PDA

View Full Version : Upload a file, goto jail


beaker
07-17-2003, 05:52 PM
The newest of lame ass laws trying to be passed by two reps who are owned by the MPAA and RIAA:
Trying to make it a felony if you have any illegal copywrite file on your computer: 250,000 fine and up to 5 years in jail.
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59654,00.html

Larry_g1s
07-17-2003, 05:56 PM
How would they know if it's illegal? What would be the difference if I own the CD and rip it on my PC? :curious:

Pixarman
07-17-2003, 06:06 PM
I hear that a lot of prison systems have internet access...so do they think it will stop once they over crowd the already overcrowded prisons. :rolleyes:

I think all the consumers should band together and sue the RIAA for monopolizing the music industry and charging astronomical prices for CDs and stealing almost every penny from the acutal artists.

They keep making the excuse that music downloading is taking money directly out of the artist pocket...I thought that's what the record companies were there for.:shame:

All the artists need to leave the record compaines and put their material up on the net, on their own personal pages. They can charge for it and I would gladly pay for it. That way I know that the one's who actually made the music are gonna get paid for it.

Pixarman

azazel
07-17-2003, 06:21 PM
I think all the consumers should band together and sue the RIAA for monopolizing the music industry and charging astronomical prices for CDs and stealing almost every penny from the acutal artists.

Exactly.

MCronin
07-17-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Pixarman
I think all the consumers should band together and sue the RIAA for monopolizing the music industry and charging astronomical prices for CDs

Umm they did, the music industry settled. AFAIK the RIAA has nothing to do with CD pricing they just protect the interests of the copyright holders. I would think as artists you guys could appreciate what they are trying to do.

http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.htm

Boot Guy Joe
07-17-2003, 09:33 PM
If you're making art for the sole purpose of making money, you're not an artist. :shame: CDs are way over priced, and everything I hear about this RIAA makes me so glad I don't buy CDs or follow mainstream music. :rolleyes:

Array
07-17-2003, 09:44 PM
ha, for more RIAA stupidity check out this link:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-depaul17.html

I go to school at depaul and each dorm room comes with a computer (nothing special, like 500mhz celeron gateway system) but ironically enough, each one of them had kazaa installed by default with file sharing turned ON. it's going to be funny to see the student body react to this one.

Several hundred people will be sued next month, said Matthew Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs at the industry association.

xynaria
07-17-2003, 09:52 PM
..but..but...but.. if they pass it and then whoheartedly enforced it in every single instance then it would be hysterically amusing.. Buy shares in prisons now folks :D

FabioMSilva
07-17-2003, 11:39 PM
oh my god..

whats next?

that guy from Half life coming out of our Computer monitor arresting us for using Modified plugins?

mrZack
07-17-2003, 11:56 PM
90% music and videos i dl are taiwan and hong kong stuff.
piracy is more common than selling the real stuff in those places.
and look at them, theyre still producing artists and songs.

these music companies need to stop sucking artists dry and should sell their cds cheaper.

cg artists get sucked dry in california. :drool:
bill got sucked dry by monica

leigh
07-18-2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Pixarman
All the artists need to leave the record compaines and put their material up on the net, on their own personal pages. They can charge for it and I would gladly pay for it. That way I know that the one's who actually made the music are gonna get paid for it.

Famous music artists are stinking rich already :shrug:

I personally don't see what the huge problem with record companies is. Sure, they take a lot of money, but they do pay for all the artists marketing, the production costs of all those thousands of cds and merchandise, and all that kind of stuff.

I'm happy to shell out my cash for CD's - I've been a collector since I was rather young, and will always be a collector. I have a huge CD collection that I treasure, and I don't mind the fact that the record companies are taking a huge wad of that money - at the end of the day, the artists themselves are making more then enough cash for themselves :)

xynaria
07-18-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Leigh
I don't mind the fact that the record companies are taking a huge wad of that money - at the end of the day, the artists themselves are making more then enough cash for themselves :)
That must be very comforting for them.:D Perhaps you should talk to some of the artists about this for this isn't about protecting artists by any means. Sure some make a good living.. some make very little and not just through lack of sales. The break even and beyond points vary widly for all concerned. Whether anyone agrees with downloading any conent from the web or not, the RIAA base a lot of their assertions on the theory that in doing so said individual is resulting in lost sales, or in the case of this bill.. even more than .. which is total garbage.. it's more akin to .. if it's 'free', I'll try it but otherwise forget it.. they are trying to justify and pay for their own existence more than anything.. kinda similar to some record companies in a way. To try and bring out a law against individuals when possibly the majority of those individuals are in contravention of it might just say something about cuckoo land though. :)

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 02:46 AM
I just watched the first episode of Punk'd, where they nailed Justin Timberlake. Basically, Ashton's crew pretended to be a "tax enforcement agency" (completely fictitious;)) repossessing Justin's things. It was actually quite humorous;). Anyways, when I saw the amount of "things" this little prick owned, I was sickened. A whole wack of expensive cars, motorcycles, houses, etc. It made me realize that these "artists" are creating a damaging imbalance in our economy, and it really pisses me off when they start whining about what the "pirates" are doing to them.

Chewey
07-18-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
I just watched the first episode of Punk'd, where they nailed Justin Timberlake. Basically, Ashton's crew pretended to be a "tax enforcement agency" (completely fictitious;)) repossessing Justin's things. It was actually quite humorous;). Anyways, when I saw the amount of "things" this little prick owned, I was sickened. A whole wack of expensive cars, motorcycles, houses, etc. It made me realize that these "artists" are creating a damaging imbalance in our economy, and it really pisses me off when they start whining about what the "pirates" are doing to them.

"...this little prick..."
and
"A damaging imbalance in our economy" he says... :rolleyes:

Speaking without thinking is like shooting a gun without aiming it.

froggyplat
07-18-2003, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Leigh
Sure, they take a lot of money, but they do pay for all the artists marketing, the production costs of all those thousands of cds and merchandise, and all that kind of stuff.


yea, but record companies assign most new artists about 11-13% in mechanical royalties, except they only give them 65-75% of the actual 11-13% (of wholesale price, i believe). even then, the record company and producer get paid from the first sale, and the artists only gets paid if the advance, promotion, touring costs, etc etc are paid first (basically every cent the company advances has to be paid back before the artist gets dollar one). this means most new bands have to sell about 1.25 million records before they see a dime for their hard work. so, the inflated CD prices are only benefiting the record companies, i think.

publishing is where the money is....licensing can be a cash cow if you retain all your publishing. one of my bands licensed music to a production company 4 years ago and it is still paying!

anyway, i buy my cd's used:)

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Chewey

Speaking without thinking is like shooting a gun without aiming it.

Yes, as is reading without thinking (only more so).

Chewey
07-18-2003, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Yes, as is reading without thinking (only more so).

Sorry that post has no content. Try thinking prior to posting.:scream:

gmask
07-18-2003, 03:32 AM
Uh oh... this is getting nasty... both the turn of events and this thread..

Wouldn't have been simpler if Kazaa has just bowed out and taken the fall? Guess not :rolleyes:

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Chewey
Sorry that post has no content. Try thinking prior to posting.:scream:

Chewey
07-18-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by gmask
Uh oh... this is getting nasty... both the turn of events and this thread..

Wouldn't have been simpler if Kazaa has just bowed out and taken the fall? Guess not :rolleyes:

They really should have just fallen on their sword.

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Chewey
They really should have just fallen on their sword.

The feelings are probably mutual.

gmask
07-18-2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
The feelings are probably mutual.

The makers of Kazaa don't give a rat's patootee what happens to their users.. they make a profit from other people breaking the law and do you think they will spend a dime to help them out.. I don't think so.

Is there anything actually legal for download from Kazaa besides trojan horses?

Chewey
07-18-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by gmask
The makers of Kazaa don't give a rat's patootee what happens to their users.. they make a profit from other people breaking the law and do you think they will spend a dime to help them out.. I don't think so.

Is there anything actually legal for download from Kazaa besides trojan horses?

From what I read there are plenty of virii, trojans and worms in even the most innocuous appearing files. Many codec files like the divx and xvid packs are the most notorious and oddly enough most trusted by the unsuspecting.

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by gmask
The makers of Kazaa don't give a rat's patootee what happens to their users.. they make a profit from other people breaking the law and do you think they will spend a dime to help them out.. I don't think so.

Is there anything actually legal for download from Kazaa besides trojan horses?

I was referring to their feelings towards Chewey in particular;).

xynaria
07-18-2003, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by gmask

Wouldn't have been simpler if Kazaa has just bowed out and taken the fall? Guess not :rolleyes:

Er...Que???? Though I don't actually use them myself so am not up on it.....but even I know that there are far more P2P apps than Kazza out there, so if Kazza went there would be another and another.... trying to ban P2P or make them illegal is not that different to trying to make tape recorders, CD writers illegal etc.. ain't gonna happen for quite sensible reasons, so now they try and make it so that anyone uploading something that is copyright protected a prisonable offence. They didn't do that in the 60's when people started swapping tapes or in the 80's when people started swapping videos. It's always going to happen. Ok the scale is grander but most would get legitimate material if they wanted it and in some cases it actually promotes further sales. Regardless of that and regardless of any moral or ethical arguements.. it's like Prohibition.. it ain't gonna work.... the only way to find a way round this that might just be feasible is a rethink into the nature of the whole business.

Chewey
07-18-2003, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
I was referring to their feelings towards Chewey in particular;).

Don't worry. Hookfish is just mad her self absorbed, "I'm so screwed up, help me,"threads keep getting closed for lack of content, sense, interest etc. etc.etc.

:scream:

gmask
07-18-2003, 04:10 AM
>>>trying to ban P2P or make them illegal is not that different to trying to make tape recorders, CD writers illegal etc..

Making a tape does not automatically make the recording available to millons of people so there's the big difference


Think of this way.. if your city has a crack problem.. should it be legal to sell crack pipes.. I mean water vases or whatever you want to call them.. it's not the sellers fault that the individual uses them for drug use.

But the reality is that there is not other use for the the crack pipe or the P2P software .. If that were the case then wouldn't the business model of selling the software rather than using banners make sense? They are capitilizing on a trend that is largely illegal activity which is file sharing. How many MP3s do you think are out there that are music created by the end user of Kazaa? Probably not many.. are people sharing the home movies with any one who can download them on Kazaa? Probably not unless they are some sick porn addict.


The issue is coming to a head pun intended because the shear number of violations has gone through the roof with no end in sight.. so comparing it to bootleg tapes is hardly a very even comparison.

Perhaps the record industry may need to change their business model but then what about the software industry.. what change in their business model will make this problem go away? None that I can see except to make people realize that pirating software has consequences.

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by Chewey
Don't worry. Hookfish is just mad her self absorbed, "I'm so screwed up, help me,"threads keep getting closed for lack of content, sense, interest etc. etc.etc.

:scream:

Yeah, they keep getting closed. All one of them. I'm sooooo mad! :rolleyes: Seriously though, you need to chill. Let's start with your repeated misuse of the "scream" smiley (unless you really are that angry).

xynaria
07-18-2003, 04:32 AM
I actually do know people who use P2P for moving legitimate files just as tape recorders are used legitimately.... but so what.
Regardless.. does making something a criminal offence automatically solve the problem .. rarely .....Heroin, crack etc etc are illegal and imprisonable offences, but does it stop or hinder their usage.. er arguably not really..it may cut down murder in some instances but it as sure as hell don't prevent it... making guns illegal might cut it down further but then it could be marignal. Moving into a digital age was something that no-one was realistically prepared for and the 'solutions' to date only usually hurt the people that they least intend to... dongles anyone....it ain't got the infrastructure to protect itself but why try and make it into a completely unworkable farce.
Mp3's are shite and anyone who really wanted some music is gonna go and get the vinyl or settle for CD... basically a sale is a sale and anything less isn't .. that's the stupid thing.. a non sale is still a non sale not neccessarily a potential one and to argue that it is lost revenue is ridiculous..... if someone gave you a candy bar even if it was stolen .. would you have bought it anyway.. possibly.. possibly not. :)

leigh
07-18-2003, 04:43 AM
Hookflash, Chewey...

http://leigh.cgcommunity.com/temp/chill_pill.jpg

Chewey
07-18-2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Leigh
Hookflash, Chewey...

http://www.funnyfreepics.com/images/chill_pill.jpg

:scream:

gmask
07-18-2003, 04:47 AM
>>I actually do know people who use P2P for moving legitimate files just as tape recorders are used legitimately.... but so what.

So what software were they using and is it like Kazaa where you are broadcasting to the entire planet if you are sharing?

>>>Regardless.. does making something illegal automatically solve the problem .. rarely .....Heroin, crack etc etc are illegal but does it stop or hinder their usage..

Well I think that this law will definatley make people think twice about casually uploading hundreds of copyrighted materials.


>>> Moving into a digital age was something that no-one was realistically prepared for and the 'solutions' to date only usually hurt the people that they least intend to... dongles anyone....it ain't got the infrastructure to protect itself but why try and make it into a completely unworkable farce.

This is true and as far as software goes if it can be built it will be broken. It is just that I think the attitude about intellectual property has gotten very cavalier and it hurts everyone not just the vendors but the end users who have to pay more for the software to make up for those who never buy anything... except the computer.

>>>Mp3's are shite and anyone who really wanted some music is gonna go and get the vinyl or settle for CD...

This is true but alot of people still listen to FM and that ain't exactly crystal clear... however the radio business model doesn't work well with the digital age because the end users wants the ultimate in selection and customizability. I guess one way the record industry approach this is to flood the net with legally distributed hit songs including back catalog material and work a banner and advertising system in the format or take percentage of the advertising dollars that the P2P software makes. If those who think record sales actually benefit from this kind of distro then CD sales will increase and everybody will be happy.

>>>basically a sale is a sale and anything less isn't .. that's the stupid thing.. a non sale is still a non sale not neccessarily a potential one and to argue that it is lost revenue is ridiculous.....

Well I agree that their estimates are bloated because you have to assume that many peopel liek those who listen to a radio hear a song over and over again and never buy it. But the issue with intellectual property is that the copyright holder is supposed to have control over it not the end user.

>>if someone gave you a candy bar even if it was stolen .. would you have bought it anyway.. possibly.. possibly not. :)

Ewww.. Well I like music but I don't need to consume it to live..

Pixarman
07-18-2003, 05:02 AM
Perhaps the best way to solve this downloading epidemic is to work together. The music companies should change their current infrastructure to include music sharing. They could all band together and release their own P2P software, give it a monthly fee, like 15 dollars, and let people download and share music to their hearts content.

This way the record companies could still maintain control and be able to view all the music switching hands. If they notice that you download a lot of film scores, perhaps they could send you special deals on film score CDs that you can purchase...

It's pretty simple really. Change is good. :)

I'd pay 15 dollars a month for a fast system that would let me share all kinds of music, from all kinds of companies. If the companies would put forth some money into R&D, they could probably come up with a proprietary format for listening to the music, that would only work through the download software, to keep people from burning off CDs and whatnot...

Pixarman

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 05:09 AM
The problem with a subscription based system is that artists would have less incentive to release new albums. Still, the idea has merit from a consumer point of view, especially now that broadband has become so common.

xynaria
07-18-2003, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by gmask
So what software were they using and is it like Kazaa where you are broadcasting to the entire planet if you are sharing?
Dunno .. I didn't ask them .. I'm on 56 K and so if I want someone to look at my work I use ICQ cos it supports resume but I can also use it on a private basis and I assume most P2P have that facility too



Well I think that this law will definatley make people think twice about casually uploading hundreds of copyrighted materials.

It is already illegal but making it a farcicle imprisonable offence is only going to make them seen as desperate and clueless arseholes that they are.. how the hell do you enforce it and enforce it 'fairly' when a huge majority of your population would be guilty.



This is true and as far as software goes if it can be built it will be broken. It is just that I think the attitude about intellectual property has gotten very cavalier and it hurts everyone not just the vendors but the end users who have to pay more for the software to make up for those who never buy anything... except the computer.

That is taking 'the arguement' into another realm beyond the original post and one that CG Talk wouldn't neccessarily be happy about .. if you want my views, then do it by PM cos I don't want to start a huge debate on that one. A precis would be that it only hurts if used commercially and I don't condone that in any way but sub arguments about whether it really affects costs get very convoluted.

peanuckle
07-18-2003, 05:10 AM
Man thats a stupid idea. here are my thoughts first some of the P2P people they actually do catch will be young kids some not even teens. That will make them look more like bullys more than anything. and 2nd if P2P is really so bad (im not condoning it and saying go pirate or anything) but wouldnt they be out of business the first couple of years. from what im noticing they are still pulling in a crap load of revenues..


just my 2 cents

pea~

P.S. sorry about all the bad grammar im tired and smell like McD cheeseburgers :surprised

Hookflash
07-18-2003, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by xynaria
how the hell do you enforce it and enforce it 'fairly' when a huge majority of your population would be guilty.


Also, on a rather simplified level, how can a democratic government pass a law that goes against the will of the majority?

peanuckle
07-18-2003, 05:26 AM
yea...lets say that they sued all who did upload 1 file and put them in jail...THERE would be hardly no one left. Just OLD people because they think email is the biggest technological advancement since the wheel. The whole idea of putting them in jail and huge fines are just idiocy

pea~

xynaria
07-18-2003, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Also, on a rather simplified level, how can a democratic government pass a law that goes against the will of the majority?

Relatively easily in some cases if not this one but then democracy exists as as a word very well but in reality like most words it stumbles ever so slightly when asked to have a real meaning innit. :D

MCronin
07-18-2003, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Also, on a rather simplified level, how can a democratic government pass a law that goes against the will of the majority?

