Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: Jose on May 14, 2007, 05:00:27 PM
-
Link (http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/43610153)
I don't deslike the USA but some stuff there is just completely insane. :-o
-
While I dont agree with tarrgetting students who have less money than most, they really have no excuse and have been caught out. They should use bittorrents, much harder to be traced though still not impossible.
I really cant believe they dont have better people to target, though I assume its much easier to track students through the university IP's
-
"Obviously I knew it was illegal, but no one got in trouble for it," Barg said.
She even admits to it. What don't people understand about... STOP STEALING!!! :crazy:
The guy that compares it to speeding cracks me up too.... what don't you understand about "LIMIT" in SPEED LIMIT!
Sheeeeeeeeeesh! Here's you sign....
(http://firstrung.co.uk/dbimgs/Cliff_Edge_warning.jpg)
-
As I understand it, a long time ago in Canada, a law was created that added a surtax to any recordable media that is sold. This includes cassette tapes, VHS, CD's and DVD's to name a few. The purpose of this surtax was to offset losses of artists due to piracy. This law was pushed through by the music industry back when cassette tapes first came out.
A few years ago, a case went to the supreme court over music piracy. The supreme court ruled that because ALL Canadians are forced to pay this surtax to pay for music they may or may not have pirated, they have the right to download music for their own use. Canadians cannot "share out" music but they can download it for their own use. From what I understand, this only applies to music. The courts ruled that the music industry couldn't have it both ways. If you are going to charge people to cover the costs of piracy then you are technically saying that piracy is expected and "ok". So now the music industry is trying to get rid of this tax so that they can prevent music piracy.
Funny how the law came full circle like that and ended up causing them more of a headache in the end.
-
"I really cant believe they dont have better people to target,..."
Exactly, I'm not saying I agree with piracy but according to the law (and common sense ?!)itself the fine should be proportional to the actions made. How much is a song of those on the various sites selling music on the net, 2$ ? She was not even sharing it. Some of the guys on the RIAA simply deserve to be shot.
-
Thats nothing new. That organization has been harassing teenagers and small business owners for 50 years. They're actually harmless and will go away if you simply ignore them. They'll do stuff like go into a small coffee shop where the radio is playing in the background. Say, for example, there was tunes by Tom Petty, Chris Issaac, and Pink Floyd playing on the radio... What'll happen is some awkward lawyer-ish looking dude whose purpose is clearly not to buy coffee will present the owner of the cafe with an "invoice" for "royalties" owed to the "owners" of copyrighted music. The justification is that the music in question was "used" by the cafe to "make a profit". The "invoice" will be for some totally absurd sum of money and, of course, the money is sent to these ACAP fl_lcks, not to Tom Petty, Chris Isaac or Roger Waters. These people are frauds. They only go after people who are unlikely or unable to fight back. How much of the money they do collect do you think gets filtered back to "the artists" they claim to represent? Hint: 4 letter word, it starts with "z" and ends with "o".
-
@stopthegop
It's actually legal to play the radio in a 'for-profit" commercial business in the states now.
-
gizmo350 wrote:
@stopthegop
It's actually legal to play the radio in a 'for-profit" commercial business in the states now.
is it? when did this happen?
as far as i knew supermarkets run their own stations that play over the speakers to minimize the royalties they have to pay. not to mention advertise their sales.
-
Trent Reznor (http://nin.com/tr/) speaks out about music piracy
-
Well they target students because they are far easier to get at that most.
But lets face it theft is theft no matter how you look at it.
Look at it this way, would you take a chance and think you wont get caught, this just proves you CAN be.
Mike.
-
@jkirk
You know there are a zillion "rules" by ASCAP and others regarding playing "music" in a private business. I know you can't play a CD, record, cassette or the like from a recorded medium without paying individual rights fees. But, some years back, maybe 10, the "radio" vs MUZAC thing came up here in the states. Private business won the right to play the "radio". There may be a fee associated with doing so, but not all the hassel that goes with individual "rights" useage per artist. I tried to find on Google but can't seem to come up with the right search criteria.
-
While I dont agree with tarrgetting students who have less money than most, they really have no excuse and have been caught out. They should use bittorrents, much harder to be traced though still not impossible.
