It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush signs controversial anti-piracy law

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:49 AM

Bush signs controversial anti-piracy law

President George W. Bush signed into law on Monday a controversial bill that would stiffen penalties for movie and music piracy at the federal level.

The law creates an intellectual property czar who will report directly to the president on how to better protect copyrights both domestically and internationally. The Justice Department had argued that the creation of this position would undermine its authority.

The law also toughens criminal laws against piracy and counterfeiting, although critics have argued that the measure goes too far and risks punishing people who have not infringed.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:49 AM
I'm not going to advocate for or against here - I'm just going to give an example and let people make their own minds up.

One of the first recordings I owned was HUnky Dory by David Bowie, on vinyl.

Then the tape cassette came out, and I bought that for convenience.

The tape wore out after a few years, so I had to buy the CD.

Next, if they get away with not allowing me to copy my own music onto my PC, I will have to D/L the digital version.

Just how the hell is this fair - I've paid for the same product 3 times!

The same goes for video's I had - I now have my favourites on DVD.

OK, I understand that pirating takes money away from the artist - but this isn't about protecting the artist, this about protecting the labels who have been ripping off the artists for decades.

If only more artists would cut out the middle man, and sell their music online via D/L at a price that cut the labels (at least the big rip off labels) out of the equation.

There are thousands of great independant studio's with great sound engineers out there.

And any music that's really worth listening to will always find a market.

For myself, once I have my tracks finished, I plan to make only a nominal charge - and if people don't want to pay it, hell they can have it for free.
(visit the link for the full news article)


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:57 AM
you are right, this is not to protect the artists but the corporation that is behind the artist . probably the Internet will solve this by allowing new artists to sell at decent price. Would you like to start such website ? (good business idea! )

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM
Nothing to do with the artist. This is all about money and corps, like you say. I.e kurt cobain was worth more dead than alive.

Why sell dvd recorders to record of tv, if they go this far.


posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:07 AM
here we go : this website :

they say : "Welcome to Peoplesound, showcasing the best new artists alongside the latest digital and mobile music from established names. Choose from thousands of artists offering free MP3's to download. Search our database for your favourite music across the musical spectrum. Start to download free MP3s here."

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:29 AM
I have stated before and will do it again and again till I am blue in the face:

*I refuse to buy a CD for $20 that has two or three good songs on it.
*I refuse to buy a download (iTunes, etc) until the artists get 75% of the profit.
*I refuse to go the movies until I stop having to pay ~$100 to take my family, and then being bombarded with ads before and during the movie to "help pay the bills" of the theater.
*I refuse to buy a DVD, until they let me copy my DVD's for my own personal use, without having to hack security measures.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by xxpigxx

I totally agree with your D/L policy, and with your DVD policy - although it has to be said the others are a matter of taste and choice.

My choice was to stop going to the movies, and wait a while for the cheap DVD for sale, or club together with a few mates and rent some films for the evening.

No annoying ads, and I can sip a beer or 2 while I watch the films.

The big record labels are one of the last bastions of the virtual slavery of performing artists - I'm not a big fan of George Michael, but I admire his stance on this, as I do with Prince.

It's time the artists and consumers got together to figure out what's best for them, and sod the middlemen ripping artists off at every opporunity.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:45 AM
A new 'cabinet level' political appointee from the corporate sweetheart president.

Guess what initiatives and policies will be flying out of this office?

Now that the Banks and financial masters have successfully inserted them into our 'representative' government, it's time to reward the media moguls who were ill-equipped to deal with technological growth and want everything 'back the way it was'.

Sorry artists. You may think you can change the paradigm, but now that the government is involved... forget it. You can't win. But then of course, for many of the 'players' on the media hot-list, it was never about art anyway.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:45 AM
From the quoted article:

"By becoming law, the PRO-IP Act sends the message to IP criminals everywhere that the U.S. will go the extra mile to protect American innovation,"

To me, that reads as 'the world will now play by American rules', a bit like the Gary McKinnon case.

That the Justice Department appears to have problems with this speaks volumes.