Easily, for one thing, the US is not a democracy, it's a representitive republic or representive democracy if you prefer, and the whole point of our government structure is so that the mob doesn't rule. That's why Gore didn't win the 2000 election despite wining the popular vote. If the US were a direct democracy, the people of California and New York would pretty much be in control of the federal government.

In this case, I'm not so sure it's the will of the majority that people be allowed to freely swap intelluctual property that they don't own. I've downloaded my fair share of files that I shouldn't have, but I happen to agree with the RIAA. I think if you polled the general populace, and not just college kids on the internet, you'd find that more people consider this kind of ativity to be theft. Even if the overwhelming majority of the populace didn't think there was anything wrong with file trading, it still wouldn't make it right.

I don't think it's my right to have free acess to music, movies, software, that I didn't create and didn't purchase, and just because so many people want to do it, including myself, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the record companies are getting rich or certain musicians are rich. It's their intellectual property, they created it and have a right to charge for it and make as much money off it as they please.

Joviex
07-18-2003, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Also, on a rather simplified level, how can a democratic government pass a law that goes against the will of the majority?

Um, and what country would that be? We live, in the US, in an elected/representative democracy, not a true democracy.

Representation is just that, you vote for the one who holds your views best.

If you can tell me where you have a 1:1 gov/populous interaction, I would love to move.

SdFX
07-18-2003, 12:53 PM
This is a never-ending debate. The music industry tries to have the world accept moral arguments against p2p, when everyone knows that the music industry's only real concern is the happiness of their shareholders - not moral and ethics. It's like a great medicinal company saying, that their "mission" is the "wellbeing of the world", while simultaneously dumping loads of chemicals in populated areas. The economical interests are just too big for them to be trustworthy.

On the other hand, the world tries to argue that stealing is OK as long as enough people do it, which is equally lame.

Everyone is arguing on different platforms and no one is offering any real solutions ...not that I know any, either - but something radical is in order. Not criminalizing the entire world...something that satisfies the consumers (quality, fair pricing and above all, availability), the Distributors (no theft of their products) and lastly, the artists (due respect and fair payment)....

Just to add some more fuel to this fire...the artists that actually publishes something are paid buckets from Koda, everytime their song is played on the radio, at the hairdressers, in the gym...it's not bad business...

Rock'n roll :buttrock:

Supervlieg
07-18-2003, 01:17 PM
I think the cost of CD's should be lowered. This would entice people into buying the real thing instead of downloading.

Right now the music (and Dvd's for that sake) are heavily overpriced. They are more so if you consider the production cost of a single cd. So if the enormous marketing budgets were dropped(do we really need commercials every five minutes telling us to buy the latest britney or whatever?) and huge profits hat are made would be decreased they would be able to seriously lower the prices, that's the only way to get people into buying Cd's again. Just look at the booming sales of best buy dvd's etc.

I think that if the prices dont drop the downloading of music (and Movies) will continue to increase. And I would say the music industry ownes the decreased sales to themselves.

Gentle Fury
07-18-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Hookflash
The problem with a subscription based system is that artists would have less incentive to release new albums. Still, the idea has merit from a consumer point of view, especially now that broadband has become so common.

Actually.......if we are really discussing music, this is the perfect solution.....if an artist is only interested in making new music for the money, they are no artist.....they would end up making just as much if not more in a subscription based system.

To elaborate on it though......try this. The music industry at large is complaining that the abillity to dl high quality music over the internet is costing the artists (kinda ironic huh...lol) money. Well, history has shown us that the only way to evolve a money making infastructure is to move with the times!

People like to watch movies in theaters.......but they also like to watch them at home........thus the invention of the home theater system......it gives you the basic movie going experience on a smaller scale.........BUT did it kill box office sales? No, they actually improved.......people would wanna see a movie in the theater first then get the dvd to watch it on their home theater system.

Well, face it people.........we hate cd's! I have many cd's that are now reaching 9 years old......and they skip like mad now......i still love them.....so by law, does this mean i have to go spend my earned money AGAIN......to listen to something i ALREADY paid for?????

Music is a form of entertainment.....the music industrys problem is that they are still selling CD's and not music! The medium of transfer is completely meaningless! We now live in a world of added convinience....you would think they would want to market that!

As many people now have a form of the internet in their homes as people had televisions in the 80s and 90s........did the invention of cable stop people from buying vhs tapes....or eventually dvd's or even going to the movies.....nope....just made one more convinience......so why is the music industry so intent in keeping things the same for nearly 2 decades?? They are the only industry that refuses to evolve and are now filing lawsuits because the public HAS evolved!!!

The best solution is not to set up a file SHARE, but a file RECIEVE system!! Pay 15, 20 bux a month and you get to dl a couple hours of music a month. Bet this would really help this apparently struggling industry.

halo
07-18-2003, 03:32 PM
mcronin, your sentiments are sound except that the vast majority of people do think its ok to download and share, thats why kazaa is the most popular app ever made outside of an OS...

apple so far are the only people i know offering a music solution that comes close to meeting low cost on demand music that you can own...wtf it takes a computer company to be the first to do this i dont know....the record business is so obsessed with "lost revenue" (as hyped by the RIAA's false statistics that determine the amount of piracy as the amount of CD burners x their burn speed) that unless it starts accepting the phenomenon and adapts its business model people will just take the piss more....which is probably what motivates this kind of bill...and if this doesnt work then they will probably bring in the death penalty

oh btw i use p2p with my clients on a secure private channel...why? well i can email my client a prepared app with the shortcuts addresses etc for any platform and all they have to do is open it and download, and if the file needs to go to 3 studios for them all to look at then they can do it at the same time off each other....they love it...

dmeyer
07-18-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury

The best solution is not to set up a file SHARE, but a file RECIEVE system!! Pay 15, 20 bux a month and you get to dl a couple hours of music a month. Bet this would really help this apparently struggling industry.

Long live the iTunes Music Store. A true gift to those interested in legally purchasing music from the comfort of their home, or a horrific plight on our economy sure to drive the acquisition of crushing levels of personal debt? The only thing i dont like about it is that it's WAY to easy to spend a lot of money in a short period of time. Perhaps both....you decide. Coming soon to Wintel hardware near you. :buttrock:

And regarding the sentiment that musicians make too much money...it's called capitalism. Just like athletes, they have a talent that people are willing to pay money to watch or hear. How many people do you know that can pack 60k people into an arena to listen to their music?

danteort
07-18-2003, 05:06 PM
Part of the problem is the fact that the penalty is way out of line with the seriousness of the offense. If J-walking resulted in 10 years in prison, the reaction from most people would simply be "Well that's just plain silly." Likewise, when people are threatened with a $250k fine for sharing software, it's too far out of whack to be taken seriously. Hell, a $100 fine for illegally obtained music would be steep enough, if it was actually consistently enforced. For software, it could be something like twice the suggested retail price.

gmask
07-18-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Gentle Fury
Actually.......if we are really discussing music, this is the perfect solution.....if an artist is only interested in making new music for the money, they are no artist.....they would end up making just as much if not more in a subscription based system.


What about software?

Neil
07-18-2003, 05:14 PM
just close this thread, it's a never ending debate that has nothing to do with graphics.

MCronin
07-18-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by halo
mcronin, your sentiments are sound except that the vast majority of people do think its ok to download and share, thats why kazaa is the most popular app ever made outside of an OS...

Basicly what you are saying is something like the majority of car thiefs think stealing cars is OK.

I don't think you can accurately say the vast majority of people think file sharing is ok. Remeber, only slightly more than half of all American's have internet access at home, and some people are trading files knowing full well it's wrong to trade files you didn't pay for. You could say the vast majority of people who are sharing files think it's OK, but you can't say the same of the vast majority of the general public, or even the voting public. There are many people out there who just don't use computers, or do use computers but don't do file sharing. If you asked them join in the fight against a bill that would make stealing copyrighted material punishable with stiff fines and jail time, they'd probably laugh in your face and side with the copyright holders, that or be completely indifferent about it.

How many people in the US do you think regularly participate in file sharing? A whole lot, sure, but more than half? Not a chance. How many of those people sharing files are of voting age, and of those who are of voting age, how many even bother to vote? All that matters to politician's is money and votes and I don't think the file sharing community has enough of either on their side to have any pull with the government.

gmask
07-18-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by MCronin
You could say the vast majority of people who are sharing files think it's OK, but you can't say the same of the vast majority of the general public, or even the voting public.

It seems like the many of the users of programs like Kazaa do not really think that anything they can download is wrong because there it is ..the get this program that makes it easy. It wasn't until recently that manufacturers of CD writers and CD writing software and Kazaa etc started to put warnings on their products telling the user that copying copyrighted material was illegal. Of course even after being warned you can only assume that most of what is available to download is not legal. But there is no mechanism to inform the user one way of the other that what they are downloading is legal or illegal and even if there was it can forged.

If you are walking through downtown and somebody approaches you with a really good deal on a Rolex.. do you assume that it is real Rolex? Can you assume that anything you find on Kazaa is legit? If the Rolex you received was indeed real but stolen you would still be liable for receiving stolen property.

Kazaa can say that they are not responsible for what their users do with the software but I seriously doubt that it would be all that successful if the usage was actually limited to legitmate exchanges.

xynaria
07-18-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Neil
just close this thread, it's a never ending debate that has nothing to do with graphics.
You don't have to read this thread , but obviously some want to...might be an idea to consider that. The more people that start to realise that gfx is part of life and not the other way round, then possibly the possibility of their work having some depth might arise. :)

Neil
07-18-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
The more people that start to realise that gfx is part of life and not the other way round, then possibly the possibility of their work having some depth might arise. :)

(gfx = part of life) = artists making music and people not buying cds?

Fill me in there, you lost me :hmm:

halo
07-18-2003, 08:09 PM
no mcronin, im basically saying the a far chunk of the internet populus think downloading music is ok...by that i mean they know its wrong but treat it as just being a little naughty and everyone else is doing it anyway...its probably a little up on the scale of littering but i'd say below adultery or tax dodging...probably on par with drinking a little too much and pissing in public

on average theres 3 million people logged onto kazaa at anyone time, thats any moment in time, common estimations that 1 in 3 of the internet population download music...ok its not the vast majority, but considering that a fair chunk of the net maybe people who use the net for a living (ie they aren't using it for amusement) it does point to the fact that its not a minority of people using the net for pleasure who think downloading music is wrong...its not everyone but its not even 1 in 5 thats doing it, more like 1 in 3

xynaria
07-18-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Neil
(gfx = part of life) = artists making music and people not buying cds?

Fill me in there, you lost me :hmm:
Your arrogance was that the thread should be closed because it wasn't ostensibly (in your eyes) about Gfx and as such presumably was 'irrelevant'
There are parallels with what the initial post was about and areas pertaining to graphics.. i.e copyrighted material.. like I said .. Gfx doesn't exist in a vacuum.. it's but a small part of life.. that's not exactly rocket science now is it.

Neil
07-18-2003, 08:55 PM
Your confusing arrogance with disinterest.

This topic has been talked about on here before, on TV, in newspapers, EVERYWHERE!
You can talk to anyone about music, but you can't talk to anyone about graphics. Hence, this discussion can take place anywhere, it doesn't need to be here.
If you're gonna discuss graphical copyrights, then do so, but get off of the topic of pirating vs. non-pirating music.

gmask
07-18-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Neil

If you're gonna discuss graphical copyrights, then do so, but get off of the topic of pirating vs. non-pirating music.

So we've talked about several possible solutions for music distribution but how about software, games and movies? If the new distro model is to be online absed how can cotnent creators be assured that they will have control and profit from buying into the new model of the millenium.

xynaria
07-18-2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Your confusing arrogance with disinterest.


Not at all.. you seem to think that because you are tired or disinterested then everybody should be to the point of total intolerance.. that is bona fide arrogance in my book.... you have no need to read this or any thread here and it isn't as if the thread declared itself to be about other than what it was. Surprisingly enough the world does not revolve around you or your interests.. only you do. :)

Neil
07-18-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
Surprisingly enough the world does not revolve around you or your interests.. only you do. :)

:eek:
No, only your words. Now tell me to go eat dinner, because i'm awfully hungry.

halo
07-18-2003, 10:26 PM
actually i think if handled correctly DRM can be certainly applied to movies as well (the bandwidth is just the problem but in 5 or so years that will be less of a problem and the market will be wider)

software could aslo be used with DRM, in fact a lot of utilities like NAV for instance are only licensed for a year

where DRM falls down is in poor implementation...apples and sonys grasp of it means you can move the file around compatable software and hardware but the playback software knows what file is where and limits its spread...bad implementaion like BT's effort kills the file when you unsubscribe from their service...you could argue thats the same thing as watching a film in a cinema, but thats part of the problem

mass copyright abuse is niether a good thing, a right thing or is justifiyable, however there are forces which have accelerated it and exploitative business models and pressure from vigilante quangos fuels the "**** em" attitude.

the two schools of thought are meeting head on, but its just amazing to see the most approachable solution being offered neither by a ISP/music company partnership like AOL/time warner but by a computer company like apple mearly trying to bolster a nicely designed mp3 player. The RIAA are really showing their desparation, they have risen to power and infamy off the back of the net and really they are the ones that have the most to lose if one of the major areas of copyright abuse is wiped out...its almost like the plaintiff is the judge as well.

The thing is out of all this monkeying around, while they jump up and down about supposed lost sales, they aint selling a song, and in a licensing based model theres no reason when your not even shifting any media (and you already have everything else done for cd etc and have got it paying for itself) why the price cant be lowered for it to be approachable...who cares about devaluing the original product? certainly not the 3 million on kazaa downloading the 7 million copies of eminem floating around (the no1 downloaded artist :puke)

gmask
07-18-2003, 11:13 PM
>>>actually i think if handled correctly DRM can be certainly applied to movies as well (the bandwidth is just the problem but in 5 or so years that will be less of a problem and the market will be wider)

DRM? I have my doubts about that kind of bandwidth becoming available that soon but I suppose it should be possible..who is going to pay for it? It might be in the interest of RIAA to block it if possible.

I just remember reading about some fiber optic test community but it was basically a failure because eve though they had putin the fiber in the neighborhood the homeowners still had to forkout $5k to get the connection to their home.

>>>mass copyright abuse is niether a good thing, a right thing or is justifiyable, however there are forces which have accelerated it and exploitative business models and pressure from vigilante quangos fuels the "**** em" attitude.

I think alot of people get confused and think that if everybody is doing something that it negates any inherent criminal violation associated with it. It doesn't.. it's not an issue of I can do what I want in my home because the material comes from somewhere else. Generally speaking i think people should beable to do pretty mcuh anything they want in the privacy of their own hom sbut when it leaves that sanctuary then it's different.

In regards to students using computer equipment priovided by an institution I think the school should take the blame. They should know better and in the interest of students not provide software that prompts illegal activity. The students may niot be aware of what they are doing and I doubt that downloading music to study to falls under fairuse.

>>> The RIAA are really showing their desparation, they have risen to power and infamy off the back of the net and really they are the ones that have the most to lose if one of the major areas of copyright abuse is wiped out...its almost like the plaintiff is the judge as well.

Well it may be desperation but they are certainly flexing their power.. it takes quite abit to get laws of this nature crated and enforced and they are doing it. I have a hard time seeing as a last ditch attempt but more that they are feed up and ready for a major pissing match. Unfortunately it's their potential customers that are getting soaked.

halo
07-18-2003, 11:49 PM
well the laws get passed because they have politicians in their pocket of like paying $18000 to send them on factfinding missions to thailand for a week...

if you apply your theory to students that isnt different to the rest of the world...thats what im saying...u wanna lay the blame at the colleges for giving them the opportunity, thats no different to laying at the doors of an ISP and a computer company...but thats 1/2 my point, ISP's , computer & media companies should be the ones getting their acts together but they seem to be holed up fighting a last stand

as for movie downloads...3 cds can take a 3 hour movie and takes about 4.5 hours to download...thats at good quality and on DSL, that is only 50% slower than realtime...and thats now...ok so the amount of people that have broadband and would actually stream/save a movie at that speed is probably in the region of 10% of recreational users...but then mp3 grew when 56K was almost the only option...

at the end of the day if you buy a cd legitimately would you rather some of your money went to:

a) to develop a solution to make online music more legitimate whilst maintaining its approachability

b) funding quangos like the RIAA who perpetuate myth, rumour, unprovable statistics and discriminate against any non corporate music venture

?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31812.html

xynaria
07-19-2003, 12:03 AM
Apart from the infrastructure/ business model inadequacies here there is a big perceptual gap that would need to be bridged if anthing that most would see as postive to come out of all this.
As many have stated and most agree... the amount of people doing this is not small and their perception of 'how criminal' an offence they are commiting is that genearlly not very though it is still considered illegal.
The proposal by The RIAA is like trying to crack a peanut with a huge piece of concrete from a great height and is likely to do nothing to engender further feelings of criminality but more one of justification. If you treat people like shit..they don't act like angels.
The RIAA are not going to be taken seriously if they come out with fabrications on theoretical financial damage etc and asking for punishments that have no consensual justification.
One of the few ways that the gaps can be bridged is if these measures where being brought by the artists themselves..... but they aren't.. and as to why opens up a more possibly realsitic reading of what exactly might really be happening. :)

gmask
07-19-2003, 12:12 AM
What does DRM stand for?