Hard to track?? All ips are available to anyone! You can easily see the ips in a bittorrent program like azureus. Dont see how it can get easier than that.
-
the fine should be proportional to the actions made. How much is a song of those on the various sites selling music on the net, 2$
well the fine probably includes the $2 per song (It doesnt say how many songs she downloaded, only the total songs from that building) plus the legal costs, I doubt the RIAA use a cheap legal team you know. ;-)
Plus all the research, writing letters to the ISP's etc.
It all adds up very fast.
The only thing I would say is there is an easy getout, if she did download spice girl songs (Wtf? ;-) ) then go and buy some second hand cd's from a car boot sale at 1$ a piece and say you had them all the time. it fixes everything.
Even people who hated the music business could do that as second hand goods dont get the music business any income :-)
As for going after school kids, I think if someone breaks the law, regardless of age, they should pay the price.
Kids of 5 and 6 know not to steal else they will get in to trouble, you cant say they dont know right from wrong.
-
I am sadly one of these nasty criminals, even though i dont really download music. I myself download tv series, but this is not because i want to break the law, but it is because i am forced by the tv industry to get my tv series the illegal way.
I myself am a fan of science fiction, but sadly the only science fiction show on norwegian tv right now, is the first or second season of battlestar galactica. Firefly did never air, star trek enterprise did never air. star trek DS9 did never air, stargate sg1 or atlantis did never air and the list goes on.. There is also no legal movie/tv on demand service for us norwegians, due to the fact that the tv industry refuse to distribute these series to anyone outside of USA. Itunes video store is not available, bittorrent.com on demand service is not available, xbox 360 video marketplace has only a handfull of old movie trailers and not a single full tv show.
Downloading shows like buffy, firefly + more actually made me buy the dvd sets and even got me to buy the ticket at the theatre for serentiy the sequel of firefly show. If it was not for me downloading, then i would never have discovered these excellent shows and thus they would have actually lost money.
I would happily pay a few bucks to download a tv episode or pay a monthly subscription fee.
But i dont go buy a whole dvd set without having watched at least a few eps to judge whether or not the serie is for me. Not that the dvd sets are available before years after it ran on US television anyways..
-
Kids of 5 and 6 know not to steal else they will get in to trouble, you cant say they dont know right from wrong.
They know not to steal: this is true. But what they might not know is what actions constitute stealing. For example, kids are encouraged from a very young age to "use" or to cite the writings of other authors to strengthen their own argument, but with one catch: they must credit the original author; failure to do so constitutes plaigerism or "stealing". Kids aren't taught that also have to pay royalties to the original author's media rep and litigation team. I see very little difference in a teenager's (properly credited) "use" of copyrighted print material such as books or magazine articles, and the personal "use" of ubiquitous music files. The mere idea that ASCAP et al can regulate and control every single digital copy of any particular file is absurd beyond belief. Add to that the fact that they can selectively punish people for merely opening a copy of such a file? How is posessing a sound file any different than posessing a copy of some pdf file that happens to be copyrighted. They're both 1s and 0s, thats it. I see no problem with someone listening to "Voodoo Child", as long as they don't claim to have written it themselves. :)
-
The whole pirate hunting that those RIAA or MPAA inquisitor is a lot of bull***t. There is very few real pirates that re-sell the medias they download or copy. The average citizens of so-called developped countries (like me or most of you) already pay for internet service, telephone line, Cable TV and many other means of communication. When I buy a CD or a DVD I already pay for those who will copy it, it is included in the price!
We are being sucked out of our money constantly and to add to this they want to make us feel guilty of downloading a few songs and movies??? No way!
People would never buy 90% of the stuff they get from the net anyways. They would not make anymore money with us even if the net was piracy-proof. Seems they don't get it tho.
What's wrong with the law in the USA? Looks like nobody can make a move without being sued by the first {bleep} that shows up there? The "Land of the free" needs a reviewal of policies.
My 2 cents...
-
But lets face it theft is theft no matter how you look at it.
Theft in which way? They way prices are practiced?
-
its easy to say they are "targetting" students but most of the college students that i know, and i know many, out download anyone else i know by a factor of 3 or more. except my older brother who has thousands of songs.
if i download one song my ip will be there once, if i download hundreds... you get the point. if her fine was 3000 and she was being forced to pay 7.60 i think for each that comes out to 400 songs or so?
people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.
