Topic awaiting preservation: WARNING! (Page 2 of 2)

Yes it's not really right to take others protected material but... what a bunch of hippocrites we al are!!! How many of us made cassette copies of music? or recorded from the radio or vinyl record friends albums onto cassette to play on our walkmans before the CD and MP3 downloading took over the world? I bet there are non pre-recorded cassetes in every home in the US and Europe. We all did it... for years.. and it was illegal then too, and there were threats to imprison the world back then as well... and cries of how cassettes would destroy the music industry. Don't believe the hype an scaremongering.

Speeding is illegal, parking over there is illegal, smoking that stuff is illegal, being anti-US law is illegal... There is not one single person here or anywhere that does not break the law...
...the law of man never was and never will be my god...


[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 07-23-2003).]

Copyright as a civil matter is up to the copyright holder to enforce. Why shouldn't they protect their intrest. It's well with theirs rights to do so, just like you can choose to violate that copyright but you risk concences. As part of socity we agree abid by that law, if not one needs offer a better alterative, but how do you protect the rights of the artist or there works fairly is the question.

Just because they make more money doen't mean the work shouldn't be protected any less. I know I would be pissed if someone told me I could only make $1000 on that image, the I would have to give it away for free.

It's not ok to RIP someone website, or claim a someone else image is their own is it? I know if I didn't provide promission to use images from my gallery and someone started treating them as stock images. You can bet they would be here from my lawyer too if I found it to my advantage.



J. Stuart J.


[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 07-23-2003).]

I think that the issue stems more from people simply ignoring it as wrong. To most people (including myself) it's like jaywalking. It's illegal (at least where I live) but everybody does it, and, plus, are you really hurting anything? When you download a song, you are denying the artist/record company the money that you would of payed, yet you didn't hurt anything.

I get so unbelievably sick of hearing you bastards whine about CDs being overpriced. Any company will charge what the market will bear. If a price is too high, people won't pay it. If people are paying it, a company will, and should, charge the full worth of an item -- that worth being dictated by what people are willing to pay. People speak with their dollars. If CDs really were overpriced, record companies would lose money because people wouldn't buy the product. That's free enterprise.

And this talk about people having made enough money already on their creations? Outright stupidity. If someone creates something that so many people are willing to purchase in order to enjoy it, then the creator deserves every dime he gets. Being rich doesn't make you evil. Being successful doesn't make you evil.

In my opinion, however, villifying someone for being so good at what he does that millions are willing to pay him for doing it -- that's evil. (By the way, if you want to argue whether or not a rich band is "good," save it. If they're making money, they've created something the people want, plain and simple, regardless of what your opinion of their music is.)

If you want to lower the price of CDs, continue not to buy any and encourage others to do the same. In the meantime, listen to the radio.

Sooooooooo...


...Is it illegal to record off the radio? I guess I'm wondering that now,

Yes, recording off the radio breaks all copyright laws... so does video taping from the TV. But the whole planet is doing it or has done it ...but you can't sue the world.

double post! pardon me

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 07-23-2003).]

exemple:

you draw a picture...scan it and post it on the internet...people start coping it, riping it, and sharing it...some people print posters of your picture for their personal use and/or give it to fiends and so on...some people sell it...you get no money for it what so ever...

how would you react?

would you say..."I am generouse...let everyone fuck with my property and product and do whatever they want." ?

it doesntmatter if they make millions...its their creation, their music, they own it. why should they let people get it for free?

you want one? go buy it...thats the way it is....

another exemple:


a person has an apple tree. He grew alot of apples and sold them made alot of money...now people come to his yard an d steal apples when he is not home, as well share them with friends....

you telling me its ok to steal persons product and share it, when he had worked his ass of creating it?


[edit]as for radio? here is an exemple:

an art work is being posted somewhere in a public area, owner is not here, so you think its ok to photograph his work and then make alot of prints and share them? or keep for yourself pretending you own it?..cmon man... use your cabeza.[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 07-23-2003).]

Wes - exactly.

Now, I have said - many times - that I personally don't have a huge problem with most issues of downloading mp3's. I've also said, many times, that it is much like everyone has always done with copying friends tapes and the like.

The difference is the mass scale of it now. The potential for true damage is a bit more real. You can download entire libraries of music overnight...

