to the music by deleting any MP3's of the album or getting rid of CD-R backups.)
Please keep in mind the distinction between Revolutionary and Freeloader. Copyright law is so out-of-date with regards to digital distribution technology that I can forgive anyone who breaks it. What I can't condone are people who ignore not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of it.
EDIT: removed inflammatory remark
QUOTE
Originally posted by 2Bdecided
If I \"test drive\" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I \"test drive\" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
David.
If I \"test drive\" a CD, then I don't have to buy the CD. Ever. I can make my own.
If I \"test drive\" a car, then unless I buy the car, I'll be walking home! (or driving back in whatever I came in). Hence, the analogy is inappropriate.
David.
Well, maybe...
I know this has been discussed before, and many don't believe it to be true, but...
I buy a lot more CD's now than I ever did before discovering Napster and MP3's. The downloading of music re-awaked my love of music that had been dormant for the better part of the 80's and 90's.
If i test drive a CD and/or MP3, and I like it, I will buy my own copy. If I don't like it, then I won't listen to it and I won't buy it.
Maybe I am the exception rather than the rule. But the record labels have made a lot more money from me as a result of MP3 sharing than they would have made without the technology. Believe it, or don't, I really don't care. It's true, period. Again, maybe I am the exception.
This doesn't answer the question of legality with respect to "piracy", but it does answer the question of who was hurt and who lost their livelyhood as a result of my piracy. The answer is not one person. They made more money because of it.
Keep in mind: There are artists and labels that are not under the iron grip of the RIAA.
Also, the webcast stuff sets a maximum per song per listener price, the internet radio station and label are free to work out their own agreement, as long as it does not exceed that maximum set. It is still bullshit, the artist/composer should be the one's setting the price (with the maximum still their), and not the labels.
the Fair Use policy is cool. But the RIAA is still cutting into that (cd protection....) I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with MY CD, as long as I don't give a permanent copy to someone. Which means I can rip, mix and burn all i want, but those burns can't leave my fingers. Nor can the rip files. I want to be able to take a bath with puppies and peanut butter with my CD's (a little extreme). Fake CD's don't let me do this.
Piracy is still theft, regardless of what you think. You are not paying the full price for the real product.
It has been quite a while since I bought a CD, but I have quite a lot of music. Most of it I do plan on purchasing, because I enjoy it and would like to atleast support the artist. But a lack of job, combined with expensive (overpriced?) CD's doesn't make it easy.
Also, the webcast stuff sets a maximum per song per listener price, the internet radio station and label are free to work out their own agreement, as long as it does not exceed that maximum set. It is still bullshit, the artist/composer should be the one's setting the price (with the maximum still their), and not the labels.
the Fair Use policy is cool. But the RIAA is still cutting into that (cd protection....) I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with MY CD, as long as I don't give a permanent copy to someone. Which means I can rip, mix and burn all i want, but those burns can't leave my fingers. Nor can the rip files. I want to be able to take a bath with puppies and peanut butter with my CD's (a little extreme). Fake CD's don't let me do this.
Piracy is still theft, regardless of what you think. You are not paying the full price for the real product.
It has been quite a while since I bought a CD, but I have quite a lot of music. Most of it I do plan on purchasing, because I enjoy it and would like to atleast support the artist. But a lack of job, combined with expensive (overpriced?) CD's doesn't make it easy.
(this post uses United States law as an example, but it might be applicable elsewhere.)
US Copyright law has ceased to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". In fact, the original concept of protecting intellectual property by controlling its physical distribution is meaningless. It was thrown out the window when the internet came to town and made copying free and limitless.
The law makes it clear that piracy, copyright infringment, "test driving", or whatever else you call it, is considered theft and illegal. I won't argue that.
My argument is that the laws are unconstitutional. Congress is not promoting the Arts by prohibiting their online distribution, Congress is stifiling them. Copyright law once made sense, when the only people making unlicensed copies of copyrighted material sold many copies at a profit, and each unlicensed sale clearly reduced the artist's royalties. But the internet has decoupled the physical medium from the intellectual property, and each unlicensed copy does not translate to a lost sale. If I make 1000 copies of an MP3 on my hard drive, have I cost the record label 1000 sales? Of course not, but that's what the law says.
Society could benefit most if it had free access to its vast collection of music, but that collection only exists because artists have been compensated for their work. It is clear to me that the current system of financing new art through the RIAA is inefficient. Many artists just want to make a living doing something they love. I may be in the wrong position to say this, but I'm willing to sacrifice the Eminems of the world who do it to get rich, if it means the real musicians of the world can get out from under the heel of the music industry.