-
pixie wrote:
Theft in which way? They way prices are practiced?
most record companies make pennies per cd the only reason they have large of money is because they sell millions of cds. if you have millions of people downloading music they lose the millions of pennies.
it is the same as commercial software they are trying to make money and it really shouldnt be wrong to protect themselves.
-
most record companies make pennies per cd the only reason they have large of money is because they sell millions of cds. if you have millions of people downloading music they lose the millions of pennies.
You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.
-
people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.
No they don't. If they want "full control" then they ought not release such work into the public domain. There is a such thing in law called "Fair Use". Its what allows me to read (ie "use") a copyrighted newspaper article and when I'm finished, hand it to my wife to read. Even though we only paid once, both of us are legally allowed to read it, right?
If an artist want absolute "individual" rights to his work, then he needs to keep it to himself. Once he releases it into the public domain, especially for commercial purposes, then he (rightly and naturally, imho) loses some of that absolute control. Copyright is designed to allow the artist to retain some control, but not all. That would be like itemizing my tax check, telling the Federal Gov't precisely what I wanted my personal tax dollars spent on.
-
tomas wrote:
You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.
marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits
-
stopthegop wrote:
people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.
No they don't. If they want "full control" then they ought not release such work into the public domain. There is a such thing in law called "Fair Use". Its what allows me to read (ie "use") a copyrighted newspaper article and when I'm finished, hand it to my wife to read. Even though we only paid once, both of us are legally allowed to read it, right?
If an artist want absolute "individual" rights to his work, then he needs to keep it to himself. Once he releases it into the public domain, especially for commercial purposes, then he (rightly and naturally, imho) loses some of that absolute control. Copyright is designed to allow the artist to retain some control, but not all. That would be like itemizing my tax check, telling the Federal Gov't precisely what I wanted my personal tax dollars spent on.
noone cares if you make a million copies of a cd for your own personal use that you bought yourself. but thats not what we are talking about here is it. this girl did not own any of the music she downloaded
it is not in the public domain
your logic doesnt follow. what if the record company sold one copy of a cd-one and millions of people downloaded it off the owners site. is that right? yes i can loan my cd to a freind and obviously they can listen to it with me but again that isnt what we are talking about.
-
@ RRunner
So now the music industry is trying to get rid of this tax so that they can prevent music piracy
Same dilemma here in Switzerland. The SUISA (= swiss RIAA) demanded a tax on every recordable media to cover their "damage" by copying music etc. They got the tax but the parliament ruled that "copying amongst friends and neigbours" may not be punished.
It would be even legal to share via E-Mule (P2P) etc. if one could prove "they are all friends. :-D "
Markus
-
If you are going to download music at least do it from a free public wireless network! Duh.
-
when it comes to piracy i dont really care. what people do on their own time is their business. this applies to my stance on Amiga software, PC software, PS2 games etc.
-
KThunder wrote:
marketing, production, and distrabution cost nothing then? not the mention trying to protect your product from people who think its ok to cut them out of any profits
Yes they do cost, but the majority of the profits goes directly to the label, the artists are usually lucky if they get half what the label gets.
Unless you're running your own label or you're a big star (like U2, Elton John big, not Spice Girls big) then you're not going to be making too much money.
Artists make more money by touring than releasing albums/singles.
And instead of paying money on this copy protection stuff they should just do an internal investigation and find the people who leak the stuff online. They've got more chance at being successful that way.
@Roj, you beat me to the Reznor link :-P
from the article:
Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room.
The thing is, they've to discount this sh*tpop to sell the CDs when they're new yet they still charge the premium for the copyright theft when they're lucky to actually get a legal sale of the song now?
-
people miss the point though here if do not hold the copyright you have no right to copy even if for no profit. whoever hold the copyright holds all power to how the song is used.
That is true for USA, but many European countries have a law called fair usage, which covers backup copies for personal usage and even copies for your close friends and families and all of this is entirely legal even though the music industry want to brainwash your otherwise. It is also legal to circumvent drm to lets say play back your legally bought music on lets say your mp3 player or play back your dvd on for example linux or amiga.
