Hey Flyer, I'm not saying I agree with everything the RIAA does either here. But just so ya know, (if ya don't), an artist originally files for copyrights on their material at the US Library of Congress. Those copyrights are what an artist has to negotiate for contracts with labels, unless they are already signed. Take away those copyrights, and what does an artist have to negotiate with? Their good looks?

In the meantime, a local artist, before "making it," has usually thousands invested in equipment, gigs, management, time, and more. I don't understand how you people see taking away their copyrights as a good thing. At all. According to some here they are supposed to invest all that, and hand over their product, for free, to the public. Sickening.

Originally posted by john_bmth

U seem to equate all intellectual copyright to multi-million $$$ artists. Again, this is silly logic. U realy think that copyright ONLY applies to wealthy music artists? C'mon, ur a smart guy, don't be so... stupid, for use of a better word. I'm not resorting to petty name calling, I'm deadly serious: u'd have to be stupid to think the ONLY people who are affected by copyright infringement are multi-millionaire musicians.

Just who do you think the main complainers are? These people that put out 1 album folk singers and sell 100 albums or do you think the RIAA is worrying about the Billion dollar records?

Let me ask you. I don't even listen to music yet there is a taxastion on every single piece of recordable media just in case you do decide to burn copyrighted music. Why should I pay for this? Why should it be collected on their behalf. These little guys you speak of should get a cut of that, Im sure, Multi-billion hidden tax then.

Even if u wanted to believe that ONLY musicians are affected, u genuinely believe that the only music out there is the stuff made by multi-platinum artists? U think ALL musicians are rolling in money? For every massive artist, there's 1,000's who are making a modest living selling their music.

John
all I hear is your crying crocodile tears for these rich conglomerates that make money on their hard work! I don't see you crying about MY HARD WORK TO MAKE THE MONEY that paid for the stuff I got ripped off on. Your logic falls on deaf ears...you worry about them, they worry about themselves, and I worry about me. I think thats fair. No one forces you to pirate anything.

When I fix a computer or build a computer , if there is a problem , I am held liable and I warranty the work, and I make good on it if there is a problem, or else Consumer Affairs or BBB can get on my butt. Are you going to tell me that Billion dollar software firms are better then me as far as income but yet not capable of being held to the same standard as someone like me?


A Couple of months ago Cisco came out with their VOIP Phone IPhone, now a couple of days ago, Apple came out with a new cellular phone IPhone. Oh I feel like such a heel John, especially when these same corporations are just such upstanding citizens. Kindly save it for someone who deserves it.

So technically, a torrent search engine may become its own country.

I find that extremely funny.

You can be sure that if they find a way to migrate to sealand, the RIAA and such will hire a private mercinary army and declare war on sealand.
They have the money and resources to do that.

they should buy a actualy island, sealand looks like a crappy just crap... ewww


it would be funny to see them declare war or something

Originally posted by racerzeke
they should buy a actualy island, sealand looks like a crappy just crap... ewww

The idea I guess is that Sealand already has underwater cables, Sattelite feeds for the internet. Nice big fat pipes. If they bought an Island say in the Pacific or Caribbean the cables may need to be ran or maybe no way to get Internet access. Plus supposedly they have everything there on the island including a Nitrogen fed computer room which lessens the chances of fire and rust. The fire they had on the island was caused by the generator, I don't know if it affected any of that.

Originally posted by Kacen
So technically, a torrent search engine may become its own country.

I find that extremely funny.

I guess things must be bad. In their country the copyright laws are not as strict. They are still being harrassed even though they shouldn't be going by their countries laws. I guess if they can pick the island up for a couple of million its worth it to avoid legal fees and downtime from unlawful seizure.

To iori_komeia and others that agree with getting rid of copyrights.

This seems bogus! Would you say the same about patents? Same thing to an extent. Someone creates something and protects it and yes makes money on it. I will agree that some make astronomical wages but a product is worth what the consumer is willing to pay for it. That can hurt paying $18 for two good songs on a CD. On the other hand the artist should be compensated for their work.