MP3.com's pricing scheme is an example of how things could be; the artist names the price and owns the copyright, and they pay MP3.com 50% of sales in return for hosting and sales management. This doesn't have to be the only way things could be, but it would be a big improvement over how things work today. The ownership of the music must go back to the artist before things will get better, because today's gatekeepers of music copyright, the record labels, will not serve anybody's best interests but their own.
If the music industry today switched to a voluntary pay system, almost everyone involved in it would go bankrupt. Part of this is because the industry has become bloated and inefficient, and the fat needs to be trimmed. The other part is because the public is not ready to take financial responsibility for the music it enjoys so much. All the debate about piracy only concerns the record labels' dollars and the public's demand for music. If the focus was shifted to the personal relationship people have with the musicians they love, then perhaps a new, better system of distribution and compensation could be devised.
QUOTE
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
[b][The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]
[b][The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]
US Copyright law has ceased to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". In fact, the original concept of protecting intellectual property by controlling its physical distribution is meaningless. It was thrown out the window when the internet came to town and made copying free and limitless.
The law makes it clear that piracy, copyright infringment, "test driving", or whatever else you call it, is considered theft and illegal. I won't argue that.
My argument is that the laws are unconstitutional. Congress is not promoting the Arts by prohibiting their online distribution, Congress is stifiling them. Copyright law once made sense, when the only people making unlicensed copies of copyrighted material sold many copies at a profit, and each unlicensed sale clearly reduced the artist's royalties. But the internet has decoupled the physical medium from the intellectual property, and each unlicensed copy does not translate to a lost sale. If I make 1000 copies of an MP3 on my hard drive, have I cost the record label 1000 sales? Of course not, but that's what the law says.
Society could benefit most if it had free access to its vast collection of music, but that collection only exists because artists have been compensated for their work. It is clear to me that the current system of financing new art through the RIAA is inefficient. Many artists just want to make a living doing something they love. I may be in the wrong position to say this, but I'm willing to sacrifice the Eminems of the world who do it to get rich, if it means the real musicians of the world can get out from under the heel of the music industry.
MP3.com's pricing scheme is an example of how things could be; the artist names the price and owns the copyright, and they pay MP3.com 50% of sales in return for hosting and sales management. This doesn't have to be the only way things could be, but it would be a big improvement over how things work today. The ownership of the music must go back to the artist before things will get better, because today's gatekeepers of music copyright, the record labels, will not serve anybody's best interests but their own.
If the music industry today switched to a voluntary pay system, almost everyone involved in it would go bankrupt. Part of this is because the industry has become bloated and inefficient, and the fat needs to be trimmed. The other part is because the public is not ready to take financial responsibility for the music it enjoys so much. All the debate about piracy only concerns the record labels' dollars and the public's demand for music. If the focus was shifted to the personal relationship people have with the musicians they love, then perhaps a new, better system of distribution and compensation could be devised.
QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
Somehow you've managed to both justify and glorify your copyright infringement.
Somehow, you've managed to both insult and slander me. MY copyright infringement? WHAT copyright infringement? When did I say ANYTHING about copyright infringement? You'd better get your facts straight before you publicly accuse someone of doing something, buddy...
Somehow you've managed to both justify and glorify your copyright infringement.
What I DID do is offer an explanation for why record sales are down. It's called a boycott, in case you're unfamiliar with the concept. This has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement.
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Somehow, you've managed to both insult and slander me. MY copyright infringement? WHAT copyright infringement? When did I say ANYTHING about copyright infringement? You'd better get your facts straight before you publicly accuse someone of doing something, buddy...
What I DID do is offer an explanation for why record sales are down. It's called a boycott, in case you're unfamiliar with the concept. This has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement.
Somehow, you've managed to both insult and slander me. MY copyright infringement? WHAT copyright infringement? When did I say ANYTHING about copyright infringement? You'd better get your facts straight before you publicly accuse someone of doing something, buddy...
What I DID do is offer an explanation for why record sales are down. It's called a boycott, in case you're unfamiliar with the concept. This has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement.
your means are good, but lets face it, a boycot of this proportions is never going to happen. If ppl just holds buying cds for just 1 week the whole music industry will collapse, but what kind of reason would really encourage ppl to do this??? only because a couple thosand people boycot will just give the RIAA their supposed reasons to shut down p2p networks... sad to say it dude but its the truth
QUOTE
Originally posted by Phobos
your means are good, but lets face it, a boycot of this proportions is never going to happen. If ppl just holds buying cds for just 1 week the whole music industry will collapse, but what kind of reason would really encourage ppl to do this??? only because a couple thosand people boycot will just give the RIAA their supposed reasons to shut down p2p networks... sad to say it dude but its the truth
The RIAA can do whatever they want. They don't need shrinking record sales as a reason to go after p2p, just ask Napster. This isn't about forcing change. It's about self respect. I have to live with myself, look myself in the mirror each morning (which is tough enough 'cause I ain't too pretty anyway).