It is by the way NOT legal here to put drm on audio cds without placing a warning on the cover and your entitled full refund if you bought a DRM enabled album without this warning.
-
It amazes me that people still have this attitude... they know they're doing something illegal, and rather than not do it, they just wail and moan about how unfair it is when they get caught!
Theft is theft, I don't care whether you're walking into a shop and stealing a CD or downloading it from someone else's hard disk, fact is you're stealing the intellectual property of the person who recorded that. Hence no sympathy from me.
Oh, and as for why they picked Uni people? I would imagine two reasons:
1) IP addresses are all static and easily traceable to email address and real addresses.
2) If you're going to make an example of someone, students are best because there are so many like-minded people around them so word of mouth will travel fast.
I know I'm in the minority but I think people should PAY the people who are trying to make a living from recording music, I don't care at all if the cost of a CD is too expensive for a "poor" person to buy, if you can't afford it you can't have it, just like anything else in life.
And if anyone wants to comment about how the publishers get all the money anyway, ask yourself who'd publish them if they didn't? Without the publishers getting their cash the band would make no money at all, as they'd HAVE no publisher.
Sorry about the rant, I just loathe the hypocrisy that is the theft of music.... usually fine upstanding people somehow think it's ok to steal something just because there's nothing tangible being transferred.
Rant over. :)
-
So listening to the radio makes one a thief?
-
Nope, 'cos the radio paid for it.
But recording it off the radio and using that instead of buying the CD definitely is, as that's not what was paid for.
-
@spirantho
But recording it off the radio and using that instead of buying the CD definitely is, as that's not what was paid for.
Recording off radio and listening the record is perfectly ok (here at least).
You pay the blank media levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_levy) for that.
Here's the explanation (http://www.hyvitysmaksu.fi/main/index.php?module=front&item=&lang=en) on the finnish private copying levy website:
What is fair compensation for private copying?
Anyone is allowed to copy music, movies, and television and radio broadcasts for their own private use. This is based on the Finnish Copyright Act, which allows published works to be copied without the author's permission. This type of copying is called "private copying."
In 1984, the Finnish Copyright Act was amended so that a "blank tape levy" was introduced to compensate private copying. Due to the European Union Copyright Directive the blank tape levy is now called "fair compensation for private copying." The purpose of fair compensation for private copying is to guarantee that when an EU Member State allows private copying, the creators and other right-owners will receive fair compensation.
Obviously your local legislation may be different, so beware.
-
Not in my country you don't, I'm glad to say. :)
Plus I think that whole idea is contrary to just about every constitution in the world, as it implies "guilty until proven innocent".
-
Well, I'm mail-ordering my blank DVD+R's from Germany, so I don't need to pay the blank media levy. I don't record any ©ed audio or video on these discs though. Honest. :-)
-
Just out interest, given current prices and that Wiki article, the implication is that if the UK were to employ the same service as Finland, prices of CD-Rs in the UK would more than triple!
As you can see this would be a teensy bit annoying to law-abiding types like myself who have a large need of CD-Rs but don't use them illegally....
-
@spirantho
No kidding. Even taking account the mail ordering, the medias from Germany are something like <25% of the price in Finland.
-
In the USA, news broke today that Bush White House is lobbying congress to make 'attempted copyright violations' a felony, punishable by many years in prison. In kind of a play on Roy Roger's sentiment that he 'never met a person he didn't like'...Bush never met a person he wouldn't throw in jail. What Bush forgets, is its the people who decide how to run society. It may be currently illegal to 'pirate' music...but this can be solved, by simply passing a law, making it legal to copy music. Protection of an artists income can be done in many ways. It doesn't have to be a game of throwing teenagers in jail, making them felons, and never allowing them to vote or even work a normal job again in their life....that type of answer, isn't the only answer to problems.
-
Theft is theft, I don't care whether you're walking into a shop and stealing a CD or downloading it from someone else's hard disk, fact is you're stealing the intellectual property of the person who recorded that. Hence no sympathy from me.
This is suggesting an equation that I've never believed to be correct. Theft, by definition, is "the act of stealing, specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it".
The definition specifies the removal of said property. It also indicates the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, and says nothing of the derivitives which may or may not occur. It simply states that theft deprives the rightful owner of use of the actual property taken.