What would happen to the quality of music books art and all copyrighted work, if these people had to go get a job to make a living. their talents will suffer. As would the end consumer.

The current setup needs attention. however I believe that the artist should have a secured compensation for their works.

I don't understand how anyone can rightfully think it is ok to take a artist work for free. Their time, talents and money is invested in their fields.

Originally posted by whoknew
This seems bogus! Would you say the same about patents? Same thing to an extent. Someone creates something and protects it and yes makes money on it. I will agree that some make astronomical wages but a product is worth what the consumer is willing to pay for it. That can hurt paying $18 for two good songs on a CD. On the other hand the artist should be compensated for their work.

To be fair, I did change my initial post by saying "current copyright
laws", which means the ones we have now, I de believe in some
intellectual property rights, like not being able to take someones
work, change a few words and names and call it your own, however
I don't have a problem with music remixes, as long as they mention
who the original artist is.

What would happen to the quality of music books art and all copyrighted work, if these people had to go get a job to make a living. their talents will suffer. As would the end consumer.

Honestly, I think it would increase and become better, as that way
you would'nt have people who just went into it for the money, and
thusly create sucky products that are only consumed by the public
because there are'nt better alternatives that are well known.

iori_komei

Very well said and point taken!

Sorry I overlooked "current."

Honestly, I think it would increase and become better......

I agree and disagree, you will remove the want to be's and such but those that may have developed talent may not pursue it. It is sad but many are persuaded by a promise of monetary gain.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hey Flyer, I'm not saying I agree with everything the RIAA does either here. But just so ya know, (if ya don't), an artist originally files for copyrights on their material at the US Library of Congress. Those copyrights are what an artist has to negotiate for contracts with labels, unless they are already signed. Take away those copyrights, and what does an artist have to negotiate with? Their good looks?

In the meantime, a local artist, before "making it," has usually thousands invested in equipment, gigs, management, time, and more. I don't understand how you people see taking away their copyrights as a good thing. At all. According to some here they are supposed to invest all that, and hand over their product, for free, to the public. Sickening.

Artists hardly make anything through cds, they make it all through concerts. The copyright mafia keep most of it for themselves.

I havent bought a cd in ten years because I wont give the RIAA a penny but I go to concerts, that way I support the artists and not the criminals who sign them.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
(response to my post)

You see, you're doing it again... I AGREE that the idea of some filthy rich smuch who's so-called "music" (more of an assault on music than anything) is getting pirated is boo-hooing about only making $36 million this year instead of $48 million gets absolutley no sympathy vote from me. I AGREE that these slimey multinational corporations calling themselves "labels" are essentially the McDonald's of the music industry making a killing on homogenizing music into a marketable tried-and-tested formula should get absolutley no sympathy vote. But this is where, yet again, you seem to equate "copyright law" to "multi-million dollar artists".

I know from reading ur posts ur a smart guy, yet I am gob smacked at ur ignorance on the topic at hand. I'm gob smacked how u continue to see all musicians (and creative types in general) as over-indulged multi-millionaires. OBVIOUSLY in mainstream music this is nearly always the case, but funnily enough, theres a hell of a lot more than what u hear on MTV.

There's people who earn their $$$ making music in scenes that aren't very big. And by that I mean very very small. Like, they earn about the same as someone who works a job just above minimum wage full time. There's people who earn their $$$ engineering for people in project studios (NOT, contrary to what u may think, Abbey Road) earning a similar figure. U have this, to the people earning little or no money, and the full spectrum in between, all the way up to the top. Just like most careers. I'm sure u can appreciate that not everyone involved in IT is as wealthy as Bill Gates, yet this is a perfect analogy for the viewpoint u put across.

Are all professionals in the IT sector as wealthy as Bill Gates? Of course not! Now please stop applying the same logic to the music industry (an umbrella term I might add. The music industry does not consist solely of MTV and Pop Idol).