your means are good, but lets face it, a boycot of this proportions is never going to happen. If ppl just holds buying cds for just 1 week the whole music industry will collapse, but what kind of reason would really encourage ppl to do this??? only because a couple thosand people boycot will just give the RIAA their supposed reasons to shut down p2p networks... sad to say it dude but its the truth
I have no intention of helping some RIAA @sshole buy a new Porsche. And change IS coming, regardless of what you, I or the RIAA does. And they KNOW it, that's why they are soiling themselves trying to stop the inevitable. A whole new paradigm is RIGHT on the horizon. One which leaves the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers, their fat bloated ceo's, their overpriced inferior media and the stores which distribute it, ALL out on the street. And, as I said before, GOOD RIDDANCE to ALL of 'em!
QUOTE
I'm aware of record labels PAYING radio stations to play their music. I'm NOT aware of this royalty nonsense. Either prove that assertion, or admit that you are wrong.
from ASCAP: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html
"A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet.
This link has a little more info about radio licensing and fees: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/radio/radiofaq.html
QUOTE
The only thing I know of that DJ's pay are taxes.
DJs normally aren't responsible for paying performance licensing, but the venues they perform at are: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generalfaq.html
"Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business."
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
I have no intention of helping some RIAA @sshole buy a new Porsche. And change IS coming, regardless of what you, I or the RIAA does. And they KNOW it, that's why they are soiling themselves trying to stop the inevitable. A whole new paradigm is RIGHT on the horizon. One which leaves the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers, their fat bloated ceo's, their overpriced inferior media and the stores which distribute it, ALL out on the street. And, as I said before, GOOD RIDDANCE to ALL of 'em!
I have no intention of helping some RIAA @sshole buy a new Porsche. And change IS coming, regardless of what you, I or the RIAA does. And they KNOW it, that's why they are soiling themselves trying to stop the inevitable. A whole new paradigm is RIGHT on the horizon. One which leaves the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers, their fat bloated ceo's, their overpriced inferior media and the stores which distribute it, ALL out on the street. And, as I said before, GOOD RIDDANCE to ALL of 'em!
If the record labels would disappear, who would pay for recording and marketing CDs ? Sure, artists like Eminem and Madonna have piles of money, so they could pay for it themselves.
But what about beginning bands ? They usually don't have the money to record an album, let alone properly market it. That why they'll still need a record company that will sign them and pay for these expenses.
And what if they don't rely on selling CDs, but try to distribute their music on the internet ? I don't think they would ever reach a substantial audience as long as they don't appear on other media like TV, radio, etc.
IMHO.
There was a French rock artist on the radio, I don't remember who, who did distibute his music online as well as selling CDs, maybe charging a fee, I don't remember, and he explained that he had become quite popular in Canada thanks to online distribution.
He said "I prefer having 100 people downloading my songs, then coming to my concert, than having one people buying my CD".
He said "I prefer having 100 people downloading my songs, then coming to my concert, than having one people buying my CD".
QUOTE
Originally posted by PoisonDan
If the record labels would disappear, who would pay for recording and marketing CDs ? Sure, artists like Eminem and Madonna have piles of money, so they could pay for it themselves.
But what about beginning bands ? They usually don't have the money to record an album, let alone properly market it. That why they'll still need a record company that will sign them and pay for these expenses.
And what if they don't rely on selling CDs, but try to distribute their music on the internet ? I don't think they would ever reach a substantial audience as long as they don't appear on other media like TV, radio, etc.
IMHO.
If the record labels would disappear, who would pay for recording and marketing CDs ? Sure, artists like Eminem and Madonna have piles of money, so they could pay for it themselves.
But what about beginning bands ? They usually don't have the money to record an album, let alone properly market it. That why they'll still need a record company that will sign them and pay for these expenses.
And what if they don't rely on selling CDs, but try to distribute their music on the internet ? I don't think they would ever reach a substantial audience as long as they don't appear on other media like TV, radio, etc.
IMHO.
Do you *really* think that record labels are in favour of beginning bands? Only a small percentage even gets the chance to sign a contract with a label, the rest is forgotten, although they maybe have the potential.
I say, record labels are *not* needed anymore. Time changes and so do circumstances. Pio already made the point, online distribution is the way to go. It's much cheaper and much easier for artists to gain popularity.
They will appear in the media if they are successful. People will call their favourite tv channel/radio station and request a song. But I think the media will also do research what people like to listen to at the moment. I don't see this as a big problem. And there would be no difference from now. What do you hear all the day on TV, radio, etc? Right, the same few songs, played day and night. So unknown and new artists are not pushed very much even now.