In other words, theft of intellectual property must include the removal of said property from the original owner. The establishment must be broken into and their computers and storage media must be physically removed from the location before it may be called an act of thievery. Otherwise, the correct term is Copyright infringement.
The word theft many times is used to induce Copyright infringers into believing that their acts are much more harmful than they actually are. I think few would argue that obtaining a work without permission is far less harmful to the owner than completely removing the work from their possession.
Now, having said that, I'll also say that Copyright infringement, while less harmful, is still a crime. The problem I personally have with it is in the way billion dollar corporations have effectively removed Copyright expiration. I won't go into the ramifications again. I hope most of you can figure those out for yourselves. I'm afraid that it's only going to get worse before it gets better.
-
gizmo350 wrote:
@jkirk
You know there are a zillion "rules" by ASCAP and others regarding playing "music" in a private business. I know you can't play a CD, record, cassette or the like from a recorded medium without paying individual rights fees. But, some years back, maybe 10, the "radio" vs MUZAC thing came up here in the states. Private business won the right to play the "radio". There may be a fee associated with doing so, but not all the hassel that goes with individual "rights" useage per artist. I tried to find on Google but can't seem to come up with the right search criteria.
well if by radio you mean you set up a standard radio for the entertainment of the employees. i would agree with you on that. but if you install speakers so that anyone that walks in can listen to your "radio" then i disagree since this is a public broadcast of media not licensed to be broadcasted(in your store).
-
And if anyone wants to comment about how the publishers get all the money anyway, ask yourself who'd publish them if they didn't? Without the publishers getting their cash the band would make no money at all, as they'd HAVE no publisher.
I bet you also think it is good how RIAA treats indepedants artists? Like how they want internet radio stations to pay them royalities even if they play their own made music or music from indepedants artists who actually wanted their music to be streamed for free.
And like i said, it is not always easy to get the music you want from the average record shop and music sold on itunes and similar is bogged down with DRM that goes completely against the fair usage bill. Our government is actually trying to ban DRM.
In the napster days i downloaded music and actually got to know some artists that i would never have known about otherwise, since that band was simply not marketted in my country. I ended up buying their albums, because i liked it and wanted to support them.
RIAA does not do anything good for music at all! They only help the big mainstream artists and themself while they hurt the smaller artists who are not mainstream and thus less innovation. Radio stations also these days only play mainstream music thanks to these idiots.
-
I know I'm in the minority but I think people should PAY the people who are trying to make a living from recording music, I don't care at all if the cost of a CD is too expensive for a "poor" person to buy, if you can't afford it you can't have it, just like anything else in life.
The thing is you can, therefore the logic is flawed... and by theft you ought to take something out of someone, exactly what are you taking and from whom? If you don't get money trough exploration, you find another way to do it, not blame others for not going into the mood...
Addendum: Roj has explained it very well
-
Delta wrote:
People would never buy 90% of the stuff they get from the net anyways. They would not make anymore money with us even if the net was piracy-proof. Seems they don't get it tho.
a great deal of people download stuff, to see whether they want to buy it. i for one download music i might feel i like, and then if i like it i'll buy the cd just to have better quality.
-
It ticks me off that kids are getting busted for downloading music tracks when I've got a bunch of people in my town center every weekend selling pirate DVDs in public and they never get arrested.
These guys must sell at least £10,000 worth of DVDs each on Saturdays and Sundays - I see people buying 5-10 movies at a time that they should be paying £20 each for but instead they're paying £10 for the lot.
They lay out a mat with inlays from maybe 30 current cinema/DVD releases and just sell all day - unbelieveable. :-(
-
It has been brought to my attention that some of the people who received these letters from the RIAA (probably not students) used old vinyl records as proof they had paid for the songs they downloaded.
Since the turntable format is now rather obsolete, they simply wanted a new media to carry the soundtrack they had paid for and the RIAA had to drop it.
Of couse since the vinyl records vanished from storeshelves, a lot of new songs have appeared and you may not find legal protection by going to the flee market and buying these old discs.
Also, charging more than 7$ per song is an absolute rip-off. iTunes sells songs online for much less than that. Getting songs from there is perfectly legal and I think the main reason why people download music or movies is because large distribution companies are overcharging.