We've made it much easier to get a hold of music without paying for it. We've also made it much easier to get in trouble for it. Seems reasonable to me.

As far as your uninformed whining goes, asptamer, you are quite wring on many levels. I won't bother to explain any further as you'll simply retort with an ignorant jibe anyway (as you never seem to actually bother trying to understand the point of what someone has said...)

bah, fished in

quote:

---

Well, whether or not it's "ok" is a far different issue than whether or not it is "legal".

It is clearly illegal.

The ethical side of it tends to be a little less black and white...

---

I don't understand this attitude, I mean, I understand the perspective, but I don't see how it's right or helpful, or how you could see it any other way. How can it be ethical to take from someone what belongs to them without their consent? Ever?

quote:

---

The difference is the mass scale of it now.

---

This says to me that you think it's an ethical grey area on a personal level to take from someone, but on a large scale, it's clearly wrong. You can always make an argument for big problem vs little problem but lack of personal ethics en masse equals lack of societal ethics on the whole doesn't it?

The train of thought leads me to the conclusion that you're saying, in effect, the classic: "everyone's doing it". I know you believe in personal responsibility so this kinda argument makes me beat my head against the desk trying to understand what you're saying.

note: don't think I'm picking on you DL, in a thread this long I do quite a lot of skimming, stopping to read posts that are actually understandable to me =)

Jason

If you steal something worth 15$ from a store, you will rarely be sued for 1 million. Can somebody tell me why?

You wont likely be sued for $1,000,000.00 for stealing something worth $15, enless you do so violently, and rack up a nice serving of punitive damages to be sued for too. In most societies, the laws are structured in a way in which the value of the product you steal has baring on the crime you are charged with - although, in all cases the punishment is far greater than the crime, which it should be since a criminal punishment is two-fold, punishment and deterrent. It wouldn't be a great deterrent if people saw a benefit in committing a crime vs the consequences of committing the crime.

However, if the punishment ever was a $1,000,000.00 fine for stealing something worth $15.00, then don't steal something worth $15.00. Bah... it's mind-numbingly simple. But whatever you choose to do, don't call the punishments too severe, no ones forcing you to break the law.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
If you were charged only for the price of a CD, when you stole a CD, then everyone would be stealing CD's, and just paying for them on the occasions they were caught.

[edit]Nothing to see here....[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 07-24-2003).]

Im pretty much with wes on this, the record producers will charge what the market will pay.
Ruski, not really good examples, the apple tree has a limited amount of apples whereas an mp3 can be downloaded an infinate number of times

I don't listen to music in the house, just the car radio but I have downloaded a few songs from the net in the past but I dont believe I've ripped anyone off because

a) I didn't burn them to disc
b) I didn't share them
c) I would never have bought the songs anyway even if they cost 1 penny

DL - I'm not seeing your sig


~We're not here for long, we're here for fun~

From Wes:

quote:

---

In my opinion, however, villifying someone for being so good at what he does that millions are willing to pay him for doing it -- that's evil. (By the way, if you want to argue whether or not a rich band is "good," save it. If they're making money, they've created something the people want, plain and simple, regardless of what your opinion of their music is.)

---

And the RIAA is the flock of pesky vultures following that money.

I don't believe we are referring to artists. By all means the artists should get what they deserve, and they should get more for it. The RIAA is the annoying hemorrhoid that is stealing from the artists on account of undeserving copyright laws passed through Congress (one's that assure artists will go nowhere without the "consent" of the RIAA - that means fork over your masters fellas, your asses are ours now); most of them in the midst of tradegies like 911, with little or no consent from artists, so nobody would "care." And they come out saying they are protecting an artist's First Amendment Rights. They are protecting their viability by strangling musicians where they are weakest - their influence in Congress. What a mastery of a business plan! Even though they have a right to free enterprise, I see it unfair that they are so closely acquainted with Congress that legislation is passed whenever they are feeling bored. You won't see a small business owner skipping to the White House with a grin on his face. That is networking at the highest level, and is unfair in my opinion. And as long as the public remains uneducated about the issues, the RIAA will get away with it until the end of time. (so pass your judgements about "well, the people are payin'!!"). The people are payin' because the people are made docile and controllable by law. And when you do not challenge law, there is much left open for theivery by those that make it. The back doors fly open; and the 40 Theives take their picks.