What's also very important to consider is that many artists get nearly nothing from their CD sales. The label takes the most, the artists see only some cents. And what is this money used for? To promote these - like I want to call them - "made artists". Bands like...umm...how are they called...atomic kitten, no angels, boy groups, etc. This requires a strong marketing effort and therefore heavy expenses. And it's used for contracts with artists like Mariah Carey, which cost the record labels millions of dollars. The funny thing was that her last (?) CD sold pretty badly although a lot of money was spent on her contract.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Pio2001
There was a French rock artist on the radio, I don't remember who, who did distibute his music online as well as selling CDs, maybe charging a fee, I don't remember, and he explained that he had become quite popular in Canada thanks to online distribution.
He said \"I prefer having 100 people downloading my songs, then coming to my concert, than having one people buying my CD\".
There was a French rock artist on the radio, I don't remember who, who did distibute his music online as well as selling CDs, maybe charging a fee, I don't remember, and he explained that he had become quite popular in Canada thanks to online distribution.
He said \"I prefer having 100 people downloading my songs, then coming to my concert, than having one people buying my CD\".
Sounds like an artist who still has music in his heart and soul and not the thought of money. The RIAA, ASCAP, and others like them are not about protecting the artist but about lining their own pockets. Remember ( SometimesWarrior ) Their comes a time when you must make a stand. If someone has enough money they could pass any law they want. It is call coruption ie....Don King and Boxing is a fine Example.
If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
QUOTE
Sounds like an artist who still has music in his heart and soul and not the thought of money.
But shouldn't an artist be paid well for something s/he pours their heart and soul into?
QUOTE
The RIAA, ASCAP, and others like them are not about protecting the artist but about lining their own pockets.
That maybe true of the RIAA, since they basically are a lobbying organization for the record companies. ASCAP, on the other hand, is an organization comprised of and run by composers and songwriters. http://www.ascap.com/lp_about_ascap.html
QUOTE
Originally posted by rocketsauce
But shouldn't an artist be paid well for something s/he pours their heart and soul into?
But shouldn't an artist be paid well for something s/he pours their heart and soul into?
Only if people think that it's worth the money. Nobody is entitled to profit just because they love what they're doing and invest large amounts of money, effort, and time into it. Otherwise Dibrom would be mega-rich for giving us this wonderful forum.
QUOTE
Originally posted by rocketsauce
But shouldn't an artist be paid well for something s/he pours their heart and soul into?
But shouldn't an artist be paid well for something s/he pours their heart and soul into?
Yes and nobody who enjoys that artist should deny him or her what they deserve.
My question is should the beaucracy profit from you and I. The lawyers and lobbiest have not produced a single note that I care to have added on to the cost of my Cd's
that I purchase. When are you going to learn were their are lawyers, agents and more beaucracy involved their is corruption. The people who lose are we the consumers and the artist themself. We lose and they ride away into the sunset looking for what else or who else they can scam.
If we don't learn are History we are doomed to repeat it!!
On the original topic of "Piracy"
I don't think copying music for personal use is piracy, as said before in this thread, it has been covered in a lot of countries in a way that you pay extra for blank media, lending CDs, DVDs, and even for listening to the radio.
When I was a kid I used to tape music from the radio (shows my age?) that's comparable with what people do now with P2P sharing. Record companies don't lose much on that (yet).
I do agree that when those (young) people, without much to spend, grow up and start earning money, they might not easily switch to buying records for $20+ each. Maybe that's what worries the companies.
Examples of Real Piracy:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Detai...?RelatedID=2510 or
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Detai...?RelatedID=2516
Targetting people who want buy
When you sell it, it's obviously Piracy.
Just 0.02 Euro
--
Ge Someone
I don't think copying music for personal use is piracy, as said before in this thread, it has been covered in a lot of countries in a way that you pay extra for blank media, lending CDs, DVDs, and even for listening to the radio.
When I was a kid I used to tape music from the radio (shows my age?) that's comparable with what people do now with P2P sharing. Record companies don't lose much on that (yet).
I do agree that when those (young) people, without much to spend, grow up and start earning money, they might not easily switch to buying records for $20+ each. Maybe that's what worries the companies.
Examples of Real Piracy:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Detai...?RelatedID=2510 or
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Detai...?RelatedID=2516
Targetting people who want buy
When you sell it, it's obviously Piracy.
Just 0.02 Euro
--
Ge Someone
Piracy. Theft or not? The question should rather be; is theft always bad?
Right now I don't have the time to look thru the pile of messes in this thread, will later...
/Mikael
Right now I don't have the time to look thru the pile of messes in this thread, will later...
/Mikael
QUOTE
Originally posted by layer3maniac
Good riddance to greedy @ssholes.