-
Sorry to sound libertarian here but, in a way, there are pure market forces at work here. Big media companies have managed to postpone their obsolecense through legislation, but that lease on life is going to expire soon. They are so oblivious to the desires of their customers and have abused their power for so long now, the forces of natural selection are going to do them in right before our eyes. And with them, I hope, goes DRM, too.
-
It ticks me off that kids are getting busted for downloading music tracks when I've got a bunch of people in my town center every weekend selling pirate DVDs in public and they never get arrested.
This really pisses me off as well. They do nothing about those who actually profit on selling piracy, but instead go after the average joe who does not earn profit and mainly does it from his/her love for music.
The fact is that everyone downloads music, including people in law enforcment, teachers, artists themself and even the average politician.
Basically the majority of the population is a criminal and should all serve years in jail according to these minority. The proposed jail time in usa, is actually higher punishment than what you get for lets say raping someone. It just does not make sense!
-
I think, as with everything, there are way to many generalizations and these, as in politics, end up being completely unfair in some or many cases. For example, some people pirate everything with the excuse that the music industry does nothing for music and explores artists, true, but by pirating everything they're also harming a whlole lot of bands and artists that went for it in a really honest hard working way without help of the industry (like boy bands etc.).
-
music companies do have their value too btw
they have thousands of people working full time listening to music and sifting through. if it werent for them we would have to wade through every tom dick and harrys pitiful song sung out of tune to find anything worthwhile.
do you really want to be a judge on american idol every time you want some new music.
they also provide high quality recording facilities for those top 1% of artists so that when we do get some music from an artist it sounds good.
can this all be done online legally. yes it can. there are a number of reasons the industry didnt want it. first is conrol. if an artist wants to make a living at music (full time and highly skilled) he isnt going to get too far if everyone gives away their music.
the industry is a cenralized (more or less) body with rules and laws for making sure the artists get heard and make money (to expect them to do that for free is absurd)
secong the industry had an enormous manufacturing and dirstobution system in place that they probably didnt want toi just scrap: how many people are employed making cds cases etc.
-
KThunder wrote:
music companies do have their value too btw
they have thousands of people working full time listening to music and sifting through. if it werent for them we would have to wade through every tom dick and harrys pitiful song sung out of tune to find anything worthwhile.
do you really want to be a judge on american idol every time you want some new music.
they also provide high quality recording facilities for those top 1% of artists so that when we do get some music from an artist it sounds good.
can this all be done online legally. yes it can. there are a number of reasons the industry didnt want it. first is conrol. if an artist wants to make a living at music (full time and highly skilled) he isnt going to get too far if everyone gives away their music.
the industry is a cenralized (more or less) body with rules and laws for making sure the artists get heard and make money (to expect them to do that for free is absurd)
secong the industry had an enormous manufacturing and dirstobution system in place that they probably didnt want toi just scrap: how many people are employed making cds cases etc.
Good lord! What record Co. do you work for? I am a professional musician, and I couldn't disagree with you more! I have dealt with recording co., and I think they should be lined up against the wall! This isn't a listeners perspective, rather a picker who has been ripped off by the guys with all the "rules".
-
This excerpt from another message board sums up beautifully what I'd tried to say previously:
Has anyone ever wondered why patents expire in what, seven years? Yet copyrights seem to go on forever. Can you imagine what would happen if inventors received the same special treatment that rappers get? The inventor would be able to lock up his breakthrough for decades. Imagine what a hard drive would cost if only one company could make them. Big business tycoons argue that longer periods of exclusive manufacturing stifle the growth of the economy, competition, creativity and they're right. Now listen to the idiots at RIAA and MPAA. They say they need longer periods of protection so that it will stimulate creativity and competition. Bull hockey. What it protects is the MPAA and the RIAA's ability to live off the artists.
-
That quote is a brilliant similie.
Very well put whoever it was.
-
I always like these debates, being a musician and all. Here's my view on it...
There is no actual theft. If the artist had an orange, and I took that orange away to eat it, I would be stealing. If I was to clone this orange so I'd have one for me too, there is no theft. Now.... If the artist was selling that orange and I took it away, I would be stealing. If I cloned it for free then the artist would miss a sale, but would I be stealing? He still has his orange for all I know, and the possibility of a sale remains the same.