The RIAA aims to steal more than just money from these artists. They are keeping them from their original audio masters (not like masters of the universe), a huge cut on recorded material. Not many of them speak up for fear of losing their credibility with the RIAA, since they suffocate the industry. The RIAA "pimps" for artists. That is why an artist will go nowhere without their networking power. So either abandon your love for music and get out, or sign a contract that assures you will have no say in the distribution and finances of your...er...their recorded material (I say "their" because the RIAA is a concoction of some of the largest record companies in the world, as well as some former political leaders). Its convenient having an organization linked to a key industry that throws slumber parties in the White House.

I'm in a band, and have dealt with management agencies and small record producers. They are like mini-RIAA's...they want to "own" you. It's one thing to hire an agency that helps you network and takes care of the paperwork/booking. But seriously, most of the time we were sifting through rumors and backstabbing. Forced by contract to play "freebie gigs" and whatnot. It was enough when we pulled out our calculators and found out how much money we could've saved if we'd done it on our own. The thing that really pissed me off was that the -polite- termination of our last management agency resulted in our being stigmatized on the venue circuit as being a "shitty band" even though we have a strong following.

Legal or not, the existence of file sharing cannot always be viewed as horrible. You never know what the future will bring. Perhaps an existence where intellectual property becomes library to the public (sound stupid? that's because you haven't experienced it yet)...well no wait. The internet is! I have learned more about things than I ever will sitting in a classroom on the internet. A whole helluva lot from Ozone Asylum.

Here's something interesting...a statement from one of the RIAA's henchmen Jack Valenti:

quote:

---

"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology," Jack Valenti said, threatens an entire industry's "economic vitality and future security." Mr. Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, and he was ready for a rhetorical rumble. The new technology, he said, "is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."

This is not about the internet or file sharing, it was in 1982, and he was talking about videocassette recorders. If Jack Valenti had his way back then (he almost did as the Sony BetaMax case went all the way to the Supreme Court) we wouldn't have VCRs today, Blockbuster wouldn't exist and 50% of Hollywoods income wouldn't exist.

---

and DL-44

quote:

---

The difference is the mass scale of it now. The potential for true damage is a bit more real. You can download entire libraries of music overnight...

---

The potential for true damage = the RIAA is removed and artists get richer from their hard-earned creative energy, as they make beans off their recorded material as it is today. Musicians stay alive by touring - you can't download the experience of a live concert. The RIAA has very little dealings with touring. The Grateful Dead were the highest earning group of musicians ever to sweep the world (haven't checked for a while)...Why? Touring. The potential for true damage is not with music and the value of it. The damage is the crumble of an organization whose existence is obsolete, and quite unwarranted; yet so ridiculously accepted.

The RIAA has dominated for too long. People have been passive for too long. Artists have been hustled for too long. And I have been typing for too long.

Boycott!


[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 07-24-2003).]

Thumper -

my comments on 'oppression' were directed at Asptamer's comments, not yours, and his general attitude.

Also, the problem is, I don't see the RIAA going away. I don't see the public at large boycotting major label records either.

It's a lose lose situation quite frankly. The music industry has long been a terrtible thing, and it's only getting worse.

Oh...um...sorry about that DL. I wiped it clean.

What I don't get about this is why bands don't use the net to sell and distribute their own music. Charge a reasonable fee for their own music and get direct payments rather than going through labels. Why is there a necessity for labeled music when the internet can remove the need for a middleman between listeners and the bands. We all know that the band gets very little money from the sale of their CD's. So why don't they take the money grubbing corporations out of it and make their own money. If they priced their songs at 1/2 of the cost of a total cd set of songs they would STILL make more money then they do now. Right around 50-60 cents a song? $5.00- $7.00 a disk on average. Is this a *real* possibility? What is stopping these bands from trying/doing this?

As an aside BuyMusic has a pretty good library of purchasable and downloadable music at around a buck a song. I don't know how they validate the purchase on the file itself... or if they do at all. Even legal internet purchases could be dangerous at this point. Sad.

{EDIT}Search and thou shalt find Restrictions for BuyMusic.com{EDIT}


[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 07-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 07-25-2003).]