A seriously problem is that the RIAA and the MPIAA have a very strange take on protecting the artist. In the past, the RIAA have actually argued to lower artists royalties. How the hell is that protecting "intellectual property" or "innovation".

It's bizarre how the likes of the RIAA claim to represent the artist, yet artists don't appoint the RIAA, they have no say on RIAA policies or have any input on who the RIAA actually is.

Here's a list of artists that are currently getting ripped-off by the RIAA's SoundExchange programme. The RIAA can come after you for infringing the rights of these artists but have yet to pay them any royalties whatsoever. Whether these artists are big names is beside the point, they're still getting ripped-off whilst the RIAA bleats about protecting the artists.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:51 AM
I have a suggestion!

Why don't we download songs for free . . . then send the artists a check or money order for the amount we think it is worth, starting at $1.00!

The only problem is how do we do it with movies . . . .

Any suggestions for that one?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:52 AM
This bill will punish the little guys in college downloading mp3's and video games. However it will do nothing about the Chinese and Saudi Arabians who pirate billions of dollars worth of books, movies, games, designer goods, and music with impunity. Piracy is big business in these countries who we handle with kid gloves. You can go to these countries and find pirated goods being hawked from every other store front and street vendor.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:53 AM
Well, why not?

This is awesome news for those seeking more and more Govt power. They already control our money/banks/etc, and our news media.

So now, it's just a SHORT matter of time until they control all of the media we are exposed to, including music.

Great news!!

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:58 AM
Well, I sure hope this doesn't also include foreign artists???

I am in love with Eurpoeans' techno/electronic style. They WANT us to hear and enjoy it.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by LostNemesis

Good old white labels - I have a couple of friends who are into the trance scene, and all they want is for people to hear and enjoy the music.

I'm not saying every artist should do the same - people have to make a living after all - but these middlemen have had too much power for too long.

And like people say, now they've got legislation and a "czar" to keep raking in the profits off the back of other peoples creativity.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by budski

You are right! Most of those artists that do the trance and electronic stuff, make their money from doing live shows.
They live for the music, and so do their fans.

I hope the US doesn't decide they control all artists. This is so unfair to everyone.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:12 PM
As a musician, I assure you, piracy takes little money from the artist.

Unless the artist self-produces, manufactures, and distributes it (as I do), the only person you're taking a substantial amount of money from is whoever owns the record label the particular artist is signed to.

So if you were to illegally download my music, that would be taking money from me since I refuse to be owned by a record label.

But it wouldn't be illegal because I offer my music for free download because I believe in free art.

Edit for grammar.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Aberinkula]

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:14 PM
I work in the music industry and this kind of action has more good points than bad.
When it comes to independent artists and labels who cannot afford to have 90% of their music being distributed and shared without any return, this is welcomed.

When it comes to the major labels, they are scum and don't need any more money.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Dermo

I think the point of this is that it will only benefit the big labels - who else has the money to lobby the government into passing legislation?

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 12:47 PM
The real issue is that the movie and music industry haven't found a way to continue making their disproportionately huge profits in the age of the internet. The internet is the great equalizer, it allows a person instant access for free. I guess those in power just want to throw everyone in jail, everyone I know pirates music and movies, it's simply more convenient. The real solution is for artists to become great live performers again.
Instead of complaining that the consumer needs to come around to the ways of the industry maybe the industry needs to come around to the ways of the consumer. The government should step away from this, this is between the citizens of the earth and the artists of the earth. I cannot even imagine roving bands of policeman kicking down doors and hauling away nonviolent fans of artists for the crime of enjoying their art.
Artists today are spoiled, they need to accept that in the modern day their lives will be cushy only as a result of hard work and fan satisfaction. The artist that discovers a way to market their product in an effective way and get paid a reasonable price without strongarming their customers will succeed.

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by budski
If only more artists would cut out the middle man, and sell their music online via D/L at a price that cut the labels (at least the big rip off labels) out of the equation.

If only we would go to a high-tech, resource-driven economy (as opposed to a money-driven economy) and the paradigm of abundance that offers, then we would all be creating our music just for the joy of sharing it with others and "copyright" would be meaningless.

See this thread for more info:

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in