This problem is inherant to the art. Music, like film, is insubstantial. It does not really exist in any concrete form. For practical use, we imprint this insubstantial stuff to a physical medium. And because this world is twisted and human beings suck, we give the art piece's the value of it's physical entity, we associate the two. Two things that, really, have nothing to do with each other. You don't see this with let's say paintings. There's a godzillion places that sell reproductions of this or that famous painting and it's perfectly legal because....it's a copy. Of course if you were to use it in a museum and charge people telling them it's the real one, you would be an asshole and a liar, but it has nothing to do with the current problem :)
With music and video, even the first copy is...well...a copy. There is absolutely no artistic value added to the material because it is put on this kind of tape or cd or what have you. We just naturally choose some because of their cost, easy of use, portability and other criterias like that, but that still doesn't make the medium part of the piece. So imposing surtaxes on media is pretty lame if you ask me, it just limits the ease of distribution necessary to the artists.
The other part of the problem is that people don't read anagrams properly. RIAA.... Recording Industry Association of America. The word artist is not in there so complaining that the artist makes only 3 cents per copy sold is not exactly a valid argument. The artist chooses to make a deal, he knows all the details. If it's a major label, there'll even be plenty of lawyers around to explain every bit of the contract. It's the *recording industry* we're talking about. Artists have more and more ways to release their music without the use of a label. There has been independent recording artists ever since mixing boards were small enough to take home, and that's like the 60s.
The industry has always fought with a passion against change in their business. Tapes, vinyls, cds, mp3s....you name it, they hated it at first and then embraced years too late, effectively slowing down the course of audio evolution. Computers, are another thing they refused to acknowledge until mp3s bit them in the ass. And they still haven't caught up with the *vast* possibility of business for music online. But the artists have. Many many sites opened offering artists to sell their music directly off the web. Many artists opened sites of their own, some of them very successful.
The often cited argument that sales are lost is only semi valid as these are nothing but projected sales. There's a lot of stuff I have downloaded I would *never* have bought. Some of these resulted in me becoming a fan, maybe going to see the band live when they drop in Montreal, effectively giving them a lot more money than whatever the industry feels it has lost. Other downloads have resulted in shift-deleting this out of existence on my computer and never hear that crap again.
If you want to run with a major, be overproduced in a 80 billion dollar studio and appear on star shows on the american network and have sex with coked up skinny dumb 19 years old blonde supermodels, well... you gotta pay the price. There is absolutely no need for an artist to go with a major. But if you want the multimillionaire lifestyle and big concerts in stadiums there's huge amounts of money that you don't have that need to be invested in making your pathetic attempt at stardom a little more probable.
DRM...It's pure raw untreated all-natural BS. You won't be able to copy media to anything not approved by whatever DRM module you're stuck with depending on the OS you have. It is very... *very* dangerous to have an OS that can lock out access to a media file. Production studios would not be able to make the OS switch without significant patching or straight out removal of the DRM module. "Yeah.. Boss? How would ya feel about losing 20 millions right now? Cause this {bleep}ing computer didn't recognize the signature properly for the original audio files for the next [insert big shot here] album." Guy gets fired. Computer gets thrown out window. Boss becomes a transvestite clown. And it starts raining blood.
-
Well, I guess I have to admit I was wrong on the current laws regarding playing copyrighted (and non-copyrighted) music in public (what constitutes public?). Living has become the ultimate liability! :cry:
A Seattle restaurant is among more than two dozen venues swept up in a music-licensing crackdown for allegedly failing to pay royalties to play copyrighted music in public.
Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege.
On Monday, ASCAP said it had filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states. Among them is a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the Ibiza Dinner Club downtown.
The group sued to spread the word that performing such music without permission is a federal offense, said Vincent Candilora, ASCAP senior vice president for licensing.
On Tuesday, Ibiza owner Abi Eshagi said he had not received information from ASCAP regarding a lawsuit and insisted his restaurant did not violate any rules.
ASCAP says that besides broadcasting songs over the radio, television and Internet, the definition of performing copyrighted music includes playing it "any place where people gather," with the exception of small private groups.
For restaurants, that includes playing songs as background music, by a DJ and even music-on-hold over phone lines, according to ASCAP's Web site.