>>>if you apply your theory to students that isnt different to the rest of the world...thats what im saying...u wanna lay the blame at the colleges for giving them the opportunity, thats no different to laying at the doors of an ISP and a computer company...but thats 1/2 my point, ISP's , computer & media companies should be the ones getting their acts together but they seem to be holed up fighting a last stand

No.. you are not following what I was saying.. somebody above said that at their school at the computers came with Kazaa installed with filesharing enabled. It's not same as signign up with an ISP unless the have an installer that puts this software on your computer. I should hope that a computer vendor would not include this software on their systems as well because it really doesn't serve them any purpose and the software is free to download anyway.

>>>as for movie downloads...3 cds can take a 3 hour movie and takes about 4.5 hours to download...thats at good quality and on DSL, that is only 50% slower than realtime...and thats now...ok

Yea but DVD's hold way more than 3 CD's worth of data. and presumably we are headed into the land of Hi-Def anyway. I can go to the video store and rent a movie in less than half an hour.

>>at the end of the day if you buy a cd legitimately would you rather some of your money went to:

Like taxes we as consumers or tax payers have less input into how the money is spent that we might like. The reocrd companies fund RIAA so unless there is back door to paying musicians without paying the record label. Actually I think most of the proceeds from concerts do go to the band after expenses but I could be wrong about that.


It's just that IMO that vast majority of listeners eat up the manufactured idealogy of the music industry. The show American idol for example show what the result is of that process.. you have people with some talent but the only reason they have any popularity is because the viewing audience was told that there were worth listen to. These people aren't artists they are puppets.

You could also actively try to buy music from independant labels but you can never by too sure that they aren't owned by a larger one.

What can I say??? The music industry is sleazy..allways has been and allways will be so what does it say about the people who idolize those who are wrapped in the sleaze?

gmask
07-19-2003, 12:15 AM
>>>One of the few ways that the gaps can be bridged is if these measures where being brought by the artists themselves..... but they aren't.. and as to why opens up a more possibly realsitic reading of what exactly might really be happening. :)

Unless you are talkign about Metallica.. if the music artists in general did have a problem with what's going down they are either mute or have been muted by their recording contracts.

halo
07-19-2003, 12:18 AM
what i meant about the 3cd's in 4.5 hours was that if say you have a 1mb pipe instead of a 1/2 you wouldnt need to go down to the shop, you could download and watch the film as you did and keep it on your drive...just like you can with mp3 now :)

DRM=digital rights management :)

xynaria
07-19-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by gmask

Unless you are talkign about Metallica.. if the music artists in general did have a problem with what's going down they are either mute or have been muted by their recording contracts.
Metallicas stance over Napster didn't do them any good whatsoever and unsurprisingly so.. there was a totally brilliant skit recently on Metallica on scoopthis dot com. The thing is not all artists are against file sharing so their fans don't then see it as being majorly wrong and there is an argument that in some cases it does actually help to increase CD sales. I can't be bothered myself with all this p2p stuff etc but if I am curious about an artist I will visit their web site and d/l any examples there to check them out.. If I like those then I'm liable to buy the CD and if I had got the example through P2P ditto.. but if I never heard of them for whatever reason .. I am not going to buy something I don't know exists am I. So it's not a cut and dry situation..the whole filesharing phenomena has made some artists far more popular and given them far more exposure than they ever could have paid to have. :)

gmask
07-19-2003, 12:51 AM
>>>Metallicas stance over Napster didn't do them any good whatsoever and unsurprisingly so.. there was a totally brilliant skit recently on Metallica on scoopthis dot com.

Never saw it.. of course I've never heard of scoop this dot slash etc. I'm not surprised though that there was backlash from some of their fans as their attitude abut was really corporate and pissy tpowards their fans.. it one thing for the labels to be like that but any star that thinks they can thumb their noses at the fans has another thing coming.

>>>The thing is not all artists are against file sharing so their fans don't then see it as being majorly wrong and there is an argument that in some cases it does actually help to increase CD sales.

There is nothing wrong with groups legally and freely distributing their music for promotion. Hell that's radio! But radio is regulated and by the law the copyright holders have the right to decide how their material should be distributed.

If a group wants to put sample tracks on their website where you can then easily purchase their CD that's one thing but then it's another to download the sample upload it to Kazaa where the person downloading the trck may not have the chance to make an impulse decision and buy the CD right then and there. If presumably smaller groups have more to gain then it should also been known that they allready have limited exposure and may not be as easy to buy from. If it's an idependant label then their website might be the only place to buy the music from. I suppose though that properly created files would have links to the correct point of purchase.. but remember that many vendors do rely on impulse buying and that has to be as convenient and immediate as possible to work.



>> I am not going to buy something I don't know exists am I. So it's not a cut and dry situation..

Well in the old model you'd here their track on the radio or see a music video or they are perhaps a group you are familair with or somebody reccomends them to you and many stores all you to preview the CD. However in all those cases you are not walking away with a copy. If you didn't like the music why would you need to keep a copy of it? So really p2p is overkill if the idea is to simply let people preview music.

I used to buy alot of records because of their album covers.. needless to say I bought alot of music I didn't end up liking all that much. Personally I have really enjoyed internet radio at various times cause there is enough selection where I could find stuff I liked and the stuff is relatively unintterrupted and I didn't have to mess around with downloading or sorting or mixing anything.. I prefer that. Just having to choose what I want to listen to can be too much of a pain.. I just want to turn on "working music" or "time to wind down music" and leave it a that. Otherwise it sounds to me like some people want it all they want all the music they can consume for any artist and they really don't want to pay for the variety, selection or convenience.


>>>the whole filesharing phenomena has made some artists far more popular and given them far more exposure than they ever could have paid to have. :)

Name an example of this because in all the hub hub and the number of times this idea has been batted around I have never actually heard of a music artist who rose to fame from file sharing.

xynaria
07-19-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by gmask


There is nothing wrong with groups legally and freely distributing their music for promotion. Hell that's radio! But radio is regulated and by the law the copyright holders have the right to decide how their material should be distributed.

Though radio stations do get free copies of records in the hope that they will play them, actually playing them is not free, mechanical royalities have to be paid on radio plays. But by the same token no radio station has to play your record so even if you send them bribes and the promise of a good time in the afterlife .. it doesn't mean your record will be played. As I said some artists are not against file sharing .. it is their record companies that are and therefore the debate shifts as to who should say how the copyright is to be handled.. the artist or the record company?

but remember that many vendors do rely on impulse buying and that has to be as convenient and immediate as possible to work.

One size does not fit all .. a lot of record sales are also acutely measured decisions where once that decision has been made then the fan will do whatever it takes to buy that disc.




Well in the old model you'd here their track on the radio or see a music video or they are perhaps a group you are familair with or somebody reccomends them to you and many stores all you to preview the CD. However in all those cases you are not walking away with a copy. If you didn't like the music why would you need to keep a copy of it? So really p2p is overkill if the idea is to simply let people preview music.
Again one size does not fill all.. People do even apparently identical things for a multitude of disparate and in some cases antithetical reasons.. I haven't got a particular take on this other than the whole scenario has become a farce. Some people do not make up their mind till after multiple plays, after all most art that is totally immediate looses its appeal quicker, but that which reveals itself slower because it changes perceptions often endures longer. Again so what.. I am not trying to justify or not justify file sharing.. I am saying that to blame falling revenues per se on it is perhaps optimistic and to try and treat a non sale as other is dumb. If people want something they will get it or they will leave it.. in some cases yes the'll steal it whether from a shop or from the web.. it's still a non sale because if they couldn't have stolen it they wouldn't have got it. You can easily argue that filesharing might be deemed to make stealing easier but that still doesn't equate into a lost sale. The thing is when as large a proportion of people begin stealing as are doing at the moment, and are not even seeing it as majorly criminal, then you have to address why and admit that the alternative business models are flawed to say the least. You also have to admit that they still haven't found a way of dealing with it that isn't arguably actually much more unethical. Understanding it as a social phenonema might be a step in the right direction.. you don't treat an illness by addressing the symptoms but by using the symptoms to start to articulate the cause and possible effective remedies.



Name an example of this because in all the hub hub and the number of times this idea has been batted around I have never actually heard of a music artist who rose to fame from file sharing.
I don't know that any have risen to fame through this alone but the higher than anticipated sales of Radioheads last album is attributed in part to this. I don't particularly follow music anymore and as I said I'm not involved in the whole P2P thingy.. someone else will have to answer that for you.. I am not pretending I can other than pointing out that it is a widely held point of view that exists.

gmask
07-19-2003, 02:29 AM
>>Though radio stations do get free copies of records in the hope that they will play them, actually playing them is not free, mechanical royalities have to be paid on radio plays. But by the same token no radio station has to play your record so even if you send them bribes and the promise of a good time in the afterlife .. it doesn't mean your record will be played.

Right but the low overhead of digital radio via the internet makes it possible to have a wider range of music broadcast to a global audience. So it would seem to be a radio broadcasters wet dream even if they still ahd to pay royalties.

>>As I said some artists are not against file sharing .. it is their record companies that are and therefore the debate shifts as to who should say how the copyright is to be handled.. the artist or the record company?


They should read their contracts before signing them.

>>One size does not fit all .. a lot of record sales are also acutely measured decisions where once that decision has been made then the fan will do whatever it takes to buy that disc...Some people do not make up their mind till after multiple plays....

Some people will fret over all decisions. Besides radio stations often play the same song so much that you are likely to hate before too long. How many times do you think an auto dealer would let you test drive a car before they realised that you were just spinning their wheels.




>>>You can easily argue that filesharing might be deemed to make stealing easier but that still doesn't equate into a lost sale.

Okay but if hte person listening to isn't listening to it on the radio then they aren't getting royalties and thus lost revenue. If Kazaa had to pay royalties for everytime somebody downloaded a particular song via their p2p system I think it would be a different story.


>>>I don't know that any have risen to fame through this alone but the higher than anticipated sales of Radioheads last album is attributed in part to this.

Well I'm not a fan of Radiohead but I have been aware of them for years..since before Kazaa and I think napster so I'd have to look at this with alot of skepticism. They allready have a huge fanbase.. it could be that they just put out a really good record.

>>>I don't particularly follow music anymore and as I said I'm not involved in the whole P2P thingy.. someone else will have to answer that for you.. I am not pretending I can other than pointing out that it is a widely held point of view that exists.

The argument that p2p filesharing does help artists is a commonly used arguement but the problem is still that it is being used to justify something that at it's core goes against copyright law. It may be fine and well if artists choose to distro this way..it's their right to make the decision. Again the problem comes when they did not give that permission.

Even if the record lables caved and said okay from now on we are going to flood the internet with free music in the hopes that many of you will buy CDs or subscriptions I'm still having a hard time seeing that this same system will work as well for movies, games and software. Especially with software since it can be used to make money.

sedric
07-19-2003, 02:32 AM
everyone love how free the internet is....but i think people are going a little overboard and abusing that freedom.Its that abuse that will cause that freedom to end. we all read about M$ taking steps in windows to stop file sharing. eventually the "free ride" will be over and the internet wont be the way it was.

We all need to take responsibility for keeping it free...with our actions.

its like killing the goose that laid the golden egg

just a thought

Sedric

xynaria
07-19-2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by gmask

Right but the low overhead of digital radio via the internet makes it possible to have a wider range of music broadcast to a global audience. So it would seem to be a radio broadcasters wet dream even if they still ahd to pay royalties.

Possibly but that still seems an outmoded model to me ..let the people choose what and when they want to hear then maybe. The model of filesharing is obviously one that is popular and not just because of the financial angle....make it cheap enough and people would probably go fo it.




They should read their contracts before signing them.

A lot will have been made before the rise of P2P..the fact that quite a lot of artists and record labels are practically at war with each other means that something isn't working as well as it should be.


Some people will fret over all decisions. Besides radio stations often play the same song so much that you are likely to hate before too long. How many times do you think an auto dealer would let you test drive a car before they realised that you were just spinning their wheels.
Fairish point but equating music with cars only holds up slightly.. again some people.. I for one.. never listen to radio and you are taking a western stand on this not a world stance which is somewhat myopic and arguably egocentric. You also cannot say radio is going to give people what P2P does or they would be using radio not P2P.



Okay but if hte person listening to isn't listening to it on the radio then they aren't getting royalties and thus lost revenue. If Kazaa had to pay royalties for everytime somebody downloaded a particular song via their p2p system I think it would be a different story.
It wouldn't neccessarily be down to Kazaa.. or any of the others.. a vaible workable alternative is a way forward perhaps.



Well I'm not a fan of Radiohead but I have been aware of them for years..since before Kazaa and I think napster so I'd have to look at this with alot of skepticism. They allready have a huge fanbase.. it could be that they just put out a really good record.
Like I said previouisly .. that is a purely egocentric point of view..what I reffered to was the view held by quite a few.. I merely passed it on and am not going to attempt to qualify it when I can't.. again as I said.


Even if the record lables caved and said okay from now on we are going to flood the internet with free music in the hopes that many of you will buy CDs or subscriptions I'm still having a hard time seeing that this same system will work as well for movies, games and software. Especially with software since it can be used to make money.
The latter argument is somewhat broader and in particularly in relation to software......if you want to discuss the 'ethics' of software piracy as you seem somewhat keen to it might be best to do so in a seperate thread as that doesn't fall as I believe under the RIAA's 'juristriction'


originally posted by sedric
everyone love how free the internet is....but i think people are going a little overboard and abusing that freedom.Its that abuse that will cause that freedom to end. we all read about M$ taking steps in windows to stop file sharing. eventually the "free ride" will be over and the internet wont be the way it was.
That is actually rather more pertinent IMHO.. but then the companies and legislators have to realise that the digital age is going to have to try and grow up by inventing new infrastuctures and ones that do not end up in being at war with the users.. :)

gmask
07-19-2003, 03:37 AM
>>Possibly but that still seems an outmoded model to me ..let the people choose what and when they want to hear then maybe. The model of filesharing is obviously one that is popular and not just because of the financial angle....make it cheap enough and people would probably go fo it.

I never have had to pay to listen to internet radio but wether or not they pay mechanical royalties is anothe rissue. If you are trying to say that all media of the future wcanonly be distributed in such a way that no royalties are paid then there are going to be otehr groups up in arms like SAG besides the music industry. Of course being that artists in the the CG industry do not get royalties ever then the POV's expresed here may be biased and unsypathetic towards the concept of royalties.


>>Fairish point but equating music with cars only holds up slightly.. again some people.. I for one.. never listen to radio and you are taking a western stand on this not a world stance which is somewhat myopic and arguably egocentric. You also cannot say radio is going to give people what P2P does or they would be using radio not P2P.

I can have my own opnion without it being deemed " myopic and arguably egocentric" ..jeez. What I am suggesting is that in either case wether it's radio where the DJ picks the hits or it's the end user picking the hits that the service which includes both netradios and p2p softwares pay royalties for for the music that goes through their systems. If the artists choose to make their music through these venues royalty free they can choose to do so. The radio stations might play it more bu tto the p2p user it wouldn't make a difference as they aren't the ones paying the royalties... the advertisers are.

>>>Like I said previouisly .. that is a purely egocentric point of view..what I reffered to was the view held by quite a few.. I merely passed it on and am not going to attempt to qualify it when I can't.. again as I said.


In regards to Radiohead and their success I am simply making an observation of the bands track record over the years. Is the record popular because it's good music or because it was let loose on Kazaa. In the interest of the artists abilities I hope that it's because they are talented. Otherwise they might be many examples of bands that came from no-where to notoriety due to internet distro and no-one so far can site a very compelling example. It's purely theory that this kind of distro promotes record sales. I'm not doubting it's possible but where's the proof?

>>>The latter argument is somewhat broader and in particularly in relation to software......if you want to discuss the 'ethics' of software piracy as you seem somewhat keen to it might be best to do so in a seperate thread as that doesn't fall as I believe under the RIAA's 'juristriction'

"Content like movies, music and software are the country's No. 1 export, but the creators are being hurt by people who use technology to get the content for free, Conyers said. "

"The bill "clarifies" that uploading a single file of copyright content qualifies as a felony."

Read the article it says any single file of copyright content... that includes software.

>>>That is actually rather more pertinent IMHO.. but then the companies and legislators have to realise that the digital age is going to have to try and grow up by inventing new infrastuctures and ones that do not end up in being at war with the users.. :)

What I find interesting about this is that companies like Kazaa wether they control it or not do in fact profit from the exploitation of the media an dof the infringement of copyrights. Because they are a business and because they have the exmple of Napster to use as a template to avoid they have been able to shield themselves from liability. Unlike the end users who if this laws goes down will be taking the blow.

I have much less of a problem with the end user donwloadinbg than I do with in this case a company who gives away the tool to exploit and then on top of that profits from it's use. Kazaa's stand in my opinion would be more benevolent if they charged nothing and used no banners. Then like Napster I would wonder how they would make money.

If it was all about sharing then why is it that only Kazaa is profiterring? The creators of the content that is being shared through their system are not making any profit .. at least not directly and they are unable to track the relationship between the two. I just think it would be fair if they had to pay the royalties just as any content provider does for quality material.

To clarify.. if somebody wants to use a p2p program that allows two people to exchange files without using ftp that's fine.. it's more convenient and it's private.

But when your p2p software broadcasts the location of a file to anyone who is listening then it is no longer private and therefore IMO more vulnerable to legal intervention at least in the eye of copyright protection. You know how video tapes say you cannot show the tape in public.. same difference.

xynaria
07-19-2003, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by gmask

I never have had to pay to listen to internet radio but wether or not they pay mechanical royalties is anothe rissue. If you are trying to say that all media of the future wcanonly be distributed in such a way that no royalties are paid then there are going to be otehr groups up in arms like SAG besides the music industry. Of course being that artists in the the CG industry do not get royalties ever then the POV's expresed here may be biased and unsypathetic towards the concept of royalties.