Good riddance to greedy @ssholes.
Who the corporations or the pirates? I see both of them as fitting this mold. They both need to change and piracy is not the answer to fixing the situation. Again people we are venturing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic. Either we need to reign it in or lock the topic as it will have reached the end of it's usefullness.
QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
Please keep in mind the distinction between Revolutionary and Freeloader. Copyright law is so out-of-date with regards to digital distribution technology that I can forgive anyone who breaks it. What I can't condone are people who ignore not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of it.
Please keep in mind the distinction between Revolutionary and Freeloader. Copyright law is so out-of-date with regards to digital distribution technology that I can forgive anyone who breaks it. What I can't condone are people who ignore not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of it.
Excelent! This is almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. Existing laws are outdated and inept when it comes to network digital piracy! But it is as you say. Most pirates take the words of the laws and twist them while discarding the spirit behind them! I started this thread to get a consensus of reasonable people. Because that is what laws are most often formed from. Current laws are not aplicable to moddern piracy. As such we are on a new and still virgin fronteer. Our actions or lack there of will help to form future opinion and law on this topic.
QUOTE
Originally posted by SometimesWarrior
(this post uses United States law as an example, but it might be applicable elsewhere.)
US Copyright law has ceased to \"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts\". In fact, the original concept of protecting intellectual property by controlling its physical distribution is meaningless. It was thrown out the window when the internet came to town and made copying free and limitless.
The law makes it clear that piracy, copyright infringment, \"test driving\", or whatever else you call it, is considered theft and illegal. I won't argue that.
My argument is that the laws are unconstitutional. Congress is not promoting the Arts by prohibiting their online distribution, Congress is stifiling them. Copyright law once made sense, when the only people making unlicensed copies of copyrighted material sold many copies at a profit, and each unlicensed sale clearly reduced the artist's royalties. But the internet has decoupled the physical medium from the intellectual property, and each unlicensed copy does not translate to a lost sale. If I make 1000 copies of an MP3 on my hard drive, have I cost the record label 1000 sales? Of course not, but that's what the law says.
Society could benefit most if it had free access to its vast collection of music, but that collection only exists because artists have been compensated for their work. It is clear to me that the current system of financing new art through the RIAA is inefficient. Many artists just want to make a living doing something they love. I may be in the wrong position to say this, but I'm willing to sacrifice the Eminems of the world who do it to get rich, if it means the real musicians of the world can get out from under the heel of the music industry.
MP3.com's pricing scheme is an example of how things could be; the artist names the price and owns the copyright, and they pay MP3.com 50% of sales in return for hosting and sales management. This doesn't have to be the only way things could be, but it would be a big improvement over how things work today. The ownership of the music must go back to the artist before things will get better, because today's gatekeepers of music copyright, the record labels, will not serve anybody's best interests but their own.
If the music industry today switched to a voluntary pay system, almost everyone involved in it would go bankrupt. Part of this is because the industry has become bloated and inefficient, and the fat needs to be trimmed. The other part is because the public is not ready to take financial responsibility for the music it enjoys so much. All the debate about piracy only concerns the record labels' dollars and the public's demand for music. If the focus was shifted to the personal relationship people have with the musicians they love, then perhaps a new, better system of distribution and compensation could be devised.
(this post uses United States law as an example, but it might be applicable elsewhere.)
US Copyright law has ceased to \"promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts\". In fact, the original concept of protecting intellectual property by controlling its physical distribution is meaningless. It was thrown out the window when the internet came to town and made copying free and limitless.
The law makes it clear that piracy, copyright infringment, \"test driving\", or whatever else you call it, is considered theft and illegal. I won't argue that.
My argument is that the laws are unconstitutional. Congress is not promoting the Arts by prohibiting their online distribution, Congress is stifiling them. Copyright law once made sense, when the only people making unlicensed copies of copyrighted material sold many copies at a profit, and each unlicensed sale clearly reduced the artist's royalties. But the internet has decoupled the physical medium from the intellectual property, and each unlicensed copy does not translate to a lost sale. If I make 1000 copies of an MP3 on my hard drive, have I cost the record label 1000 sales? Of course not, but that's what the law says.
Society could benefit most if it had free access to its vast collection of music, but that collection only exists because artists have been compensated for their work. It is clear to me that the current system of financing new art through the RIAA is inefficient. Many artists just want to make a living doing something they love. I may be in the wrong position to say this, but I'm willing to sacrifice the Eminems of the world who do it to get rich, if it means the real musicians of the world can get out from under the heel of the music industry.
MP3.com's pricing scheme is an example of how things could be; the artist names the price and owns the copyright, and they pay MP3.com 50% of sales in return for hosting and sales management. This doesn't have to be the only way things could be, but it would be a big improvement over how things work today. The ownership of the music must go back to the artist before things will get better, because today's gatekeepers of music copyright, the record labels, will not serve anybody's best interests but their own.
