Illegal Downloading...

reply to post by texastig


They have lowerd prices. The price of albums is nothing like it was 10,9,8 years ago. I suppose what you said would stand years ago, when Napster was in bloom. Though i believe album prices have came down. You go on to itunes, play.com ect, you'll get albums for 9.99, 8.99, 7.99 for 12, 11, 10 songs, thats allright when you compare it to 10 years ago.

Tsom87

Originally posted by TSOM87
The many laws you don't like, do you go out Breaking them aswell? You don't have to Break the law if you happen to oppose something.

Not all of them, but some I do on a daily basis, as do millions of others.

Originally posted by TSOM87
LOL what makes you think i believe God sits and ponders? Is it bcause i have quoted from the bible on my sig?

No it wasn't from your signature, you said you wouldn't wager against going to hell for copyright infringment, hence my god pondering statement.

If there weren't so many greater issues in the world and all was fair and just I may consider the repurcussions of my actions which are nothing but a drop in the ocean's waters as is this issue itself.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Koka]

reply to post by Koka


Ofcouse you not going to go to hell, Humour, thats all it was. I should have put some sort of smile next to it! Though i agree with what you say, it is a petty little thing compared to the real issues of this world.

I just feel sorry for the people who put time/money into these projects and find out that there music is all over these P2P networks ect. Yeah its easy for people to say they can recoup it playing live, though what about the people that haven't/can't. U2, Metallica ect, can do it with the shows they play and there merchandising.

Tsom87

if itunes store has some song i cant find yet,and its wav or flac,or atleast 320kbps mp3,not that aac crap i would buy the song.
but brakin the law? cmon?
isnt microsoft braking the law putting holes into firefox?
IT IS!
if they can brake the law,SO CAN I

Originally posted by TSOM87

Originally posted by quackers
They can disagree all they like, it will not change the fact that copyright infringement and theft are two completely different things.

Back up.....am not saying its not called Copyright infringement. I'am not disagreeing with that. What i'am saying is that people who have music taken from there site see it as stealing/theft. The example that i gave was not to say that its not called Copyright infringement.

Where's the Innovation in copying what another artist has allready created with his own Imagination. Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, Kasabian and others have all thrived under the copyright law, why can't others?

Tsom87

Do you even know how the filesharing scene works? The vast majority of material comes from one of two ways.

First off, from an insider. Someone with direct access to prerelease material aquires it (physical or electronic theft) then releases it into the public domain. Only one person there has committed theft, subsequent handling of the data by a third party is not considered theft but copyright infringement.

Second, members of the public or members of scene groups will purchase from online (or offline (mostly domestic filesharers sharing their own bought music)) retailers like Juno then release it for free to the general public. Again, there is no theft involved in fact they bought the music outright.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be intimating that hackers go around stealing music from websites, which is quite frankly a stupid idea. There may very well be some groups who use such methods, but it is very rare indeed.

Led Zeppelin and those other great artists you mention survived in spite of copyright law, not becuase of it. Of most of the groups you mention, there have been many many many unathorised versions of their material, by other very talented artists, who essentialy broke the law for singing someone elses song. And every single one of those mentioned had a massive bootleg scene, you know, illegal music sharing? Yet they are old and rich (or dead).

Perhaps the best example of why copyright is fundamentally flawed is Happy Birthday. Go to any establishment like McDonalds or any other retail store (chains would be better due to their anal legal requirements) and ask them if it is ok if you sing Happy Birthday at your child's party. The chances are that they will politely tell you no.

Why they will tell you know is because the song Happy Birthday is owned by Time/Warner who would rather you pay them royalties for using their song, and being aware that they might be required to fork out a royalty payment for allowing you to sing Happy Birthday, they will just tell you you cannot.

This stupidity extends to workplaces, where unless they have a license with whatever artists guild rules their area, are breaking the law by entertaining their employees with copyright protected music.

Go to a garage to get your car fixed recently? Were they paying music? Well they need a license too or they are breaking the law.

You having a party? Planning on playing your music loud? Public performance, pay money.

Copyright, yeah it's fantastic.