No I said nothing of the sort.. I actually fully believe royalties should be paid...but that is assuming a workable way could be made feasible to deal with P2P is all.. and that for music perhaps data libraires are made that aren't dictated by record companies or DJs. I obviously can't stop you doing your usual reading into things that aren't there but I do suggest it's not helpful.


What I am suggesting is that in either case wether it's radio where the DJ picks the hits or it's the end user picking the hits that the service which includes both netradios and p2p softwares pay royalties for for the music that goes through their systems.

No arguement from me there, other than that people do have the possibility of their choice not the stations / companies etc. The larger issue is that to make a law feasible it has to be seen to be fair and enforceable.. the proposed bill is neither and suggests companies at war with the consumer.. a far from workable state of affairs. You don't control many things by making them illegal as they found out with prohibition.. you control them by them being regulated hence legal.





"The bill "clarifies" that uploading a single file of copyright content qualifies as a felony."

Read the article it says any single file of copyright content... that includes software.

I am not disputing that but that any discussion is liable to get far more heated and convoluted and should perhaps be in a seperate thread.




To clarify.. if somebody wants to use a p2p program that allows two people to exchange files without using ftp that's fine.. it's more convenient and it's private.

But when your p2p software broadcasts the location of a file to anyone who is listening then it is no longer private and therefore IMO more vulnerable to legal intervention at least in the eye of copyright protection. You know how video tapes say you cannot show the tape in public.. same difference.

To my mind this is still a failing of finding a suitable framework or infrastructure to deal with what is happening..... I don't think the proposals do that but make a mockery of everything.

gmask
07-19-2003, 04:40 AM
>>>You don't control many things by making them illegal as they found out with prohibition.. you control them by them being regulated hence legal.

Well I certainly siggesting that software like Kazaa be regulated.


>>>I am not disputing that but that any discussion is liable to get far more heated and convoluted and should perhaps be in a seperate thread.

I thas been in several other threads as much as this one. The point being that if there is a defense for p2p such as it is now.. I don't think that those who download music see much of a difference between doing that and downloading software. Whatever suitable mechanism that might be created probably wont work for noth bit the software or at least some like Kazaa do not discriminate music from software. I cannot imagine a royalty scenario for software.




>>>To my mind this is still a failing of finding a suitable framework or infrastructure to deal with what is happening..... I don't think the proposals do that but make a mockery of everything.

Which proposals.. this law??

I don't see the problem as being infrastructure as currently the internet has facilitated a huge boom in this kind of media exchange but the issue is control. Who is to have the control of the content: consumers or the content creators. Standard technology like radio and television have boundaries that are more clearcut even though their licensing is complex.

Can they share this control? I think as long as the content creators feel like they are making money on every exchange they'll be happy but right now they firehydrant is cranked open.

Many people say that they will pay a reasonable subscription fee if they can continue to have the same election as they have now but I think this will also mean that the freefor all exchanging has to be dealth with.. and that is either by taxing or charging royalties to the makers of file sharing software and harddrives as well.. just as blank media like DAT and CD's are surcharged.

Derlaine
07-19-2003, 07:19 AM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

gmask
07-19-2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Derlaine

i think RIAA just needs to wake up to the fact it's method of distribution is going out of date, and needs to adapt to the flow. They're fighting a losing war.

But you don't have any suggestions on how they should do it differently? What about software vendors?

I bet we are going to see a tax or surcharge on harddrives in the near future.

schmu_20mol
07-19-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by gmask
I bet we are going to see a tax or surcharge on harddrives in the near future.

perhaps a bit OT but at least in germany the GEZ will start to take fees for computers in 2004 or 2005 too

GEZ for those who don't know is a german institution that takes fees for your radio/tv-set (comparable to a tax) and with that at least non-private channels are supported (for private ones that money's like drop of water in the desert)

gmask
07-19-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by schmu_20mol
perhaps a bit OT but at least in germany the GEZ will start to take fees for computers in 2004 or 2005 too

GEZ for those who don't know is a german institution that takes fees for your radio/tv-set (comparable to a tax) and with that at least non-private channels are supported (for private ones that money's like drop of water in the desert)

Interesting.. I think it's relevant .. I think the UK does this as well since the BBC are public stations. It supports the idea that content is not for free. If you don't want to sit through adverts then the money has to come from somewhere.

Here's an article that proclaims harddrives as the new vhs tape http://news.com.com/2100-1040-962028.html

To give an idea at how many harddrive smay be getting purchased every year think about this..

"Each year, as the storage capacity multiplies onto ever smaller spaces, old drives are replaced. More than 150 million disk drives were pulled from their primary service in 2002, up from 130 million in 2001, according to market research firm Dataquest."

This is an interesting article but OT

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/computers/storage/story/0,2000023527,20271282,00.htm


So if there are hundreds of millions of hardrives being purchased then surely a tax could easily offset some of the reported losses that the RIAA and constituents report. It will still be illegal to share copyrighted material but maybe this would stem the tide of prosecuting individuals for their trangressions.



Oh an here's some other tidbits.. I have manily been focusing on Kazaa but apaprently the RIAA has had more success twarting some of the other p2p's like aimster.

"The court rejected virtually every argument made by Aimster to defend its activity."

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/063003.asp

Despite what this thread is titled this is what the RIAA has to say about this new law..

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/062503.asp

"The law is clear and the message to those who are distributing substantial quantities of music online should be equally clear --- this activity is illegal, you are not anonymous when you do it, and engaging in it can have real consequences," said RIAA president Cary Sherman.

Note the word "substantial".

Small guy hurt by music piracy, too
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/6165755.htm

"Everything changed for us in August 2000. Our customers were mainly college students, and when they returned for classes that year, they brought with them both Napster and a feeling of entitlement that free music was somehow their birthright."

xynaria
07-19-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by gmask


Small guy hurt by music piracy, too
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/6165755.htm



Now you just have to lurve the sponsored links on that page. :D

gmask
07-19-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
Now you just have to lurve the sponsored links on that page. :D

LOL.. yeah kind of ironic eh?

halo
07-19-2003, 09:14 PM
Now you just have to lurve the sponsored links on that page

LMAO

btw does anyone else think its wierd that a business with 5 sites and 125 staff has a marketing budget measured in tens of 1000's?...even if the average wage is $10k a year thats 1.25 mil alone in wages and then theres the rent on the 5 sites, which must be quite big considering its only city branches in the UK that have staff levels approaching that...

he seems a little off base when he says his main clients were students when its well known that the target for music companies is the under 16's...

the UK license only covers devices that can recieve TV, not computers, on TV recievers in machines if fitted...
why the hell should companies with render farms support the music industry by hard drive tax...thats the same daft thought that the RIAA use to estimate piracy...they base their estimates off the amount of CD burners and their speed! and how many cdr's are bought...like every cdr is used for piracy...!

look at the top ten i posted, which artist is struggling? dont say that it impedes the independants....the big boys aren't the least bit interested in their plight and that includes web casters

sorry but the RIAA is a corporate & self serving an appointed quango that threatens people with costly lawsuits and supports with lobby money anyone who will take their cash and say what they want, which is why i think someone is attempting to sue them for antitrust, and quite rightly too

despite what they say in that PR, they have issued something like a 150 suits this month alone to Verizon customers which detail as little as 5 files being shared...they also mention specific artists (as if they're looking to protect some of their more major clients only) and not 1 single AOL customer got caught up in this recent campaign....now if that doesnt smell i dont know what does

i think the RIAA are well out of wack and the sooner the music industry drops them (if they can) and gets on with a propper online music business the better, for them and us

gmask
07-19-2003, 10:25 PM
>>>btw does anyone else think its wierd that a business with 5 sites and 125 staff has a marketing budget measured in tens of 1000's?...even if the average wage is $10k a year thats 1.25 mil alone in wages and then theres the rent on the 5 sites, which must be quite big considering its only city branches in the UK that have staff levels approaching that...

Well it's in the US and any college town could support that amount business and each and every state has many schools. I'm also assuming that most of the staff is part time.

>>>he seems a little off base when he says his main clients were students when its well known that the target for music companies is the under 16's...

It is?? I did most of my music buying in my late teens and early twenties. Site some statistics. If you are talking about boy bands I can beleive it but otherwise.. it's unproven factless statement.



>>>why the hell should companies with render farms support the music industry by hard drive tax...thats the same daft thought that the RIAA use to estimate piracy...they base their estimates off the amount of CD burners and their speed! and how many cdr's are bought...like every cdr is used for piracy...!

Well CDRs are pretty damn cheap..so whatever they charge per CD must be a few cents if even that. Harddrives have gotten pretty damn cheap as well so to add a few extra dollars won't kill anybody's business or make it a hardship to buy 120gb HD. To imply that consumers are so cheap that they can't afford that would say to me that people are not buying music.

In larger scheme of things renderfarms are hardly themajority of harddrive buyers.. ISPs buy alot of harddrives and they also have alot of content passing through their systems.

In some states graphic artist can buy equipment an dsoftware tax free because their is a graphics artist exemption so maybe they could be exempt from this tax as well.

>>>look at the top ten i posted, which artist is struggling? dont say that it impedes the independants....the big boys aren't the least bit interested in their plight and that includes web casters
sorry but the RIAA is a corporate & self serving an appointed quango that threatens people with costly lawsuits and supports with lobby money anyone who will take their cash and say what they want, which is why i think someone is attempting to sue them for antitrust, and quite rightly too

Then stop listening to major record label music if the idea that you are funding corporate thugs is so distasteful. Recorded music is a luxury item.. if you wanted to get grassroots about it you could only listen to local bands and buy recorded music that is produced and funded by the artists.

How about a listener funded record label that distributes free music based on the donations and subscriptions of listeners?


>>>i think the RIAA are well out of wack and the sooner the music industry drops them (if they can) and gets on with a propper online music business the better, for them and us

Then don't buy the music, don't listen to the music , don't download the music, don't upload the music, don't go to the concerts, don't buy the t-shirts, don't watch the movies and etc.

Otherwise you would be trying to have your cake, eat and all for free. If listeners were concerned about making a difference they would sign up for subscriptions for online music. They would pay the minimums to be entertained but still all I'm hearing is the self entitlement.. if you don't like the music industry then don't idolize their music groups.. stop suckling from the teat that has served you sour milk.. yet millions will continue to do so and act like they didn't see it coming or that the record companies owe them something.

You wanna screw the music industry then boycott them by not listening to the product and by shunning any musician who is on a label ..despite whatever their personal points of view are.

xynaria
07-19-2003, 10:55 PM
ROFLMAO..is this man on drugs??????


Might be ever so wrong here.. but surely there exist opinions other than your own as well as gradations betwixt black and white. Your premise reeks of accept what is or don't accept it at all.. ... surely the big chap invented the concept of criticism for the purpose of trying to find better ways of doing things not to stifle any conjecture. Refreshing to see such an unfettered and open mind. :)

gmask
07-19-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
ROFLMAO..is this man on drugs??????


Might be ever so wrong here.. but surely there exist opinions other than your own as well as gradations betwixt black and white. Your premise reeks of accept what is or don't accept it at all.. ... surely the big chap invented the concept of criticism for the purpose of trying to find better ways of doing things not to stifle any conjecture. Refreshing to see such an unfettered and open mind. :)

It's funny that your only recourse is to criticise me as a person and make insinuations. Is it that you cannot actually have a debate?

If making music was only about the art and not about making money there would not be a music industry as it exists today. In many cases when american listeners have had problems with the politics of their favorite artists it is not uncommon for them to show theirr displeasure by not listening to the music. The attitude I keep hearing sounds like a line from the movie Repoman "let's order sushi and not pay for it".. how many times do you think you can get away with that at the same sushi restaurant?

The music largely being discussed here is a commodity.. how many times do you have to eat a particular dish before you can decide that you don't really like it? Will it taste any better if you don't have to pay for it? Will you watch a movie several times before deciding to pay for it? Software on the other hand is an instance where you may really need to try before you buy and it certainly seems that most developers have adopted trial versions. The problems is still that many people do not buy.. seemingly whole countries so again the unfettered downloadeing is a big problem.

You also cannot easily seperate the music industry from the artists. If you felt sorry for the artists not making a profit then send them a donation so that your money does not go to the record industry. Otherwise whining that downloading helps sales is only a justification for something that is in actuality illegal wether you like it or not. Compare music to drugs.. okay well in real life if a person has such a problem with drugs that they are arrested that would be a sign that they maybe they should kick the habit. Nobody died from not being able to listening to a band or listening to one too much.. although there have been the occasional concert stampede that has killed a few fans here and there.

Many keep saying well the record industry is going to have to give up their busines model.. but I haven't really heard any suggestions for what the new one would be besides subscriptions. Even if that were the case do you really think that the downloading would stop or decrease if left unfettered? I seriously doubt it.

xynaria
07-20-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by gmask
It's funny that your only recourse is to criticise me as a person and make insinuations. Is it that you cannot actually have a debate?
If I try to enter some humour into the equation ..that is attacking you personally? well yes and no I suppose, if only in part that the way your posts read is that you appear to be unable to talk or discuss in a way that you don't take your personal opinions as gospel and in so doing almost make any impartial observational comments practically impossible. Your take on this appears also to be totally Americo- centric but the issue is global and covers many international copyright problems and so doing therefore, also many political issues. Your retort to Halo's arguments, which to me held a lot of validity, is to try and give them no credence whatsoever and as you have done with me .. to make gross assumptions about the actual opinions that are neither indicated nor expressed.

. The attitude I keep hearing sounds like a line from the movie Repoman "let's order sushi and not pay for it".. how many times do you think you can get away with that at the same sushi restaurant?
That is not the way most posts read to me at all and many have discussed trying to find ways of effecting differering solutions to 'the problem'

. The problems is still that many people do not buy.. seemingly whole countries so again the unfettered downloadeing is a big problem.
I don't see anyone here not acknowledging that point to at least some degree... but where people differ is in how acute the financial repurcussions are perceived and just what might actually be a workable way of dealing with what is happening.

Otherwise whining that downloading helps sales is only a justification for something that is in actuality illegal wether you like it or not.
I don't seee anyone other than yourself making that assertion though as I, and possibly others, have pointed out, many hold that belief

Compare music to drugs.. okay well in real life if a person has such a problem with drugs that they are arrested that would be a sign that they maybe they should kick the habit. Nobody died from not being able to listening to a band or listening to one too much.. although there have been the occasional concert stampede that has killed a few fans here and there.
Are you wilfully misunderstsanding the context in which that comment was made or are you just completely unable to see outside your self inflicted myopia. The referal was that like drugs, piracy is not going to be 'dealt' with by merely banning it as it were but needs perhaps a slight amount of thought.

Many keep saying well the record industry is going to have to give up their busines model.. but I haven't really heard any suggestions for what the new one would be besides subscriptions. Even if that were the case do you really think that the downloading would stop or decrease if left unfettered? I seriously doubt it.
I don't think it will stop completely whatever is done to be honest, there may be a way to decrease it, I myself don't know, but why have you taken it on board so personally? It seems rather an exagerated way to be, considering there is no indication that it personally affects your 'real life' but more your somewhat outraged sense of 'morality'

There is possibly an interesting discussion on this topic.. that has to account for more than one viewpoint but the discussion will repeat ad nauseum in a ceaseless circular loop till the thread is likely closed if you continue to rant rather than discuss, and refuse to see that others do have valid points and perceptions :)

halo
07-20-2003, 01:09 AM
Then stop listening to major record label music if the idea that you are funding corporate thugs is so distasteful. Recorded music is a luxury item.. if you wanted to get grassroots about it you could only listen to local bands and buy recorded music that is produced and funded by the artists.

i dont (apart from the studio radio and even that gets too much) listen to major record music

if you wanted to get grassroots about it you could only listen to local bands and buy recorded music that is produced and funded by the artists

funnily enough seeing as my partner runs a self owned music label thats where a large amount of my listening centres on

Then don't buy the music, don't listen to the music , don't download the music, don't upload the music, don't go to the concerts, don't buy the t-shirts, don't watch the movies and etc.

i dont download the music, i dont upload the music, i dont listen to a lot of todays music output when given the choice, niether do i go and see every movie

what i do think is unless you give people a clear shot at rivaling what they have now then they wont change habit...its a bit like taxing cars and petrol to force people to use pulic transport that hasnt seen any serious development and investment in 20 years, it just doesnt happen...its human nature to follow the easiest route and im not saying everyones an angel, but the fact is that apple are the only company offering a service that comes anywhere close to rivaling kazaa and that is just plain pathetic from an industry as big as the music industry

point me to a subscription service that has a range of a decent music shop and handles DRM in a friendly device and subscription independant manner...the only one so far seems to be apple and even then the range isnt that great because its apple doing it and not market distributing companies

subscription based on actual costs of the distrobution of mp3s (not from album production, they have to do that already) could work, especially if you can try before you buy on a track by track basis, but in their current train of thought record companies wont allow that because their too set in their ways of thinking that 4 reasonable tracks and 7 fillers makes a good album, and all the while the teenage and sub market keeps buying it (which is a fact that its their main market) the RIAA will harp on about how much damage p2p does and how computers are people will come up with bright suggestions that music needs to recoup its apparent lost revenue from computer users that are niether interested in US/UK pop schlock or even use their equipment for anything to do with it

i agree large proportions of the world just go the piracy route, but then the RIAA juristiction only applies to the US or countries where the legal system would entertain their agressive civil pressures...even the DMCA was defeated when whoever it was tried to go after the chap who cracked the DVD encryption code...i seem to remember Adobe couldnt touch Skyliov (spelling?) until he stepped foot on US soil as well
So really the RIAA is aiming directly at people in the US (for starters lets say) where the market and the technology exists and the 99% piracy ethos doesnt

you know in russia, to just to limit piracy for a little sony sold playstation games for $1...

