It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Originally posted by racerzeke
they should buy a actualy island, sealand looks like a crappy just crap... ewww
Originally posted by Kacen
So technically, a torrent search engine may become its own country.
I find that extremely funny.
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.
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......
Artists hardly make anything through cds, they make it all through concerts. The copyright mafia keep most of it for themselves.
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.
Originally posted by ThePieMaN
(response to my post)