If you make something, then someone looks at your idea and decides they know how to make it better and cheaper, copyright prevents them from utilizing your idea, nobody benefits, in fact you make it as difficult as possible for them to inovate just to protect your own, worse, idea. This is true also with the patent system, and with patent trolls. The patent system is also abused by individuals who specifically apply for patents to prevent their use by other people, no one benefits.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by quackers]

While it's already (mostly) been said, the copywrite and patent system is flawed and only there to control resource and revenue, not to promote creativity (since I'm patenting that today). It is illegal to pick a state flower anywhere in California, and I think anywhere in these United States, but I might have picked it. Now according to the law, if I picked it, I'm a felon. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean its wrong or harmful. It might be stealing or not, it might be infringment or not, however you take a judgmental stance with some of your remarks. Judge the man not by the law for we all fail.

"Remember, everything Hitler did was legal"

Martin Luther King Jr.

If you can record stuff off the radio and TV, then downloading is justified.

reply to post by quackers


''''Do you even know how the filesharing scene works?''''

Yes.

I agree with you to 2 exmaples, like before, am not disagreeing with any of that that.

''''You seem to be intimating that hackers go around stealing music from websites, which is quite frankly a stupid idea''''

Well it dose happen. I even knew someone who tried it (who was trying to impress me). I agree with you, it is stupid. Why not just go out and bye the product, or even just buy it online. Saves you getting into bother.

''''Of most of the groups you mention, there have been many many many unathorised versions of their material, by other very talented artists, who essentialy broke the law for singing someone elses song''''

So would you just get ride of copyright?, and let the untalented continue to use other peoples art even more? Yeah, there is a leakage in the pipe, though it would be a bad idea throwing the whole pipe out.

''''And every single one of those mentioned had a massive bootleg scene, you know, illegal music sharing?''''

Yeah, though its was fraction compared to what illegal music sharing is!

''''Yet they are old and rich''''

Yeah, everyone of thouse bands except kasabian, can fill out stadiums and have a strong merchandising and there music is allways on demand. Not every artist has that ability.

''''Why they will tell you know is because the song Happy Birthday is owned by Time/Warner who would rather you pay them royalties for using their song, and being aware that they might be required to fork out a royalty payment for allowing you to sing Happy Birthday, they will just tell you you cannot.''''

I agree, that is tight. Though i still wouldn't bring down the whole copyright system for that. It protects peoples music and makes money for the artists. I like the idea that my music is being portected not only from other artists ''Borrowing" it, though from Political use, Movie use ect.

What if my music was being played in a 'Nazi club', 'Feminist club', 'Immigrants First club'. I know for sure i would want copyright law protecting my music.

''''If you make something, then someone looks at your idea and decides they know how to make it better and cheaper, copyright prevents them from utilizing your idea, nobody benefits, in fact you make it as difficult as possible for them to inovate just to protect your own, worse, idea.''''

Artists have a say on what happens over there work aswell. I could turn that argument around and it would benefit the artist, so nobody destroys or mess about with the artists work.

Tsom87

''Illegal downloading is just what it says: illegal. If you do something illegal, you are a criminal. Plain and simple.

People say they can't afford to purchase the music. Okay, if you can't afford something, what makes you think you have the right to OWN it? I want a nice Blu Ray player, but I can't afford that. Can I steal one from Best Buy and say I did it because I can't afford it? This is such a crap excuse. If you can't afford something, then you have no right to expect to own it. Duh. Who the hell do you think you are anyway?

Illegal downloading doesn't allow people to learn. If you cannot afford something, this just means you have to work harder to get it. It builds character. Then when you finally get it, the reward is so much sweeter. But for someone to not put forth the effort and to get the thing they want anyway, does not build any character. It teaches people that they can have the same things other people work for, without any of the effort. Things are so much more valued when you work for them, too, not when they're handed to you.

It does hurt musicians financially. People say they are overpaid: no, you're thinking about big label artists like Lady GaGa. Most musicians are not rich, and downloads do hurt them.''

Tsom87

i always use the band phish as an example....
biggest touring band ever. made millions of dollars touring...
tons of people downloaded their music.


please tell me how this is different than making a mix casssette tape off the radio 15 years ago? how is this different than copying a movie off of hbo onto your vhs tape?


you telling me you never did any of those things?

Originally posted by thing fish
please tell me how this is different than making a mix casssette tape off the radio 15 years ago? how is this different than copying a movie off of hbo onto your vhs tape?

Was the the Music/Movie Industrys losing Millions year in year out, 15 years ago, like they are today because of illegal downloading? Was it a struggle for new artists 15 years ago like it is today?