I just cant understand why if the music industry is losing sooo much money they wont even lift a finger to grab some of it back and just let the RIAA (maybe they have to) continue to justify its own existance

http://www.theregister.com/content/6/31833.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31812.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31800.html

$2500 fine per file (sharing over 10 files) and possible jail...now im not being funny here but for the same deal i can be in possesion with intent to supply of class c drugs (dope) or harder stuff if im lucky or i could just drink 10 pints and go for a drive...now they really balance out dont they...damn your right the RIAA have it all in focus, filesharing an album is like drug dealing and drink driving and should be treated as such...lets go right back to the DMCA as well and keep that bit about having non compliant equipment is illegal as well...**** it lets just make computers illegal because our corporate companies are too fat and lazy to adopt adaptive new business models....

did you know that macdonalds approach to not keep building new stores (because of market saturation) but to try and make existing stores work better is thought of revolutionary? they have been following the same business model for 50 years, apparently the thought of doing something different was a little shocking

im gonna leave it here...i think theres definately room for improvement in the business approach of the labels and that the RIAA is self serving...k?

gmask
07-20-2003, 01:32 AM
>>>If I try to enter some humour into the equation ..that is attacking you personally?

Saying I must be on drugs.. hmm hard to not take that personally.

>>That is not the way most posts read to me at all and many have discussed trying to find ways of effecting differering solutions to 'the problem'

Such as?

>>>Are you wilfully misunderstsanding the context in which that comment was made or are you just completely unable to see outside your self inflicted myopia. The referal was that like drugs, piracy is not going to be 'dealt' with by merely banning it as it were but needs perhaps a slight amount of thought.

Comparing music and drugs.. well it's just not a good comparison. Again calling my opinions myoptic is merely subterfuge..as if any one persons opinion is the gospel. Get over it...I suppose your word is better tha mine :rolleyes:

You have also missed the point that I am trying to make a distinction between two peopel sharing files and one person sharing a file with anyone who can download it. IE the first example falls closer to fair use and the latter falls closer to broadcasting.

>>>I don't think it will stop completely whatever is done to be honest, there may be a way to decrease it, I myself don't know, but why have you taken it on board so personally? It seems rather an exagerated way to be, considering there is no indication that it personally affects your 'real life' but more your somewhat outraged sense of 'morality'.

I never said that it would ever end completely. I never said that people who download are bad immoral people. People break laws all the time but that does not neccessarily make them immoral. They may be uneducated or illinformed or have made a bad decision but that does not mean that they are bad people.

You simple wish to label me because I want to talk about this but so far your end of the debate has declined to criticising me rather than defending your own beliefs.


>>>There is possibly an interesting discussion on this topic.. that has to account for more than one viewpoint but the discussion will repeat ad nauseum in a ceaseless circular loop till the thread is likely closed if you continue to rant rather than discuss, and refuse to see that others do have valid points and perceptions :)

I'm willing to entertain any point of view from a person who will explain the mechanics of it and how it would work in the real world. I don't think this topic is funny. I think it is a serious issue one that will definatley have an effect on how content is treated for years to come.

gmask
07-20-2003, 01:55 AM
>>> i dont (apart from the studio radio and even that gets too much) listen to major record music

Neither do I but obviously there are many people who do.

>>>funnily enough seeing as my partner runs a self owned music label thats where a large amount of my listening centres on

That's great to hear.. I myself wa sin a band at one time that more or less parted ways because mysle fand one of the othe r members wanted to only do internet distro and the other guyuy wanted to get a record label. The group also was very heavily pirated in europe but we couldn't do much about it... nor really needed to.


>>>i dont download the music, i dont upload the music, i dont listen to a lot of todays music output when given the choice, niether do i go and see every movie

Sounds like me.. I rent alot of movies

>>>what i do think is unless you give people a clear shot at rivaling what they have now then they wont change habit...its a bit like taxing cars and petrol to force people to use pulic transport that hasnt seen any serious development and investment in 20 years, it just doesnt happen...its human nature to follow the easiest route and im not saying everyones an angel, but the fact is that apple are the only company offering a service that comes anywhere close to rivaling kazaa and that is just plain pathetic from an industry as big as the music industry

I agree peopel are lazy.. paying even if it's cheap is too much trouble if you can more easily download it for free even if it's illegal. Kazaa doesn't have to pay for it's content so they have an edge over apple. Still none the less copyrighted material is faiclitated through their system so it only seems fair that they pay royalties rather than bust end users.


>>>point me to a subscription service that has a range of a decent music shop and handles DRM in a friendly device and subscription independant manner...the only one so far seems to be apple and even then the range isnt that great because its apple doing it and not market distributing companies

Still even if there was I think many peopel would opt for the free for all unless the consequences were enforced.



>>>subscription based on actual costs of the distrobution of mp3s (not from album production, they have to do that already) could work, especially if you can try before you buy on a track by track basis, but in their current train of thought record companies wont allow that because their too set in their ways of thinking that 4 reasonable tracks and 7 fillers makes a good album, and all the while the teenage and sub market keeps buying it (which is a fact that its their main market) the RIAA will harp on about how much damage p2p does and how computers are people will come up with bright suggestions that music needs to recoup its apparent lost revenue from computer users that are niether interested in US/UK pop schlock or even use their equipment for anything to do with it

Look at it this way when you buy stock art from a website you can "preview" all the material but it cost way more to buy individual tracks than to just buy a whole CD's worth of material.

It simple is not cost effective for them to produce music as pick a track any track. Maybe they could sell you track packs.. where you have to pick at least 7 tracks from ay artist.


>>>i agree large proportions of the world just go the piracy route, but then the RIAA juristiction only applies to the US or countries where the legal system would entertain their agressive civil pressures...

Actually I think Chinese authoritis are being more helpful these days.


>>>even the DMCA was defeated when whoever it was tried to go after the chap who cracked the DVD encryption code...i seem to remember Adobe couldnt touch Skyliov (spelling?) until he stepped foot on US soil as well
So really the RIAA is aiming directly at people in the US (for starters lets say) where the market and the technology exists and the 99% piracy ethos doesnt

That's true.. but I think the circle will close on technology that enables mass infringement.

>>>I just cant understand why if the music industry is losing sooo much money they wont even lift a finger to grab some of it back and just let the RIAA (maybe they have to) continue to justify its own existance.

Well the end user doens't seem capable of comprimising so why should they? I dunno they suck what do you expect?



>>>$2500 fine per file (sharing over 10 files) and possible jail...now im not being funny here but for the same deal i can be in possesion with intent to supply of class c drugs (dope) or harder stuff if im lucky or i could just drink 10 pints and go for a drive...now they really balance out dont they...damn your right the RIAA have it all in focus, filesharing an album is like drug dealing and drink driving and should be treated as such...lets go right back to the DMCA as well and keep that bit about having non compliant equipment is illegal as well...**** it lets just make computers illegal because our corporate companies are too fat and lazy to adopt adaptive new business models....

Okay the penalties are absurd .. but it certainly makes you think twice doesn;t it? and since it's mainly peoplelistening to crappo pop music then let em rot. ;-) just kidding but there are alternatives to the industry music but some people like their fakeness.. Peopel could protest and probably should.. one way of doing that is to force a blackout and a boycott.. why is that so insane to suggest? It may be unrealisitic but it's no less so than expecting the music industry to just presto chango.

>>im gonna leave it here...i think theres definately room for improvement in the business approach of the labels and that the RIAA is self serving...k?

Well of course it is self serving.. it's not music listeners of america or the world .. they are here to kick ass and take names.. they mean to be taken very seriously and we can sit by and call them thugs etc but haven't you noticed that corporations are like that? There are very few that go out of their way to make the world a better place and also do good business. The industry is not about art.. it's about money. People like you and I don't feed the beast with our money or interest but many do and many do even if they aren't giving it their money they just listen. If nobody were listening to the music then wouldn't they have to change?

xynaria
07-20-2003, 02:09 AM
First and foremost .. these are my last words on this.. this thread has issues to discuss and they are not how we are perceiving each other so if you have anything to say further on that, I would be grateful if you did them by email or PM

Originally posted by gmask
Saying I must be on drugs.. hmm hard to not take that personally.
I did not say that I made a quip querying that possibility in jest hopefully to make you question whether you appeared to be raving or not.. if someone had posted that to something I'd said, I'd think.. ooer missus.. Am I going on a bit?. Am I perhaps being a bit egocentric? or rambling etc etc.. you get the jist.

Comparing music and drugs.. well it's just not a good comparison. Again calling my opinions myoptic is merely subterfuge..as if any one persons opinion is the gospel. Get over it...I suppose your word is better tha mine :rolleyes:

The posts and I said piracy and drugs.. dealing with both does have similarities IMHO.. No ones opinion is gospel but I don't get the indication that you are even bothering to read and digest anyone elses.


You have also missed the point that I am trying to make a distinction between two peopel sharing files and one person sharing a file with anyone who can download it. IE the first example falls closer to fair use and the latter falls closer to broadcasting.
Both are technically illegal.. so what.. most are discussing whether the RIAA are being 'just' and 'ethical'... not where you personally draw the acceptable line





You simple wish to label me because I want to talk about this but so far your end of the debate has declined to criticising me rather than defending your own beliefs.
I've outlined what few beliefs I have on this and that is that the RIAA are unethical and unjustifiable in their actions.. For a law to be upheld properly there has to be at least some degree of concensuality within it.. even murder does that.




I'm willing to entertain any point of view from a person who will explain the mechanics of it and how it would work in the real world. I don't think this topic is funny. I think it is a serious issue one that will definatley have an effect on how content is treated for years to come.
I'm very pleased for you.. good luck..hopefully this thread will develop into something other than merely what you think. :)

gmask
07-20-2003, 02:34 AM
>>>Both are technically illegal.. so what.. most are discussing whether the RIAA are being 'just' and 'ethical'... not where you personally draw the acceptable line

Yes technically illegal but the current situation is aggravated by the fact that companies like Kazaa and Aimster profit from mass distribution. Prior to this kind of software had you ever heard someone being busted for giving somebody a one off tape of music as opposed to a bootlegger selling thousands of copies.

>>>I've outlined what few beliefs I have on this and that is that the RIAA are unethical and unjustifiable in their actions.. For a law to be upheld properly there has to be at least some degree of concensuality within it.. even murder does that.

Perhaps more unethical and unjustifiable than the massive and daily infringement of thousands of copyrights.

I'm not really following the last part their about consensuality. The voters could have stepped in and still can.. write your congressman etc. Comparing this law to anything regarding murder is a farce.

The penalites are steep I will admit that. So would $250 per infringment be more to your liking?


>>I'm very pleased for you.. good luck..hopefully this thread will develop into something other than merely what you think. :)

Don't be such a spoil sport.. :love:

halo
07-20-2003, 02:41 AM
how about a cease and disist order first? i dont see that they have even tried that

gmask
07-20-2003, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by halo
how about a cease and disist order first? i dont see that they have even tried that

There is no obligation to send one. Even if they did I don't think until it sunk in that people were getting busted that there would be much of deterrent.

I think also that the fines shoudl be perhaps relevent to how much it would cost to actually license a piece of music. Although depending on the music and the honesty of the record lable this could be very high.

I had another thought and maybe if the recording industry had there own p2p software and system that they would have better ground for sueing the others because they could mroe easily prove that the other free sytems were interfering with their ability to profit from thier own copyrighted material. Seeing as how people are seemingly too lazy to pay when there is a free version of the same song the music industries version would be very unpopular and go out of business. I dunno.. might work.

xynaria
07-20-2003, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by gmask

Perhaps more unethical and unjustifiable than the massive and daily infringement of thousands of copyrights.
yes

Comparing this law to anything regarding murder is a farce. [
I didn't I discussed that the laws regarding murder are broadly considered consensual (until the line gets as far as the death penalty that is)

Derlaine
07-20-2003, 03:43 AM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

Nocturn
07-20-2003, 04:11 AM
About the record labels accounting practices:

"Talent manager Simon Renshaw, who represents, among others, the Dixie Chicks, who recently received a $20 million settlement in an accounting dispute with Sony, testified that for every client he has represented in the past 20 years, the accounting of royalties has "always been wrong, without exception."

"These are deliberate attempts not to live up to contracts that the record companies have with the artists," he said. "

"Country star Clint Black testified that since releasing his first album in 1989, he has sold more than 20 million albums, yet in 1998 -- about a year after he initiated an audit -- RCA Records claimed he still owed them money. "I'm not an accountant, (but I made) $150 million for the record company," Black said. "I could not find anyone in my organization to explain to me how
that could be possible (that I owed them money)."

Full article (http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/hollyreporter_092502.html)

This is also an interesting article:

http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/rip.html

"In 1987, the record companies, through legislation, got the aforementioned exception from the Seven Year Rule in California. This is one of the first instances where the record companies’ interests clearly diverged from those of the artists. The artists put forth no effective opposition. While some artist’s representatives and the relevant labor unions opposed the legislation creating the exemption, the artists did not have an effective lobbying organization. Not one artist testified for or even participated in the opposition.

Then in 2000, the record companies again, like thieves in the night, put an amendment in a rather innocuous bill before Congress that would have taken away artists’ ownership of their copyrights in the future. This was the so-called “Work for Hire Amendment”. Alas, the record companies awoke the sleeping giant. A slew of artists lead by Don Henley and Sheryl Crow formed the Recording Artists Coalition, went to Washington and had the bill overturned the very next year."

"Artists and record companies need each other. The artists need the record companies to invest in and market their music. The fantasy of a direct relationship with the fan/consumer using technology and the Internet is just that, a fantasy."

Hopefully not for long. I think the internet is just now beginning to mature and companies are starting to realize that you can do more with a website than just the usual "about us, contact us" sites.

Anything that does damage to the RIAA and the 5 labels that control 90% of the music market is good! Their sickening greed is destroying musical diversity and culture. I usually don't make such subjective remarks but everytime I read about the RIAA I get in a Joe Pesci-Good Fellas-pencil stabbing kind of mood.....

Derlaine
07-20-2003, 08:12 AM
i said i wouldn't post but :P i think these two posts on Slashdot sum up basically unarguable arguments against RIAA and why you should not support them, probably what we have each been feeling inside but could not find words to express

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71705&cid=6479970


Piracy has NOTHING to do with this, otherwise the RIAA would be spending their lobbying bucks on getting Congress to pressure foriegn governments into closing down bootleg CD PRESSING PLANTS pumping out bogus RIAA member content by the millions of copies

Illegal? Certainly. But only because they bought and paid for politicians to make it so. The law said "swap audio on analog tape = legal, swap audio as broadcast-quality digital files - go to jail."


and

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=71705&cid=6477690


if you can hear anything you want on P2P, you don't have to listen to the radio. This means you aren't hearing what the songs they want to hype, and you aren't listening to the commercials for the products they want to sell.

it's true, i basically stopped buying "normal" music from major labels after i discovered mp3s on the net...i drop all my money onto mostly foreign music (jpnese and european usually ) that is much more experimental than the tripe we're fed on radio and tv. i went from Spice Girls (ugh...) to stuff you can't even find on kazaa like Fra Foa, Safri Duo, Alisha's Attic, DAI etc. i'm sure you guys know many more people like me...we spend hundreds on indie / foreign stuff but we don't give a poot about the crap they hype on mass media.

gmask
07-20-2003, 07:23 PM
>>>Illegal? Certainly. But only because they bought and paid for politicians to make it so. The law said "swap audio on analog tape = legal, swap audio as broadcast-quality digital files - go to jail."

I see a difference between trading a file with a single friend and making that file available to millions of people that you don't know.


>>> if you can hear anything you want on P2P, you don't have to listen to the radio. This means you aren't hearing what the songs they want to hype, and you aren't listening to the commercials for the products they want to sell.

It also means that royalties aren't being paid. If the music in question was voluntarily realised without royalties then that's fine but their contention is that the major labels are not.

It will be a long road before copyright law changes such that this kind of file exchange woul dbe considered fair use. Given the scale and that fact the whole works are being traded there are many reasons why this aspect of the copyright law will not and cannot change. Not because of how it relatse to p2p file sharing and the music industry but because it would effect the rights of anyone who has intellectual property.

Many people here have said I don't listen to the major labels or even download music so then do you really have anything to worry about?


For example given what you guys are saying.. how would you feel if a company started siphoning art work off of websites and redistributing it without proper credit or contact information to the artist who created it and on top of that profited by doing so?

Derlaine
07-21-2003, 04:56 AM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

gmask
07-21-2003, 05:58 AM
>>>Now as crazy as this sounds I think all we're asking for is RIAA to look the other way. ( coming from asia, i think (and many asians think) america is obsessed with lawyers and sueing every damned thing they can ) In Japan fans make an industry out of earning money from copyrighted characters. Basically they make everything from costumes of Final Fantasy characters and sell them , to printing stationary (bookmarks, keychains, stickers, notebooks etc) of Pokemon characters and sell those.

It's kind of nauseating that so many will obviously spend alot of money and effort to buy and create merchandise and then not give a single concern to paying the artist. Do most japanese bands make their money doing live shows. Do they have to sell their legit merchandise next to a horde of conterfeiters?