If the music industry today switched to a voluntary pay system, almost everyone involved in it would go bankrupt. Part of this is because the industry has become bloated and inefficient, and the fat needs to be trimmed. The other part is because the public is not ready to take financial responsibility for the music it enjoys so much. All the debate about piracy only concerns the record labels' dollars and the public's demand for music. If the focus was shifted to the personal relationship people have with the musicians they love, then perhaps a new, better system of distribution and compensation could be devised.
Good stuff! Well written. You are so close to my wave length here it is scarry! This is part of the realization I have been trying to bring to so many people for such a long time. Both sides are wrong and only making things worse. Only once we realize this can we begin to forge a path ahead to true change. Waging a war with piracy hurts everyone. Sure the corporations were wrong first for their pricing of materials and treatment of the artisits. But at some point some where someone has to be the bigger man. I for one want to be that bigger man. I want both sides to come together so that real change can be enacted. The future can be a scarry place. But it is only going to be a worse place if we fight it!
Piracy creates a false demand. A false maket if you will. We as consumers have better tools than piracy to effect change. We don't have to buy what the corporations are selling us. They have to sell us what we want to buy! You might be the CEO of RCA or SONY, but we the public are even above you. We are GOD to the CEOs and our influence can bring about change. The start of the change comes when truth and reality are brought and embraced by both sides. A person is inteligent. People are stupid. As such educating and empowering people as consumers is hard. But even if I have to do it a person at a time I will continue. I want to buy music at a reasonable price. I want the artists I like to get paid. I wan't the market to improve and contiue. The corporations and the pirates are both degrading the market and working towards it's end.
We need to put an end to the grey/fuzzy thinking. Clear, decisive, lucid thought is what we need.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Neo Neko
Excelent! This is almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. Existing laws are outdated and inept when it comes to network digital piracy! But it is as you say. Most pirates take the words of the laws and twist them while discarding the spirit behind them! I started this thread to get a consensus of reasonable people. Because that is what laws are most often formed from. Current laws are not aplicable to moddern piracy. As such we are on a new and still virgin fronteer. Our actions or lack there of will help to form future opinion and law on this topic.
Excelent! This is almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. Existing laws are outdated and inept when it comes to network digital piracy! But it is as you say. Most pirates take the words of the laws and twist them while discarding the spirit behind them! I started this thread to get a consensus of reasonable people. Because that is what laws are most often formed from. Current laws are not aplicable to moddern piracy. As such we are on a new and still virgin fronteer. Our actions or lack there of will help to form future opinion and law on this topic.
I'm not entire sure that I agree entirely with what you're saying here. I do believe that computers and other modern technologies have altered the legal landscape, but the old laws are not necessarily out of date. This is the same line that the dot commers said about "old-world" business, that the Internet would revolutionize business, and that the old business rules didn't apply. Guess what: The old rules did apply, and look at what happened.
The spirit of the old laws are in the right place, but they need tweaked to deal with these new wrinkles. Now crap like the DMCA and the CDPBBBT (uh, that other one
) aren't the way to fix it. With all good luck, in time things will change and a new balance will be struck -- but it's going to take time, and a lot of it (Think: Prohibition).
On the same token, I don't believe that the concept behind copyright and patents are unconstitutional. Their current implementations are horribly broken though. What's copyright up to now, 75 years + 75 extension, if applied for (too lazy to look up right now)? Pantenting algorithms? While not everyone may agree on the particulars, most would probably agree that things are broken. That doesn't necessarily mean we toss out the baby with the bathwater though. The idea of copyright -- to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- still makes damn good sense.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Neo Neko
Excelent! This is almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. Existing laws are outdated and inept when it comes to network digital piracy! But it is as you say. Most pirates take the words of the laws and twist them while discarding the spirit behind them! I started this thread to get a consensus of reasonable people. Because that is what laws are most often formed from. Current laws are not aplicable to moddern piracy. As such we are on a new and still virgin fronteer. Our actions or lack there of will help to form future opinion and law on this topic.
Excelent! This is almost exactly my thoughts on the subject. Existing laws are outdated and inept when it comes to network digital piracy! But it is as you say. Most pirates take the words of the laws and twist them while discarding the spirit behind them! I started this thread to get a consensus of reasonable people. Because that is what laws are most often formed from. Current laws are not aplicable to moddern piracy. As such we are on a new and still virgin fronteer. Our actions or lack there of will help to form future opinion and law on this topic.