There a difference is quality from taping from the radio compared to digital downloads. Thats why much much more people download, it a bigger animal compard to the illegal activites 15 years ago.

Tsom87

Originally posted by TSOM87

Originally posted by thing fish
please tell me how this is different than making a mix casssette tape off the radio 15 years ago? how is this different than copying a movie off of hbo onto your vhs tape?

Was the the Music/Movie Industrys losing Millions year in year out, 15 years ago, like they are today because of illegal downloading? Was it a struggle for new artists 15 years ago like it is today?

There a difference is quality from taping from the radio compared to digital downloads. Thats why much much more people download, it a bigger animal compard to the illegal activites 15 years ago.

Tsom87

so it was ok 15 years ago cause it was of a lesser quality?
hmmmmm....interesting.

was it a struggle for new artists? i say yes. that is nothing new. thousands of bands out there and only a few make it 'big'.

Originally posted by TSOM87Well it dose happen. I even knew someone who tried it (who was trying to impress me).

It happens so infrequently that you may as well say it never happens. 99.99999999999% of the rest of the time it happens by one of the two methods I mentioned.

So would you just get ride of copyright?

Copyright serves a purpose, but it has lost its way, no longer functions as intended, and creates more problems than it solves, so yes, in its present form I would get rid of copyright.

Yeah, though its was fraction compared to what illegal music sharing is!

That is relative.

Yeah, everyone of thouse bands except kasabian, can fill out stadiums and have a strong merchandising and there music is allways on demand. Not every artist has that ability.

So they made money despite millions of fans bootlegging their music. It's dog eat dog, if you do not make it as an artist it is because either you are a crap artist, or the industry is saturated and your talent simply does not get you far enough (or the industry does not see your talent as being profitable). It will not be from people downloading your music illegally.

Artists have a say on what happens over there work aswell. I could turn that argument around and it would benefit the artist, so nobody destroys or mess about with the artists work.

What you seem to misunderstand is what copyright needs to be replaced with. You do not simply scrap copyright and replace it with nothing. Artists (or perhaps more accurately, record lables) need to stop milking the system and set fair terms under which other can produce derivative works, that's for starters. Second, they must understand that people will download their music whether they like it or not, and rather than continually whine about it and lobby the government to restrict the individuals access to the internet, find other ways to generate money. This brings me nicely to your last comment;

Was the the Music/Movie Industrys losing Millions year in year out, 15 years ago, like they are today because of illegal downloading? Was it a struggle for new artists 15 years ago like it is today?

This is the biggest load of disinformation so far. The music industry is losing money? Don't make me laugh. Here is just one example of proof of why your statement is a blatent lie;

BMI reported revenues of $673 million for the 2004 fiscal year, an increase of nearly $43 million, 6.8% over the prior year. The performing rights organization generated royalties of more than $573 million for its songwriters, composers and music publishers. Royalties increased by $40 million or 7.5% from the previous year. BMI President and CEO Frances W. Preston said both the revenues and royalty distributions were the largest in the company's history.

And another;

EMI, the world's third largest music company said sales increased almost 4 percent over the last
fiscal year that ended on the 31st of March,
with revenue from digital downloads jumping to $196.6 million.

And another;

Digital music sale revenue tripled in the first half of 2005 compared with 2004, figures have suggested.The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) estimated 6% of record industry sales were digital, worth $790m (£450m).

Another

Record labels have become digitally literate companies, selling an estimated US$2 billion worth of music online or through mobile phones in 2006 (trade revenues), almost doubling the market in the last year.

And some point from somewhere else on the interwibble

The UK Music Industry was worth £3.6bn ($5.9bn USD) in 2008, up 4.7% on 2007. Combined business to consumer revenues (live industry and recorded music retail) grew 3%, making up 75% of total industry value;

More complex business to business revenues (from collective and direct licensing, advertising, sponsorship) grew by 10%, reaching £925 million and contributing 25% of total industry value;

Are you sure you want to stick to your 35 year old "copying kills the [n] industry" rhetoric?


[edit on 22-10-2009 by quackers]

[edit on 22-10-2009 by quackers]

Originally posted by thing fish

Originally posted by TSOM87

Originally posted by thing fish
please tell me how this is different than making a mix casssette tape off the radio 15 years ago? how is this different than copying a movie off of hbo onto your vhs tape?

Was the the Music/Movie Industrys losing Millions year in year out, 15 years ago, like they are today because of illegal downloading? Was it a struggle for new artists 15 years ago like it is today?