If it's cultural difference then I hope artists are put on some kind of pedastal to make up for the lack of financial support.

You can't ask the RIAA to look the other way because as long as they have the power they will abuse it. It seems clear that they will continue on this course. They have deep pockets and even though they complain about losses they are probably still making quite a few dollars and will happily spend it on this pissing match.

Again I wil reassert that US listeners will have to do more that complain about how it's unfair on chat rooms. I think part of it is by boycotting the music industry. If they are not respecting their audience then the audience should turn their back. Or is it too hard to put the "crack pipe" down?



>>>- no one profits from sharing music, in fact its bad for your hdd to work it so hard

I suppose bootleggers don't get their material from downloads but even still kazaa does profit.. even if they aren't storing the music on their systems but they do facilitate and advertise their software with phrases like "download free music".

Derlaine
07-21-2003, 06:15 AM
deleted text because i can't delete the post

gmask
07-21-2003, 08:42 AM
>>>Cultural difference has a big role...Americans , from an asian's perspective, are really obsessed about "insurance", "copyrights" , "lawyers" and "sueing". I find it really amusing you think of it as "nauseating" , when for me all this sueing and insurance looks like plain greed to me :P

Okay "nauseating" was a poor choice of words..

>>>it's not that the fans are doing this to earn money, it's more for the fun of it , and whatever money we get is so insignificant....or we use it to spend more money on the industry.

Okay we're fan art is not the issue. It really has nothing to do with downloading. Besides those would be derivative works.

red_oddity
07-21-2003, 10:12 AM
Hmmm, i've no time to read through 7 pages of flaming and arguing, so here's just my 2 cents...

First, did someone notice this?:
A new bill proposed in Congress on Wednesday would land a person in prison for five years and impose a fine of $250,000 for uploading a single file to a peer-to-peer network.

How the hell do you upload something on a P2P network like Kazaa???...only when someone else is downloading it from your computer...
So, if i wouldn't know where exactly my shared folder is for a P2P network (most people don't know, or what else is shared), it could mean any joker could probably download any file from my computer that shouldn't be downloaded (for example my original PS7 folder?....illegal?..sure...but my fault?...)


Anyway...

Another thing, what the f- does a company like RIAA do anyway? I'll tell you what...

They allow large importers (DVD/CD) to make rules and laws like:

Parallel import...whenever a DVD/CD is being printed/pressed/imported alread by one company (read 'the biggest with the most money monopolising the others), it is ILLEGAL to import the same DVD/CD from another country...you will get FINED as a company (or maybe soon even as an individual)...
What does that mean? well, just look at the last US elections and take a good look at Florida where people wheren't allowed to vote just because they had a open traffic fine ('hey, you're a criminal...no voting for you buddy')

It's just another law to slowly but surely strip us of any free will and choises as an individual...Companies will tell you what to watch ,eat drink, like, etc... (Orwell's 1984 anyone?)


I'm not even getting started about the outragous prices for DVDs and CDs, as those are totally off this world these days...and you can't tell me a 10% or 20% lower sales one year justifies doubling prices...(they did...5 years ago a Disney film cost 40/45 guilders (dutch currency before that damnable euro), now they cost...that's right 30/35 euros...calculated back that would be (30 x 2.20) 66 guilders :surprised (thats' a 65% raise in price...not 10% or 20%)

Anyway...i can go on and on about campanies trying to control my life, but i don't as most people (joe average, who doesn 't look any further than his penis is long) dont' give a damn...the moment they do however, big brother better watch his ass...an angry mob is dangerous thing...

xynaria
07-21-2003, 12:15 PM
All this 'talk' about protecting artists royalties yet I see no indication that any fines levied are going to go to the artists :)

gmask
07-21-2003, 05:52 PM
>>>How the hell do you upload something on a P2P network like Kazaa???...only when someone else is downloading it from your computer...


Even in a p2p exchange one person is "uploading" or providing the download.

>>>What does that mean? well, just look at the last US elections and take a good look at Florida where people wheren't allowed to vote just because they had a open traffic fine ('hey, you're a criminal...no voting for you buddy')

I don't see what this has to do with import/export laws but if you have link about peoel not being able to vote because of open traffic tickets I'd like to see it. In the US you can't vote if you are a felon but not being able to vote because of tracket tickets is absurd.

>>>I'm not even getting started about the outragous prices for DVDs and CDs, as those are totally off this world these days...and you can't tell me a 10% or 20% lower sales one year justifies doubling prices...(they did...5 years ago a Disney film cost 40/45 guilders (dutch currency before that damnable euro), now they cost...that's right 30/35 euros...calculated back that would be (30 x 2.20) 66 guilders :surprised (thats' a 65% raise in price...not 10% or 20%)

Sounds like half the problem is the exchange rate in your country.

>>>Anyway...i can go on and on about campanies trying to control my life.

It's pretty ironic to hear someone in Holland concerned about "freedoms" as in comparison to the US you have quite a few that we don't. Besides having to pay more for something doesn't really qualify as big brother IMO.. but if you were used to paying less or not at all then I can see who it would be distressful but it's not really a matter of freedom but of commerce.

Again I will reasert.. if you don't like this you need to write you politicians and you need to stop watching the media that is related to it. Why have they gotten so far.. it is because cosumers simple can't help themselves. The I want my MTV" generation is going to get it in spades.

gmask
07-21-2003, 08:25 PM
For US citizens here's where you can find out who to write to in your state to effect some change or prevent this law.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

http://www.senate.gov/

red_oddity
07-22-2003, 09:34 AM
Nah, i don't watch tv anymore...except Nickelodeon...and NGC and Discovery...
MTV, well, put in their language, sucks...as do all those other so called music televisions...heck, so do all dutch commercial tv stations...

But yes, most of my complaints are commercial, BUT, that IS how it starts isn't it...hell just look at who controls who in the US, who pays for all those senators campains???

Holland is going in that direction aswell, for some reason we all want to be like the US...(no offence ment towards the US residents, more your politics and foreign policies)

I noted CDs/DVDs, but the price of food has doubled aswell, a lot of families (with low income...single welfare mothers for example) don't get by anymore...ring a bell?...
Right now, our government is cutting budgets for : education, welfare, social security...the friggin pilars of our society...


Oh, and if you think being able to smoke weed is freedom, please...
I never voted for a bill that allowed weed to be sold on every friggin corner...
'Hey, i got an idea, let's numb their minds, tv is doing not enough damage not fast enough, let's legislate weed....yeah...'


Ahwell, maybe i'm all wrong (i hope) and does it all mean nothing...

halo
07-22-2003, 11:47 AM
Michael Jackson 'speechless' on P2P jail bill
By Drew Cullen
Posted: 22/07/2003 at 10:38 GMT


Michael Jackson has slammed a proposed US bill which could see music file traders jailed for downloading just one illegal copy.

In a statement, the superstar said. "I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to illegally download, but the answer cannot be jail."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31872.html

says it all really....

xynaria
07-22-2003, 03:07 PM
LOL Comes to something when even mad people talk sense innit. :D

thatbrickwall
07-22-2003, 03:58 PM
The recording industry is blind and shortsighted, not because of their protests against file sharing but their immature method of handling it.

To my knowledge, they are one of the most ridiculously structured industries. They rip off the majority of artists, pay their poster boys well, and then turn around to price gouge their customers. In a normal industry, a more competitive company would look at the outrageous prices their competitors charge, then take the opportunity to storm the market by undercutting them. No such luck in the recording industry. Instead, the major labels create a setup so that wherever the artist turns, he/she is faced by horrible contracts. And wherever the consumer turns, he/she is faced with horribly inefficient distribution and prices. The railroads were slammed by the government for this type of "pooling." The music industry, on the other hand, seems to be above the laws that regulate other industries.

In addition, the recording industry contributes to the general misinformation that is fed to the general public. They skew statisitcs and accounting to draw pity towards them, while other companies are getting slammed for "deceptive accounting practices." They purport to know all about the dark side of the internet, while they are technologically inept enough to allow their servers to be hacked about 6 times in the space of several months.

They crush competition and individual people. The RIAA only allows corporate interests, and dares to suggest that "normal people" cannot make music. To make up for their ineptitude, the RIAA has resorted to litigation and under-the-table legislation. And when that fails, what kind of half-baked new solution do they present to Congress? Nothing less than endorsing the legalization of the corporate-backed vigilante.

They complain that their online pay services cannot compete with free filesharing. The natural explanation for this is that the recording companies, sadly enough, don't really know what they're doing.
On the other hand, Apple's iTunes Music Store has sold about 1 million songs a week on average since its inception. And they are limited by OS requirements to selling music only to about 3% of all computer users. In other words, a computer company has demonstrated greater skill in selling music online than the music companies.

It is apparent that either the recording companies are completely incompetent, or the limitations and fetters that the recording industry wants to place on its paying customers, much less the non-paying ones, are the cause of their woes. And their woes (the "drop in sales") aren't even that big. (Can you say "economic slump?") Instead of finding a positive solution to their fundamental issues, they have decided to blame filesharing for every tremor that wakes them during their midday siesta. It will be up to the Apples of this world to bail them out.

xynaria
07-22-2003, 04:22 PM
Good pointsIMHO thatbrickwall...the thing is the record industry doesn''t actaully do anything other than distribute and market.. it doesn't actually make music. Hell even Micro$$$$$$$$$$oft make software... but the recording industry doesn't make music..it is reliant on the artists to do that and if sales are slumping a lot of that can also be blamed on the fact that 'music' is at an all time low in terms of inspiration and relevance, hence the rampant incestuousness of the 'manufactured' groups and their rise to their brief periods of at least financial profitabilty. :)

gmask
07-22-2003, 05:28 PM
>>>I noted CDs/DVDs, but the price of food has doubled aswell, a lot of families (with low income...single welfare mothers for example) don't get by anymore...ring a bell?...

Well it seems like Holland got the short end of the stick in joining the EU.

Of course we have a president that can miracously pronounce tax cuts after sinking the country into the more of a deficit than ever.

>>>Oh, and if you think being able to smoke weed is freedom, please...
I never voted for a bill that allowed weed to be sold on every friggin corner...
'Hey, i got an idea, let's numb their minds, tv is doing not enough damage not fast enough, let's legislate weed....yeah...'

It probably brings alot of tourists to Holland that and the legal prostitution.

Anyway .. I suppose anyone in any country should write their politicians if they actually want to do something about this law.




It's great when you have lunatics like Michael Jackson denouncing it but his public identity is probably not in sync with his wallet or record label. He'll say just about anything to get on TV or in the news and make nice with the kids.

xynaria
07-22-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by gmask

It's great when you have lunatics like Michael Jackson denouncing it but his public identity is probably not in sync with his wallet or record label. He'll say just about anything to get on TV or in the news and make nice with the kids.

He may be somewhat at a remove to most peoples conception of 'reality'.....which given his life was almost inevitable... but he is is still one of the biggest selling artists in history and whilst he has possibly erroneously blamed his record company for poor sales..it is perhaps pertinent that he hasn't blamed P2P..then why should he because at heart the RIAA despite what crap it espouses isn't and hasn't any interest in the artists and their receiving royalties.. they are only talking for the record companies .. not the artists or the fans. :)

gmask
07-22-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
He may be somewhat at a remove to most peoples conception of 'reality'.....which given his life was almost inevitable... but he is is still one of the biggest selling artists in history and whilst he has possibly erroneously blamed his record company for poor sales..it is perhaps pertinent that he hasn't blamed P2P..then why should he because at heart the RIAA despite what crap it espouses isn't and hasn't any interest in the artists and their receiving royalties.. they are only talking for the record companies .. not the artists or the fans. :)

Jackson can certainly afford a few downloads .. my point being that he isn't exactly the poster boy I would want for artists and listener advocacy. It would be like have Hannibal Lecter speak for "the mind is a terrible thing to waste" campaign.

If wanted to make a statement about free music then maybe he could release of the copyrights he holds for the Beatles into the public domain. Or did he sell those off from the last time he got sued for child molestation.

He's also being prosecuted for tax evasion because he has been writing off Neverland ranch as a farm. I think he is after good PR and is not really interested effecting any change. Otherwise he and some of the rich artists out there should form their own lobby or fund the ones that exist.

Send your politicians a letter.

dpvtank
07-22-2003, 06:46 PM
Not having read the entire thread, i would like to give my 2 cents.

I believe that what the Apple music store is going is in the right direction. Music is not cheap, and most of them are overpriced.

The question really is that just because you CAN download illegally doesn't mean you SHOULD. the RIAA threats mostly people who are doing warez. However, others are also at risk. For example, if you have some top secret type documents about your company (which u didnt steal ;) ) or some highly personal documents, RIAA can look through those files..

Not only does that invade privacy. personally, big brother has given RIAA too much power and authority. And that is going to their heads. WHat the Apple music store is doing is heading in the right direction. Good affordable music.

And what many people don't realise is that there is some very good music out there which is available for download for free. You just have to look hard enough. For example, much of my music folder contains music which I have got from mp3.com. ONly some of it contains albums which I bouhght from the store.

as for standing up to RIAA. there is www.boycott-riaa.com/

xynaria
07-22-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by gmask
Jackson can certainly afford a few downloads .. my point being that he isn't exactly the poster boy I would want for artists and listener advocacy. It would be like have Hannibal Lecter speak for "the mind is a terrible thing to waste" campaign.


The fact that most think El Wacko is close to bankruptcy technically would lend weight to the arguement that he can't in fact afford downloads if they were actually depriving him of revenue..... as to whether you want to hold him up as some kind of role model or not .. that is of course a whole other story and full of contradictions. I don't in any way think he's trying to make a statement about free music and never to my knowledge ever has, I think that is the last thing he would want..ok ..it might be good PR.. but then wouldn't siding with the RIAA be, if he thought he was going to gain from their actions. :)

gmask
07-22-2003, 07:34 PM
>>>I believe that what the Apple music store is going is in the right direction. Music is not cheap, and most of them are overpriced.

Yes and how can such a service compete against the free for for all that is currently going on without some enforcement of the law?

>>>The question really is that just because you CAN download illegally doesn't mean you SHOULD. the RIAA threats mostly people who are doing warez.

The wording of the law does include software and movies but wether or not the politicians are funded by the RIAA or not they are not ones that will be enforcing the law. I think that the RIAA would only be iunterested in music.. or is illegal music also warez.. I allways thought the meant software?


>>>However, others are also at risk. For example, if you have some top secret type documents about your company (which u didnt steal ;) ) or some highly personal documents, RIAA can look through those files..

This does bring to question how it is exactly that the RIAA is gettingf the IP addresses in the first place? I'm thinking that they must be goign onto these services and downloading music and recording the IP addresses of those they are downloading from.

I alos hav eto wonder if th ereason why thety are currently only prusueing uploaders is becaus ethe only way the could conveniently catch downlaoders is by makign files availabe from their servers and catching IP adresses of downloaders that way.. but I think that would be entrapment.

In any other situation if you are doing something illegal and the police have a search warrant and they find you in possesion of contraband or committing other crimes they can and will prosecute for those additional crimes. It is the police that will enter the premisses not Jackbooted RIAA MIB's as you might think. I don't know exactly what would happen to a computer but I'm sure that it probably remains in possesion of law enforcement not in the hands of those who are sueing... at least I should hope not.

>>>And what many people don't realise is that there is some very good music out there which is available for download for free. You just have to look hard enough.

Another problem is that when you are using one of the free for all download programs you cannot really tell what is legally being distributed or not. If you look at shareware software vendors they all have variation son what they will allow as far as redistribution etc. So even if an artist gave away a song they may not have given away the right for it to be redistributed willy nilly or most certainly did not give away the right for it to resold. I think most people will agreeably draw the line at bootleg sales.



BTW did you know that there is still a copyright being held on the song "Happy Birthday"

gmask
07-22-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
The fact that most think El Wacko is close to bankruptcy technically would lend weight to the arguement that he can't in fact afford downloads if they were actually depriving him of revenue..... as to whether you want to hold him up as some kind of role model or not .. that is of course a whole other story and full of contradictions. I don't in any way think he's trying to make a statement about free music and never to my knowledge ever has, I think that is the last thing he would want..ok ..it might be good PR.. but then wouldn't siding with the RIAA be, if he thought he was going to gain from their actions. :)


He is sueing Motown for non-payment of royalties as well as his current record label.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3022737.stm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/entertainment/DailyNews/Jackson020708.html


At any rate Michael will do just about anything to stay int he limelight.. his career is running out of steam, he spends money like it was cheaper than water. I think he is trying to play both sides.. he on one hand knows that he needs his fans but is clearly losing them and then on the other he blames the industry for ripping him off on royalties. With his recent record flop you know that there weren't many royalties to collect in the first place since th erecoed cost $30 mil and he only sold a couple of million records. At $15 to $20 a pop that might be $5 mil in profit at the most.

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download, but the answer cannot be jail," Jackson said in a statement released Monday."

I just noticed that Jacksons statement is also apparently a misunderstanding of the proposed law.. the workding says they are after uploaders not downloaders.. he doesn't specifically criticise the RIAA either.



Here's another interesting article..

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/19/downloading.music.ap/index.html

"The Recording Industry Association of America has said it expects to file at least several hundred lawsuits seeking financial damages within the next eight weeks. U.S. copyright laws allow for damages of $750 to $150,000 for each song offered illegally on a person's computer, but the RIAA has said it would be open to settlement proposals from defendants. "

How about let me off with a warning?