Neo you should have just ask for opinions that were in line with yours, and you would have been happy. Instead you ask for everyones opinions and opinions are not always what you might conceder rational but more often emotional. Sorry
so if i walk into the computer store with a gun and steal 10 copies of windows ME, would that be called an armed piracy? (and what if i steal 10 copies of windows 2000?)
its a hard one
its a hard one
QUOTE
Originally posted by smok3
so if i walk into the computer store with a gun and steal 10 copies of windows ME, would that be called an armed piracy?
so if i walk into the computer store with a gun and steal 10 copies of windows ME, would that be called an armed piracy?
no, that would be called incredibly dumb
First of all, sorry for my english, it's not my first langage.
i've been reading this thread since the beginning, and there's a question i wanna ask...
I'm from Brazil, but i listen mainly j-pop songs (japanese music). But the fact is, importing CDs from here is VERY expensive. A normal brazilian CD is normally priced at R$20 (about 10USD), but a jpop CD is about R$90 (about 40USD). Before p2p, i only bought one or two albums per year, it was what i could afford, but once i got broadband, i've been only downloading the albums.
My question is, I'm convinced that these cds will NEVER be released here. The same goes for game or anime soundtracks, there isn't a fanbase big enough here. So, it's ilegal, but how much? Sometimes i copy these to friends, and eventually sell to people that i don't know. I think otherwise these people would never listen to these cds, but i'd like to hear some opinions about this matter...
regards
Edson MK
i've been reading this thread since the beginning, and there's a question i wanna ask...
I'm from Brazil, but i listen mainly j-pop songs (japanese music). But the fact is, importing CDs from here is VERY expensive. A normal brazilian CD is normally priced at R$20 (about 10USD), but a jpop CD is about R$90 (about 40USD). Before p2p, i only bought one or two albums per year, it was what i could afford, but once i got broadband, i've been only downloading the albums.
My question is, I'm convinced that these cds will NEVER be released here. The same goes for game or anime soundtracks, there isn't a fanbase big enough here. So, it's ilegal, but how much? Sometimes i copy these to friends, and eventually sell to people that i don't know. I think otherwise these people would never listen to these cds, but i'd like to hear some opinions about this matter...
regards
Edson MK
QUOTE
Originally posted by GarnetCrow
So, it's ilegal, but how much?
So, it's ilegal, but how much?
Is the songs copyright enforced there? (here, indeed)
I mean, if the Japanese Recorder isn't asking for copyright fees and isn't fighting piracy of these works in Brazil (I.E: don't care), can these copies be considered illegal?
I would believe this situation is similar to LAME: Distribution isn't legal (or is it?), but Fraunhofer doesn't care. So people distribute. And people use it without guilt.
Tricky....
QUOTE
Originally posted by smg
Yes and nobody who enjoys that artist should deny him or her what they deserve.
My question is should the beaucracy profit from you and I. The lawyers and lobbiest have not produced a single note that I care to have added on to the cost of my Cd's
that I purchase. When are you going to learn were their are lawyers, agents and more beaucracy involved their is corruption. The people who lose are we the consumers and the artist themself. We lose and they ride away into the sunset looking for what else or who else they can scam.
If we don't learn are History we are doomed to repeat it!!
This is the cause of my dissatisfaction with the way things are, too. If I wasn't funding this greedy mess every time I bought a CD, I would buy more, even if I had to spend more for each CD.
Yes and nobody who enjoys that artist should deny him or her what they deserve.
My question is should the beaucracy profit from you and I. The lawyers and lobbiest have not produced a single note that I care to have added on to the cost of my Cd's
that I purchase. When are you going to learn were their are lawyers, agents and more beaucracy involved their is corruption. The people who lose are we the consumers and the artist themself. We lose and they ride away into the sunset looking for what else or who else they can scam.
If we don't learn are History we are doomed to repeat it!!
QUOTE
Originally posted by Neo Neko
[b]Good stuff! Well written. You are so close to my wave length here it is scarry!
I've written a couple of research papers on the subject, so it's pretty easy for me to write up a summary. I know juuuust enough on the subject to be dangerously confident [b]Good stuff! Well written. You are so close to my wave length here it is scarry!
There's a book by Jessica Litman called Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet; you might like to read it, since it talks about copyright law and how it relates to digital distribution. I stole a lot of my ideas from that book (which, according to copyright law, is perfectly legal!)
QUOTE
When are you going to learn were their are lawyers, agents and more beaucracy involved their is corruption.
Really? I had no idea.:eek: Thanks for the newsflash.
QUOTE
My question is should the beaucracy profit from you and I.
Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't. How do you propose to eliminate it? I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of doing business, any kind of business. There will always be people who are willing to pay others to do the things that they can't or don't want to do. The record companies pay RIAA to sue Napster because it is easier and cheaper than each bringing their own legal action. A songwriter hires ASCAP to make sure that s/he is being paid their radio performance royalties because it would be impossible for an individual to monitor every radio station and make sure they're getting what the law says they are due. Those costs are ultimatley passed on to the consumer. Unless there is some huge shift in thinking about the way (all) business operates, it seems to me that this is unlikely to change.
QUOTE
A whole new paradigm is RIGHT on the horizon. One which leaves the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers, their fat bloated ceo's, their overpriced inferior media and the stores which distribute it, ALL out on the street. And, as I said before, GOOD RIDDANCE to ALL of 'em!
The probable reality is that most of the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers and their fat bloated ceo's will eventually adapt their methods to this new paradigm, and the greed, corruption and bureaucracy will continue, maybe in different forms, but they will continue. People who have money and power generally don't like to give it up and will, in the end, usually do whatever it takes to hold on to it. Those that can't or won't adapt may well end up on the street, but there are always plenty of others, who are just as greedy, waiting to take their place and willing to do whatever it takes to get their share of the money and power. Maybe I'm cynical, but greed is just part of human nature.
QUOTE
Originally posted by rocketsauce
Really? I had no idea.:eek: Thanks for the newsflash.
Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't. How do you propose to eliminate it? I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of doing business, any kind of business. There will always be people who are willing to pay others to do the things that they can't or don't want to do. The record companies pay RIAA to sue Napster because it is easier and cheaper than each bringing their own legal action. A songwriter hires ASCAP to make sure that s/he is being paid their radio performance royalties because it would be impossible for an individual to monitor every radio station and make sure they're getting what the law says they are due. Those costs are ultimatley passed on to the consumer. Unless there is some huge shift in thinking about the way (all) business operates, it seems to me that this is unlikely to change.
The probable reality is that most of the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers and their fat bloated ceo's will eventually adapt their methods to this new paradigm, and the greed, corruption and bureaucracy will continue, maybe in different forms, but they will continue. People who have money and power generally don't like to give it up and will, in the end, usually do whatever it takes to hold on to it. Those that can't or won't adapt may well end up on the street, but there are always plenty of others, who are just as greedy, waiting to take their place and willing to do whatever it takes to get their share of the money and power. Maybe I'm cynical, but greed is just part of human nature.
Really? I had no idea.:eek: Thanks for the newsflash.
Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't. How do you propose to eliminate it? I'm not an economics expert, but it seems to me that bureaucracy is an inevitable outgrowth of doing business, any kind of business. There will always be people who are willing to pay others to do the things that they can't or don't want to do. The record companies pay RIAA to sue Napster because it is easier and cheaper than each bringing their own legal action. A songwriter hires ASCAP to make sure that s/he is being paid their radio performance royalties because it would be impossible for an individual to monitor every radio station and make sure they're getting what the law says they are due. Those costs are ultimatley passed on to the consumer. Unless there is some huge shift in thinking about the way (all) business operates, it seems to me that this is unlikely to change.
The probable reality is that most of the greedy record labels, their crooked lawyers and their fat bloated ceo's will eventually adapt their methods to this new paradigm, and the greed, corruption and bureaucracy will continue, maybe in different forms, but they will continue. People who have money and power generally don't like to give it up and will, in the end, usually do whatever it takes to hold on to it. Those that can't or won't adapt may well end up on the street, but there are always plenty of others, who are just as greedy, waiting to take their place and willing to do whatever it takes to get their share of the money and power. Maybe I'm cynical, but greed is just part of human nature.
Well then we should just lay down like a bunch of dogs and take an as* beating.
Maybe this is my 60's upbring comming out, but i'm just not into excepting things that aren't right. I am a staunch supporter of Capitalism, which would not work without greed. But it only works with supply and demand. If the demand is low and supply high, prices should drop. So to increase demand they must come up with a superior product or service. Lawyers increase demand by using scare tactics and writing laws with unreasanable reasons.
I know I am a minority in the ways that i think. Sorry but I was born to stand fast in what I believe.
I just want to say that a new CD cost ~$10US around here. There's no way I want to pay that amount for a CD, which also happens to be one of the format I hate the most. Even more annoying is that many CDs are copyprotected today = lesser playability. :mad:
I will, however, buy a CD if it's from a small label and I really like the music.
I will, however, buy a CD if it's from a small label and I really like the music.
Just read the topic, its so stupid...
"John Kennedy, President and Chief Operating Officer of Universal Music International, warned: "If the prevailing music for free mentality is left unchecked, record companies will no longer be able to re-invest up to 15 percent of their revenues in discovering and nurturing the Platinum artists of the future." "
Boo Hoo..No more Britney Spears, Insync....The list goes on and on
Boo Hoo..No more Britney Spears, Insync....The list goes on and on
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.