"As long as it's [played] outside a direct circle of friends and family, it is considered a public performance," Candilora said. "A musical composition is somebody's property."
ASCAP alleged that a DJ at Ibiza played three copyrighted pop songs without paying a licensing fee, which Candilora calculated would have cost Ibiza $979 a year, considering the size of the venue and the type of performance.
"I think it's absurd," said Eshagi. "Not only DJs have bought that music, I also subscribe to an online music-use service, and I'm also paying the cable company for the same thing. I don't know how many times we have to pay for a song."
ASCAP, whose 300,000 members include such artists as Coldplay, Dr. Dre, Avril Lavigne and Elvis Costello, has investigators working in cities across the country to identify new restaurants, bars, theme parks or other establishments where music is used, Candilora said.
They visit venues to find out what songs are being played, then check to see whether the owner paid for a license.
While many business owners may not be aware of it, such legal action is becoming common, said Eric Steuer, creative director of Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that has been critical of current copyright laws and supports alternative licensing plans.
The hardball legal tactics resemble when the recording industry sues students, Steuer said.
"What I don't think many venue owners — nor probably the majority of DJs — understand is that almost all of the music that they play requires a performance license," Steuer said. "I think that there's a misunderstanding that because music is 'indie' or not widely known, that it's OK to play."
Many DJs get music free from record labels so they can play and promote it, Steuer added. "I'm sure that they'd never imagine that they're committing a federal offense by playing this stuff without paying for the right to play it."
ASCAP is seeking up to $30,000 in damages per infringement from Ibiza. Candilora said the group has tried for two years to get the restaurant to comply with its requests.
Eshagi said he plans to fight. He said he was contacted by an ASCAP representative by phone and had asked the group to send a list of songs they claimed were infringed.
Eshagi said he told ASCAP he pays for two music-subscription services.
"I don't really know what is the basis for [a lawsuit]," he said.
Kristi Heim: 206-464-2718 or kheim@seattletimes.com
Linky (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003815486_royalty01.html)
-
You got it completely wrong! It is the artists that make pennies per cd while the record company take most of the share.
I know I'm in the minority but I think people should PAY the people who are trying to [/i]
Both these are great reasons to start searching the net for Indie radio and artists. A far greater portion goes to the artist instead of lawyers.
So listening to the radio makes one a thief?[/i]
In the U.S. radio stations pay licensing fees for the songs they play over the airwaves. It's kept legal that way.
Plaz
-
If I cloned it for free then the artist would miss a sale, but would I be stealing?
Yes.
I studied for weeks, bought books to read tons of text, memorized, drilled, payed a tutor, and practiced hard for my final exams and passed with a good grade.
You walked into class, sat down next to me and copied all my answers in a few minutes and walked out with the same grade. Intangible or not, oranges or not, you stole "fruit" from my hard work.
As a fellow musician, you'll find it easy to relate the exam examples directly to what you've had to go through becoming a competent musician.
There's a godzillion places that sell reproductions of this or that famous painting and it's perfectly legal because....it's a copy.
Copyright ownership never existed or long expired on really old stuff like classical music and paintings. That's not necessarily a fair comparision in the modern world. When your song is 200 years old, it will be free too.
IMHO, the current big music industry blows. Tons of great music never gets heard. The indie internet radio is starting to change that, but how long till the big guys try to crush it?
Plaz
-
Please tell me I mis-read somewhere...
the person was fined $ 7.87 per song??? I can buy a whole CD from a store
for about $2.00 more.
Second, I wish I could find one of my old Stereophile magazines,
but there was an article stating that the FTC (Federal Trade Commision)
had determined that consumers were being over-charged for CD's,
since the day the format came out. (1988 or so?)
No one has refunded my money yet .
IMHO, the RIAA 'dropped the ball' regarding .MP3's and the internet,
and is now trying make up for thier short-sightedness by sueing
anyone who's handy (or who don't have money to get a lawyer)
A couple of years ago, here in Milwaukee, a 76-year old womem
was arrested for music piracy... She was let free, when officers
realized that she didn't own a computer, or any device that could
download or play music files.....
P.S. to whoever mentioned vinyl (records) not every city is like that.
Here I have 2 stores that sell records within walking distance...
My 2 cents...