"Many of the subpoenas reviewed by the AP identified songs from the same few artists, including Avril Lavigne, Snoop Dogg and Michael Jackson. "

thatbrickwall
07-22-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by gmask
>>>I believe that what the Apple music store is going is in the right direction. Music is not cheap, and most of them are overpriced.

Yes and how can such a service compete against the free for for all that is currently going on without some enforcement of the law?



It can and is currently. The store has averaged 1 million songs a week since it was launched - and it was launched before the recent wave of frivolous bills. This is quite a large number when you consider the fact that currently only Apple users can purchase from the store.

The reason? People still don't like encountering porn when all they want is music, or wading through the sometimes unstable reaches of Kazaaland, but they will in the absence of a better, more efficient system like Apple's. Apple has had material success -- unlike the ventures sponsored by the recording companies because of this. Ever wonder why bottled water companies make so much money?

gmask
07-22-2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by thatbrickwall
It can and is. The store has averaged 1 million songs a week since it was launched. This is quite a large number when you consider the fact that currently only Apple users can purchase from the store.

Well but you could also say that Apple has a captive audience for advertising because many new users or first time buyers may not be really aware of the file sharing thing initially and buy into Apple's service. I'm not criticising their service and I'm glad that they are doing well but since only Apple users can take adavantage of it.. I highly doubt windows users are buying Macs because of the music service.

Although I did read in one of these reports that it is estimated that users of programs like Kazaa has dropped from somewhere around 3-4 million to 1 million because of the recent lawsuits.

Is there not a music service for windows users? What about Linux users?

thatbrickwall
07-22-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by gmask
Well but you could also say that Apple has a captive audience for advertising because many new users or first time buyers may not be really aware of the file sharing thing initially and buy into Apple's service. I'm not criticising their service and I'm glad that they are doing well but since only Apple users can take adavantage of it.. I highly doubt windows users are buying Macs because of the music service.

Although I did read in one of these reports that it is estimated that users of programs like Kazaa has dropped from somewhere around 3-4 million to 1 million because of the recent lawsuits.

Is there not a music service for windows users? What about Linux users?

My point was that an online pay service can still thrive in current conditions. A music service for windows was launched today at http://buymusic.com, although its licensing terms don't seem to be as good as Apple's. Apple, I've heard, is also planning to add Windows as well. AFAIK nothing is planned for Linux (unless maybe Apple adds support), most likely because the recording execs probably don't even know it exists.

gmask
07-22-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by thatbrickwall
My point was that an online pay service can still thrive in current conditions. A music service for windows was launched today at http://buymusic.com, although its licensing terms don't seem to be as good as Apple's. Apple, I've heard, is also planning to add Windows as well. AFAIK nothing is planned for Linux (unless maybe Apple adds support), most likely because the recording execs probably don't even know it exists.

Well especially now that Linux commercial users are under threat of law suits if they don't buy a license from SCO.

dpvtank
07-22-2003, 10:34 PM
gmask: when I said free music, I mean free music from websites such as mp3.com and such. Not from p2p applications.

The other thing that RIAA is doing is focusing on one network. That is the Gnutella network (or is it Gnutella2), what they dont realise is that there are varios other networks. IRC is a popular way to distrubute files. And so are various other ways.

In the end, RIAA is fighting a loosing battle.

gmask
07-22-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by dpvtank
gmask: when I said free music, I mean free music from websites such as mp3.com and such. Not from p2p applications.

The other thing that RIAA is doing is focusing on one network. That is the Gnutella network (or is it Gnutella2), what they dont realise is that there are varios other networks. IRC is a popular way to distrubute files. And so are various other ways.

In the end, RIAA is fighting a loosing battle.

Apparently they won an injunction against Aimster recently. There are many ways to distribute files but I think they are focusing on the most well known systems. I'm not very familiar with IRC or how it works but I think it is less user friendly than Kazaa.

They surely are aware of the wide range of Gnutella clients and surely will get around to sueing the makers of each and every one of them. This will take time as apparently the shear number of subpoena's they have obtained so far is causing a back log of paperwork.

If their mission is to raise awareness then it seems to have had some impact. I really don't think they are hoping to prevent any and all illegal distro but they are definately seeking to make laws that will make it easier and less expensive for them to pursue offenders. Over the last 10-20 years many laws have been put into place from their lobbying and it's a bit premature to think that they will go away or give up.

If it's loosing battle it is one that has been going for at least the last hundred years even before recorded music.

xynaria
07-22-2003, 11:30 PM
Slightly lateral perhaps, but pertinent........Just what comparison does this current hounding of relatively easy targets have with 'traditional' pirated music, dvd, software etc, the distributors and vendors of such whom actually make money, and in some cases rather a lot, from their distributions and can't neccessarily fall back on any arguement of having inferior quality as in the case of mp3 against digital audio?.. nor in theory can any arguments regarding availability.

gmask
07-22-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by xynaria
Slightly lateral perhaps, but pertinent........Just what comparison does this current hounding of relatively easy targets have with 'traditional' pirated music, dvd, software etc, the distributors and vendors of such whom actually make money, and in some cases rather a lot, from their distributions and can't neccessarily fall back on any arguement of having inferior quality as in the case of mp3 against digital audio?.. nor in theory can any arguments regarding availability.

I think it has to do with some pirates collecting music from the net and I'm assuming collecting good quality mp3's.

The proposed law among other things allocates more money to the budget for investigating pirates.

thatbrickwall
07-23-2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by gmask


If it's loosing battle it is one that has been going for at least the last hundred years even before recorded music.

I don't really agree with that. It has been only quite recently that entities have been abusing and amending copyright law in the ways it has recently been used, as a stick to beat the user into accepting ridiculous prices from a pool of corporate giants. In addition, it has been only with the advent of massive recording companies that think they are above the law that the "battle" even started.

"Before recorded music:"
People who wished to call themselves artists had to be extremely talented, and there was something among them called competition. Yes, believe it or not, we know who Mozart is because he stayed on top of his game instead of running around complaining that the publishers were publishing unauthorized copies. Then the record companies came, benignly at first, then realizing that more money could be found by installing their manufactured music and encouraging (aka litigating) the "little guys" to leave music up to "professionals." Now they are facing competition once again, and faring very poorly.


Originally posted by xynaria
Slightly lateral perhaps, but pertinent........Just what comparison does this current hounding of relatively easy targets have with 'traditional' pirated music, dvd, software etc, the distributors and vendors of such whom actually make money, and in some cases rather a lot, from their distributions and can't neccessarily fall back on any arguement of having inferior quality as in the case of mp3 against digital audio?.. nor in theory can any arguments regarding availability.

This happens everywhere. Marijuana dealers often get heavier sentences than rapists, etc.

xynaria
07-23-2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by thatbrickwall



This happens everywhere. Marijuana dealers often get heavier sentences than rapists, etc.
LOL Yes .. this is why I asked because as in trying to 'deal' with drug usage much effort and time was spent making the very small fish pay for the big fish simply because they were more defenceless, more ill prepared and basically ineffectual.. they could be profitably penalised as an example whilst nothing was actually done to stem the drug traffic.. after all the only way you can control drugs is to make them legal which in part is also an admittance that you can't eradicate them as such. Again if the RIAA wre really concerned about potentially lost royalty revenues, they would be targeting them just as much as if not more instead of pushing the boundaries of what is considered an acceptable of intrusion into peoples peronal liberty. :)

gmask
07-23-2003, 03:06 AM
>>>Yes, believe it or not, we know who Mozart is because he stayed on top of his game instead of running around complaining that the publishers were publishing unauthorized copies.

Okay well in his time the artist certainly had to look after his own affairs but this says to me that artists have been fighting for their copyrights for hundreds of years and still do ...it's just that the individual artists efforts these days are over shadowed by the record companies. There are small artist who are angered by the unauthorized downloading of their music. They cannot afford to finance tours or the marchandising that some say is the way of the future.

Should music artist have to beg for a living to maintain their integrity?


>>>This happens everywhere. Marijuana dealers often get heavier sentences than rapists, etc.

Please cite which states give heavier penalties for drug dealing over rape because in many states the maximum sentence for rape can be the death penalty whereas I have never heard of a drug dealer getting the death penalty.

xynaria
07-23-2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by gmask
. There are small artist who are angered by the unauthorized downloading of their music. They cannot afford to finance tours or the marchandising that some say is the way of the future.

Please cite examples :D





Please cite which states give heavier penalties for drug dealing over rape because in many states the maximum sentence for rape can be the death penalty whereas I have never heard of a drug dealer getting the death penalty.

There are quite a few people on this board who actually understand the concept of a discussion, however you persist in refusing to acknowledge that somewhat noble convention. Purposely misconstruing or refusing to actually read and understand reapeatedly what another person is saying does not aid in having a discussion.
Thatbrickinthewall clearly says as you can see in your quote..IN SOME CASES... he/she does not argue that in all cases there are mandatory criminal punishments that exceed the harshest criminal penalty for rape that is held by some or any states. Asking for proof of such is as unhelpful as it is lunatic. You must know that there are rarely set mandatory sentences for rape or drug dealing. :)

dpvtank
07-23-2003, 03:57 AM
Apparently they won an injunction against Aimster recently. There are many ways to distribute files but I think they are focusing on the most well known systems. I'm not very familiar with IRC or how it works but I think it is less user friendly than Kazaa.

They surely are aware of the wide range of Gnutella clients and surely will get around to sueing the makers of each and every one of them. This will take time as apparently the shear number of subpoena's they have obtained so far is causing a back log of paperwork.

Well, you see, this is the dough. The person who makes the client is not responsible for what users trade using the client.

If you would apply the same logic, then we should sue the government for starting the internet in the first place. The person makes a client, a means to connect to the server.

Yes, from my warez days (which I have long since stopped), IRC is quite difficult to use. However, I am sure if they shut down the Gnutella networks, other new networks will popup.

When napster got shut down, people started thinking of ways to transfer files without getting the orignator of the network, or the file in trouble. Thus, p2p became extremely popular. If they shut down Gnutella network and such, more intelligent technologies will come up. No matter how hard they try, there is always going to be that smarter person out there who can outsmart the RIAA.

gmask
07-23-2003, 04:17 AM
>>>Well, you see, this is the dough. The person who makes the client is not responsible for what users trade using the client.

Well despite that the RIAA continues to sue each maker of p2p softwares. Apparently they allready lost a suit against Grokster.

>>>If you would apply the same logic, then we should sue the government for starting the internet in the first place. The person makes a client, a means to connect to the server.

That would be interesting.maybe they should try that.

>>>Yes, from my warez days (which I have long since stopped), IRC is quite difficult to use. However, I am sure if they shut down the Gnutella networks, other new networks will popup.

I'm not doubting that.

>>>When napster got shut down, people started thinking of ways to transfer files without getting the orignator of the network, or the file in trouble. Thus, p2p became extremely popular. If they shut down Gnutella network and such, more intelligent technologies will come up. No matter how hard they try, there is always going to be that smarter person out there who can outsmart the RIAA.

Well as long as the record industry manages to sell a few billion records every year they will probably contine to sue.. it seems to be their nature. I suppose if they make enough of a nuisance of themselves to the government they will lose favor and have to accept it or go bankrupt.

gmask
07-23-2003, 04:38 AM
>>>Please cite examples :D

Here's an artist who is protective of his copyrights and isn;t a millionaire.

http://pub90.ezboard.com/fthesubconclubfrm7.showMessage?topicID=33.topic


>>>There are quite a few people on this board who actually understand the concept of a discussion, however you persist in refusing to acknowledge that somewhat noble convention. Purposely misconstruing or refusing to actually read and understand reapeatedly what another person is saying does not aid in having a discussion.

Hmmm.. I should take everything I read on an internet forum as being factually correct.. no thanks I'll keep my skepticism.

Maybe it's just that you don't like my opinions and since you ran out of relative arguments several pages ago you've decided to repeatably attack me. How noble of you.

>>Thatbrickinthewall clearly says as you can see in your quote..IN SOME CASES... he/she does not argue that in all cases there are mandatory criminal punishments that exceed the harshest criminal penalty for rape that is held by some or any states. Asking for proof of such is as unhelpful as it is lunatic. You must know that there are rarely set mandatory sentences for rape or drug dealing. :)


Actually he says "often" not "in some cases". For one bringing rape and drug dealing into this debate is OT. But it is also another to make such a comparison without understanding the laws as they are. The penalties for rape have become far harsher in recent years. Not to mention that in most states statutory rape despite the consentuality of it will get you a madatory sentence of 7+ years. But you say that mandatory sentences are never given out... plea bargains often do result in lowered sentences but this is not unique to sex crimes.

For rape you can be sued in civil court so even if Kobe Bryant is acquited in criminal court he could lose his shirt in civil court.
That's hardly getting off scott free.

Sex offenders have to register where they live in every state..even for minor offenses.. that's not to be taken lightly I would say.

I must be crazy to ask for facts on an online forum.. no-one ever presented facts in a debate.. how rude of me to ask for them.

If you want to debate or have a discussion then please do but resorting to attacking my comments on a personal level or by making insulting comments it is hardly noble or a proper form for debate or discussion. It is rather juvenile to conduct yourself that way. :love:

xynaria
07-23-2003, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by gmask
If you want to debate or have a discussion then please do but resorting to attacking my comments on a personal level or by making insulting comments it is hardly noble or a proper form for debate or discussion. It is rather juvenile to conduct yourself that way. :love:
What I want is for you to recognise your constant misconstruing of other peoples observations and to desist in doing it..this is not a personal attack upon you or an insult but an observation of something that as I've stated is far from helpful to any discussion. That is not being juvenile as you know doubt know, but it is bourne of exasperation. You may not be interested in others points of view .. but I am.
I believe the analogies to the approach for dealing with drugs and rape to be valid in context although again not as misappropiated by yourself. Whilst more common sense does appear over the years to have affected the legal system, in some cases, it is not uncommon knowledge that relative sentences for some crimes have been very inappropiate in the same way as some view what the RIAA favours now. Does anyone keep a note of all court cases that have appeared unfair .. I don't but I'm not going to attempt to speak for what others may or may not do.

gmask
07-23-2003, 05:41 AM
>>>What I want is for you to recognise your constant misconstruing of other peoples observations and to desist in doing it..

You'll have to give an examp,e as I don't know what you are talking about.


>>>this is not a personal attack upon you or an insult but an observation of something that as I've stated is far from helpful to any discussion. That is not being juvenile as you know doubt know, but it is bourne of exasperation.

If you are so exasperated you could stop posting.


>>>You may not be interested in others points of view .. but I am.
I believe the analogies to the approach for dealing with drugs and rape to be valid in context although again not as misappropiated by yourself. Whilst more common sense does appear over the years to have affected the legal system, in some cases, it is not uncommon knowledge that relative sentences for some crimes have been very inappropiate in the same way as some view what the RIAA favours now. Does anyone keep a note of all court cases that have appeared unfair .. I don't but I'm not going to attempt to speak for what others may or may not do.

If you were a US citizen you could follow my advice to write your sentors etc.. but then that would be admitting that I have had helpful commentary on the situation.

xynaria
07-23-2003, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by gmask


You'll have to give an examp,e as I don't know what you are talking about.
I have constantly given you examples but you refuse to or are seemingly unable to recognise them


If you are so exasperated you could stop posting.
I'd still have to read them as you don't just do it to to me....I've also asked that if you have some kind of communication problem with me to do it off the board and allow the thread to be about peoples opinions but you ignored it completely




If you were a US citizen you could follow my advice to write your sentors etc.. but then that would be admitting that I have had helpful commentary on the situation.

Very very fortunately I'm not, and had you actually been helpful as opposed to arrogant and arguably deluded, I'd be the first to thank you. Goodnight.

gmask
07-23-2003, 07:16 AM
>>>Very very fortunately I'm not, and had you actually been helpful as opposed to arrogant and arguably deluded, I'd be the first to thank you. Goodnight.


Blah blah blah.. Talk to the Hand ...:love:

thatbrickwall
07-23-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by gmask
>>>Yes, believe it or not, we know who Mozart is because he stayed on top of his game instead of running around complaining that the publishers were publishing unauthorized copies.

Okay well in his time the artist certainly had to look after his own affairs but this says to me that artists have been fighting for their copyrights for hundreds of years and still do ...it's just that the individual artists efforts these days are over shadowed by the record companies. There are small artist who are angered by the unauthorized downloading of their music. They cannot afford to finance tours or the marchandising that some say is the way of the future.

Should music artist have to beg for a living to maintain their integrity?



Of course, most small musicians make the significant chunk of their money from playing live at local (that word is key) events, so the arguments that p2p hurts "mainly the small artists" is not terribly informative.

gmask
07-23-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by thatbrickwall
Of course, most small musicians make the significant chunk of their money from playing live at local (that word is key) events, so the arguments that p2p hurts "mainly the small artists" is not terribly informative.

Well in the case of the artist whose link I posted earlier it is more difficult for him to earn income that way. Especially when you are talking about studio artists and ones who use primarily electronic equipment to perform it is not allways a simple takes to play out. He also is an artist who was more or less well known in the late 80's early 90's and still has a following and really counts on the income from the back catalog. So I dunno if he qualifies as a "small musician". Obviously if you are so small that you have never recording anything then the issue of copyright hardly applies unless you get bootlegged taped at your shows.

I will say that for some artists the bootleg recording of live shows can actually be a good thing if for no other reason than posterity. But if they had recorded it themselves and the someone else publishes it online then they are being denied their right to first sale.

In his case when he releases a set of previously unreleased recordings and they are immediately availabe via p2p networks.