There a difference is quality from taping from the radio compared to digital downloads. Thats why much much more people download, it a bigger animal compard to the illegal activites 15 years ago.

Tsom87

so it was ok 15 years ago cause it was of a lesser quality?
hmmmmm....interesting.

was it a struggle for new artists? i say yes. that is nothing new. thousands of bands out there and only a few make it 'big'.

I taped songs song 15 years ago from radio. Though i don't know what you mean by the ''so it was ok'' part from?

Yeah i know Artists have allways struggled though from what you hear today it seems far worse than 15 years ago.

Tsom87

i mean you must have thought it was ok to 'steal' 15 years ago but now you are taking the moral high ground...

downloading is no different than taping off the radio or tv....the record industry is not losing money and artists are getting their music out there...

I don't know if you've ever heard of A Tree Full of Secrets. It is the definitive bootleg Pink Floyd collection. It contains some 18 cds of compiled material, most of which was never destined for public consumption. Any one who is a Floyd fan is likely to own a copy, thats what fans do, collect material. Now if copyright had its way, A Tree Full of Secrets would not exist, and many fans who have long supported the band by buying their merchandise would be without a fantastic addition to a collection of great music. This is an example of copyright infringement where there definately is zero loss to the artist as the material was never going to be sold.

Also, on the remark about reusing another's material, look at classical music (where copyright has expired and no longer enforceable). Many orchestras play the same material by the same composers yet people still pay to see them and buy the music for personal listening (the reproduction is copyrightable). Think what classical would be like of only one orchestra had the rights to play Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. I would hope you would agree that it would get pretty stale after a while. Allowing others free reign to reproduce your work in their own style ensures your creation lives on, a bit like classical music.

reply to post by quackers


'''It happens so infrequently that you may as well say it never happens. 99.99999999999% of the rest of the time it happens by one of the two methods I mentioned.'''

Well i aint gonna comment on the statistics because i don't know them, i have seen it being done and i know it happens, which was my point.

'''It's dog eat dog, if you do not make it as an artist it is because either you are a crap artist, or the industry is saturated and your talent simply does not get you far enough (or the industry does not see your talent as being profitable)'''

If you think artists don't struggle because of illegal downloading. Well all i can say i disagree.

''''What you seem to misunderstand is what copyright needs to be replaced with. You do not simply scrap copyright and replace it with nothing. Artists (or perhaps more accurately, record lables) need to stop milking the system and set fair terms under which other can produce derivative works, that's for starters''''

I'am not misunderstanding anything. Anyother format where an artist copies another artists intentionally or none intentionally is just wrong. Where the progress? Where the Innovation?

''''Second, they must understand that people will download their music whether they like it or not, and rather than continually whine about it and lobby the government to restrict the individuals access to the internet, find other ways to generate money''''

I agree with that big time.

'''This is the biggest load of disinformation so far. The music industry is losing money? Don't make me laugh. Here is just one example of proof of why your statement is a blatent lie;'''

If you think Record/Movies companies aint losing money because of illegal downloading well all i can say to that is i disagree. I'am not just talking about Song/BMI and EMI who happen to have Muti million selling arsists.

'''Are you sure you want to stick to your 35 year old "copying kills the [n] industry" rhetoric?'''

Copying kills Artistc innovation...and it hasdone harm to the industry... unless what i have heard over the last 10 years is all lies? Though i doubt it.

Tsom87

tsom, i'm curious as to why you are taking the moral high ground now....15 years ago you copied music but now it is wrong...
i don't understand what has changed...

Originally posted by thing fish
i mean you must have thought it was ok to 'steal' 15 years ago but now you are taking the moral high ground...

downloading is no different than taping off the radio or tv....the record industry is not losing money and artists are getting their music out there...

I didn't think anything of it 15 years ago when i was doing it. There was some noise about it being illegal and it messing the industry up. Though from what you hear today and what its doing to artists and the industry...theres a big difference. What i do now is BUY albums of the internet for good prices, because i can afford it!

tsom87

reply to post by TSOM87


i guess i don't get it....the industry and the artists are not suffering...the net has been a great tool for bands to get their music out there...

ever hear of tegan and sarah? they are starting to get big because of net downloads....i saw them open for neil young at least 7 years ago and people are just now hearing about them...
it's because of downloads dude.....