I can't believe this cr*p!!!

[stopthegop]

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.  

[Tomas]

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!

[Jose]

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.).

[KThunder]

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.

[motrucker]

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".

[Roj]

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.

[Vincent]

That quote is a brilliant similie.

Very well put whoever it was.

[James]

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.

[giZmo350]

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

[Plaz]

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

[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

[marcfrick2112]

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...