Although from looking at his website he doesn't appear to provide any samples although I guess his fan base should be familiar enough with the music to know wether or not they want to buy it without hearing it beforehand.

I don't think I said that p2p mainly hurts small artists but they certainly have more to lose in proportion to the record labels and they can do even less about copyright infringements.

I think it is patronizing to tell an artist that they have to play for a living. Nobody pays to watch a painter paint.. the end product is what is valuable. Music is a different medium but in an age where DJ's are very popular and certainly don't play traditional instruments the concept of a performance has changed.

For obscure, experimental and industrial artists in order to play for living means traveling to major cities all over the world and that is not cheap to do. Touring is certainly nothing less than an ordeal. Traveling may be easy for a DJ cause these days all they need is a few small pieces of equipment and at worst a trunk of vinyl and a flight case for their turntables. For electronic musicians you got that times ten easily.

In an age where DJ culture seems to be taking over I can see why the concept of copyright is diminished as authorship of that type of music in particular is hard to define when layers upon layers of music from a multitude of sources is blended. Who owns what? Who knows? The online system of distribution makes alot of sense and for a fulltime DJ the shows are what's important and as I understand copyright law live performance is pretty much in the clear even if profit is involved.

Nocturn
07-23-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by gmask


I don't think I said that p2p mainly hurts small artists but they certainly have more to lose in proportion to the record labels and they can do even less about copyright infringements.

If you want to put things in proportion, artist loose a lot more from the contracts they are forced to sign then from p2p.

I think it is patronizing to tell an artist that they have to play for a living.

Well how else are they going to survive? Will they get airtime on the radio? Forget about it. As thatbrickwall wrote they survive by making local gigs. There is a catch here because if the band is gaining popularity the record company then forces them on nationwide or perhaps worldwide tours and the band does not have a say in it. It's in their contract. They are forced to tour until they basically drop dead from exhaustion. I'm exaggerating here, but just a bit;)

the end product is what is valuable.

The end product has no value if nobody knows about them.

This is the key problem really. Distribution. Artists need an organisation that can distribute and market their music. The record companies are trying to delay online distribution as long as possible, even if they do something like Apple has.

Why? Because no matter how they choose to do it, they will eventually loose on it, or at least not make the amount of money they are used to.

Why? Because once online distribution gains popularity and more cd's are sold online then via stores, artists will realize, hey what do I need these clowns for? I can just make my own website and sell my stuff directly. OR via a site that perhaps only charges artists a fee for keeping their music, sort of like turbosquid or renderosity. It's not such a far fetched idea is it? Artists would surely be paid more then the 7-13% they get from record companies.

Ofcourse there is still the problem of radio. The -96 Telecommunications Act, the deregulation of radio which resulted in just two companies, Clear Channel and Infinity controlling most of the US commercial radio stations. Clear Channel also has a network of concert-promotion companies, controlling the touring business as well.

I have no idea why the US government made such a law, there should be IMO laws that limit the amount of properties that a single company can control. Now television and cable companies want the government to give them the same deal. What good can come of this?

gmask
07-23-2003, 10:52 PM
>>>If you want to put things in proportion, artist loose a lot more from the contracts they are forced to sign then from p2p.

Okay well that's a whole other issue and in some cases the person screwing over the band could be a faimly member.. as in the Beach Boys.. there is no accounting for greed at any level.



>>>Well how else are they going to survive? Will they get airtime on the radio? Forget about it. As thatbrickwall wrote they survive by making local gigs. There is a catch here because if the band is gaining popularity the record company then forces them on nationwide or perhaps worldwide tours and the band does not have a say in it. It's in their contract. They are forced to tour until they basically drop dead from exhaustion. I'm exaggerating here, but just a bit;)

Okay for an unknown artist there is alot to gain from putting your music on the net and when you are unknown you as the artist are the one who will most likely decide as to wether or not the music will get distributed not an anonymous third party.

Touring is exhausting.. hell I threw my back out the one time I did stage crew help for Danzig moving 500 lb bass amps off the stage with 5 people helping. It took me two weeks to recover from that. Anyway their show wasn't exactly small but they were no Michael Jackson or Madonna either.

>>>The end product has no value if nobody knows about them.

There has been disputes over wether or not the families of famous painters (some of which died as paupers) deserve to get a percentage of the money from the huge insane auction prices their work from when they were "unknown" fetch.

To say that the end product has no value is dimuitive to the artist. I think most artists place a very high personal value on their work. Because they are unknown may only mean that they have not tapped the fiscal value of their work. You have to start somewhere but given the right venue. Alot of hard work and talent you can make a living making art. Although in some cases suffering will make good art and as soon as they artists profits from it they may loose that spark. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the chance to be successful.

>>>This is the key problem really. Distribution. Artists need an organisation that can distribute and market their music. The record companies are trying to delay online distribution as long as possible, even if they do something like Apple has.

I guess the difficulty when trying to organize an artist run record label is that you will have to swim with the sharks and it is hard to find somebody both willing and qualified to do that who will not become a shark in the end. I witnesed this first hand with the company that I worked with and for over a ten year period. They hired a business manager and gave hima stake in the bizness cause they couldn't afford to pay him much intially then he changed the focus of the business which eventually led to the displeasure of the artists orientated co-owners. The only solution in the end was for the company to dissolve. However there was a lawsuit at one time with a former owner that dragged on for years and ended up costing both parties alot of money with no gain.

Management no matter what it's intentions tends to go south over time. Most bands need leaders ..I have never know a nband that did not have squabbles over this. I have a wide range of artist friends in LA and more than once I have heard one of them say..just imagien what we could do if we were a company and they main thing I could think of who would be in charge of that disaster? Art and business don't mix well. Too many egos and other intangible issues but still it is a way to earn a living.

It's still alot of effort for some bands to manage their on online presence and sales. Pretty much anybody on this forum could manage the website and sales whereas I would not assume that this is something your average "garage" band knows how to do. they should...it's not that hard these days. However there are still pitfalls. For example you could manufacture and sell through your own website CD's but then you have to come up with money for professionally printed CD's or deal with one offs and then at some point worry about accounting and local sales tax and business taxes. If you want to avoid that you can go through services like MP3.com or even Cafepress but they take a fairly large chunk of the sales for themselves.


>>>Why? Because no matter how they choose to do it, they will eventually loose on it, or at least not make the amount of money they are used to.

Or they will be less reluctant to take on new groups and primarily focus on manufactured bands and as and industry become even more commerical. The new technology should be a boon for new and expecially experimental artists but there will allays be those who have talent but will be willing to whore themselves to the record labels. Once they are on the track it may be hard for them to get off it since they were so willingly to get on it in the first place.

>>>Why? Because once online distribution gains popularity and more cd's are sold online then via stores, artists will realize, hey what do I need these clowns for? I can just make my own website and sell my stuff directly. OR via a site that perhaps only charges artists a fee for keeping their music, sort of like turbosquid or renderosity. It's not such a far fetched idea is it? Artists would surely be paid more then the 7-13% they get from record companies.

There are allready services for musicians that function like Turbosquid etc.. cafe press and MP3.com.. others to but I can't recall.

Cafepress charges as a base..
CD with Paper Sleeve $4.99 $4.49 $3.99 $3.49 $2.99
CD with Jewel Case and Inserts $8.99 $8.49 $7.99 $7.49 $6.99

The cost goes down by the amount of copies made.. I'm not sure if you have to pay that in advance or what. It is certainly way more than the royalties from a record label. But you do not get the promotion or financial backing but maybe bands these days don't need it. Although I think to promote concerts at a certain level you need more than internet exposure. But with all the profits from selling CD's on the net you could afford some traditional advertising right?


>>>Of course there is still the problem of radio. The -96 Telecommunications Act, the deregulation of radio which resulted in just two companies, Clear Channel and Infinity controlling most of the US commercial radio stations. Clear Channel also has a network of concert-promotion companies, controlling the touring business as well.

There is alot of discussion about this and deregulation is also happening to television broadcasters in the US as well. I don't really see the benfits of this for the viewers because basically it gives the big fish the freedom to consume all the small fish and I guess as long as there are two big fish it's not a monopoly. People I know who work for these broadcasters are seeing people get laid off ..so it certainly isn't making news jobs and will result in more garbage television..yippee!!

>>>I have no idea why the US government made such a law, there should be IMO laws that limit the amount of properties that a single company can control. Now television and cable companies want the government to give them the same deal. What good can come of this?

Which law? The one in the article above called ACCOPS is a proposed law and if US citizens would take the time to write their senators and representatives they might beable to prevent it from becoming law.

You can lookup and write them by going to www.house.gov, www.senate.gov or by going to http://www.boycott-riaa.com/congress.php . I'm sure it would alos help for parties outside the US to also write their government as well.

I will also still insist that people neither buy nor listen to music and other media that is owned by those who sponsor such legislature. It may be hard to do or maybe even unavoidable but I think it's the right thing to do if you are opposed to their political interests.

doodie
07-24-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Boot Guy Joe
If you're making art for the sole purpose of making money, you're not an artist. :shame: CDs are way over priced, and everything I hear about this RIAA makes me so glad I don't buy CDs or follow mainstream music. :rolleyes:

People who say CD's are overpriced are cheapskates. **** that. I can't believe snivelling little scrooges that say this sort of shit. Don't like the price of CD's? Don't buy them. You not liking the price gives you NO right to download it instead. NO MATTER WHAT CRAP REASONS YOU COME UP WITH.

rock
07-25-2003, 12:07 AM
Celine Dion's watch is 2.5 million dollars US. Her house inside looks like the scenery from the outside - forests, palm trees, rocks and water streams and small river. Her kid's diapers are probably specially made. I think that's enough said.

gmask
07-25-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by rock
Celine Dion's watch is 2.5 million dollars US. Her house inside looks like the scenery from the outside - forests, palm trees, rocks and water streams and small river. Her kid's diapers are probably specially made. I think that's enough said.

She's obviously got her royalties :beer:

xynaria
07-25-2003, 01:05 AM
WGAF.. she thinks she's sexy.. the world and his dog beg to differ. :surprised

gmask
07-25-2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by xynaria
WGAF.. she thinks she's sexy.. the world and his dog beg to differ. :surprised

Apparently her hordes of fans do :surprised .. there's no accounting for taste. :drool:

Nocturn
07-25-2003, 07:33 AM
People who say CD's are overpriced are cheapskates. **** that

So how much should a cd cost so that people who say they are overpriced will no longer be cheapskates? 50 $? 100$? 250 if it's a special edition?

A CD costs less than a dollar to manufacture, including the jacket.
Sell it for 20-30-40 dollars. How much does the artist, the one who actually made the music get from that? If you don't see anything wrong with this situation, you've seriously got to question your capitalist ideals friend. When the CD format was introduced it cost a lot more to make a CD, companies said that's the reason why they cost so much, but as the cost of manufacture would diminish, so would the prices. This of course hasn't happened, in fact in most stores vinyl and cassettes cost less than cd's even if now they cost more to manufacture. This isn't business, it's a ripoff.

Also calm down a bit, read what you've posted on your own messageboard, Dave:

"Please be nice to others. Do not hurtle abuse at each other..."

**** that :p

Harrad
07-25-2003, 12:16 PM
With these people being sued by the record companys for sharing files, how did they find out that they are and how do they prove that you are. Because the only proof that you have ie. MP3's is that on your hard drive there are MP3'S. So if your getting sued couldn't you just wipe your hard drive. so there is no evedence.

Plus there is no proof that you downloaded them your self. eg. you could just say my little 10 year old sister downloaded them. and shes to young to be sued or go to jail.

With backdoor and trojen programs some can enable the "hacker (what ever they are called)" to upload mp3's on to a random persons computer, then tell the record companys, thus sending the random person to jail for 5 years.

-MAT :surprised

gmask
07-25-2003, 05:20 PM
>>>With these people being sued by the record companys for sharing files, how did they find out that they are and how do they prove that you are. Because the only proof that you have ie. MP3's is that on your hard drive there are MP3'S. So if your getting sued couldn't you just wipe your hard drive. so there is no evedence.

"A new bill proposed in Congress on Wednesday would land a person in prison for five years and impose a fine of $250,000 for uploading a single file to a peer-to-peer network. "

From the way I read the proposed law and news stories they are looking for uploaders... downloading is not mentioned. On the gnutella softwares you can see right there associated with any particular file what IP address it is coming from and ISP's keep logs of who was using which IP address at hat time if you are on a dynamic system.

You could wipe your harddrive but that does not mean that the files are gone or that traces of them are completely removed. But this doesn't really matter because the files were coming from your IP address so wether they are still there or not doesn't matter.


>>>Plus there is no proof that you downloaded them your self. eg. you could just say my little 10 year old sister downloaded them. and shes to young to be sued or go to jail.

Uploads.. not downloads.. You could argue that but more and more parents are being held responsible for their childrens actions especially when it comes to civil lawsuits.

>>>With backdoor and trojen programs some can enable the "hacker (what ever they are called)" to upload mp3's on to a random persons computer, then tell the record companys, thus sending the random person to jail for 5 years.

If that were the case then there would be evidence that an intrusion had occured. "Zombied" computer users don't even know that there an intrustion has happened but the trojan software would still be on your system if it had been broken into.

zen
07-25-2003, 07:52 PM
hahaha you funny americans you!
With your 2 year jail terms for rapists and 5 year terms for not buying the new brittany / J-Lo crappy single.

gmask
07-25-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by zen
hahaha you funny americans you!
With your 2 year jail terms for rapists and 5 year terms for not buying the new brittany / J-Lo crappy single.

Maybe we should send the rapists over to the uploaders houses and let them work it out :applause:

Frankly I think people who listen to or buy J-Lo and Crappany CD's should go directly to jail...do not pass go, do not collect $200..:thumbsup:

Harrad
07-26-2003, 12:52 PM
Gmask- kind of got a bit mixed up with uploading downloading there... guess i should have read it a bit better... hehe.

It still wouldn't work, on the basis of that big muiti billion $ companys picking off people one at a time is just the stupidest thing ever. Give it a few weeks and i'm sure someone will sue the companys back over somthing, as this is coming from the same country that gave us great law suits such as "Mc Donalds made me Fat and its there fault!"

People always find ways around every thing... "lets close napster down, cos that'll stop people sharing muisc" and that worked didn't it? But stopping people doing one thing your just forcing them to come up with new idea on how to get around it. usally better ways and less trackable ways then before.

-MAt :surprised

gmask
07-26-2003, 05:07 PM
>>>It still wouldn't work, on the basis of that big muiti billion $ companys picking off people one at a time is just the stupidest thing ever. Give it a few weeks and i'm sure someone will sue the companys back over somthing, as this is coming from the same country that gave us great law suits such as "Mc Donalds made me Fat and its there fault!"

I was listening to the radio in my car the other day and there was a teaser about how some people are now saying you can eat fast food and loose weight. IE the Subway diet.. I dunno if eating whoppers everyday would have th same effect.

McDonalds puts sugar in everything..the buns the fries, etc that's why even though the food is very cheap that people still want to eat it. Every hear stories about restaraunts lacign their food with opium? Same difference just not as addictive :drool:

>>>People always find ways around every thing... "lets close napster down, cos that'll stop people sharing muisc" and that worked didn't it? But stopping people doing one thing your just forcing them to come up with new idea on how to get around it. usally better ways and less trackable ways then before.

Maybe the lawsuits are a good thing because it will force software developers to product software that actually has good security and anonimity. Privacy on the net is a related issue and people will be more concerned about it than ever. :cool:

Chewey
07-27-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by gmask
Maybe we should send the rapists over to the uploaders houses and let them work it out :applause:

Frankly I think people who listen to or buy J-Lo and Crappany CD's should go directly to jail...do not pass go, do not collect $200..:thumbsup:

Maybe just sentence them to a long term stay at a Canadian pig farm and force them to watch the Red Green Show.
Naw...way too cruel.
:scream:

halo
07-27-2003, 09:37 PM
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html

halo
07-27-2003, 09:40 PM
RIAA OPENS DETENTION FACILITY FOR SUSPECTED FILE SHARERS
Huge Compound Can Handle 3 Million File Sharing Suspects and Their Supporters

http://www.denounce.com/riaa.html

halo
07-28-2003, 09:34 PM
MusicMatch to offer subscription free downloads

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32006.html

gmask
08-02-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by halo
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html

LOL.. I like this guy.. it makes some sense.. the downloaders are actually buying into the company and therefore "own" part the music collection they are listening to. The only flaw I see in this besides it never having been done before is that if more than one copy of the original CD is being "checked out" like a book in a library then the concept of fairuse may not fly through a legal test. Although perhaps if the copy is being streamed in such a way that only a part of the song is ever on a persons computer at a given time then it may be less likely to fail. They system could also certainly buy multiple copies of popular CD's.. I dunno..better have your lawyers in a row for this one.

gmask
08-02-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by halo
MusicMatch to offer subscription free downloads

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32006.html

I guess the subscriptions weren't panning out and now they will charge per song or per album..still cheaper than buying CD's.

thatbrickwall
08-03-2003, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by gmask
The only flaw I see in this besides it never having been done before is that if more than one copy of the original CD is being "checked out" like a book in a library then the concept of fairuse may not fly through a legal test.

then again, they do OWN the company and therefore any assets it may have. You could solidify this by selling bonds as well, since bond owners take precedence over bond owners if it ever comes to pass. In order to survive though you would need a really rigorous defense... the RIAA legal dept. is pretty enthusiastic.

I like his point that its actually cheaper to record yourself than go through a record company... because it often is, depending on what type of musician you are. (Unless you count the perks that the very few and lucky receive)

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 04:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.