It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

page: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jdills1196
 


F### Obama.




posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Another good point to bring up is during a long while in the Soviet Union, western music (specifically, the Beatles) was banned. An underground system of record presses and distributors arose.

The people in the USSR risked their livelihood and possibly their lives for their favorite band, all the while not paying the Beatles a dime for the copies.

Ask any person who grew up in the USSR at the time, The Beatles were a big deal when it came to them and their freedom.

There are examples of this all over the world. In Cuba, people get illegal music through file sharing.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I would like to mention one thing real quick. I work in the music industry. Artists do not yield nearly as much from album sales than they do ticket sales at shows. From my experience, it is better to let your fans have your music for free, and distribute it for you and lose a little bit of revenue, than to wallow away in obscurity like the vast majority of artists do.

In fact, I would say it would be far more lucrative to give your albums out for free and have a greater audience, than sell your albums and be inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers who won't pay for something they haven't heard.

This war on music and film fans only benefits those that make money from other peoples art.

It is not a fight against piracy, it is a fight against fans. Any artist that needs to force their fans to pay tribute is a terrible artist. If only people would open their eyes to the reality of the whole situation.


This is true, but never the less it is forced upon the creators, producers of the product.

Should I demand that employers pay out more because it gives their employees more to spend in the economy??? Happiness, productivity, peace and prosperity.

You are applying communistic lefty logic and justification, I am just saying...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I would like to mention one thing real quick. I work in the music industry. Artists do not yield nearly as much from album sales than they do ticket sales at shows. From my experience, it is better to let your fans have your music for free, and distribute it for you and lose a little bit of revenue, than to wallow away in obscurity like the vast majority of artists do.

In fact, I would say it would be far more lucrative to give your albums out for free and have a greater audience, than sell your albums and be inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers who won't pay for something they haven't heard.

This war on music and film fans only benefits those that make money from other peoples art.

It is not a fight against piracy, it is a fight against fans. Any artist that needs to force their fans to pay tribute is a terrible artist. If only people would open their eyes to the reality of the whole situation.


This is true, but never the less it is forced upon the creators, producers of the product.

Should I demand that employers pay out more because it gives their employees more to spend in the economy??? Happiness, productivity, peace and prosperity.

You are applying communistic lefty logic and justification, I am just saying...


Not really. It is more like he is saying that the "piracy" isn't hurting the people who make the music. The artists. i have been to a couple dozen concerts in the last 2-3 years. At almost all of them they will ask the audience, "Did you buy the album yet?" The audience will cheer. "Did you download a pirated copy?" The audience cheers even louder.

Three Days Grace, while at the Sunken Garden in San Antonio, said, "It doesn't matter if you steal it, pirate it, beg it, buy it...just get it because we are proud of it and want you to hear it." THAT'S ART right there.

The people who make the music don't care. The corporations do. I am hoping that The People win, and the artists walk away from the record labels. With YouTube, recording labels are just about obsolete anyway. It is a tool waiting to be used for a free license purpose.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Another good point to bring up is during a long while in the Soviet Union, western music (specifically, the Beatles) was banned. An underground system of record presses and distributors arose.

The people in the USSR risked their livelihood and possibly their lives for their favorite band, all the while not paying the Beatles a dime for the copies.

Ask any person who grew up in the USSR at the time, The Beatles were a big deal when it came to them and their freedom.

There are examples of this all over the world. In Cuba, people get illegal music through file sharing.



Hey free food is a great thing too, free money also, there are examples of this all over the world.

The Beatles had the luxury of spending so much time in the studio, honing the craft
because they did not have to make up for the total communist grad on all of their material. They were not slaves to the road, because they had other income... Live performance, song writing and tracking are three different monsters...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
Yet the entirety of free market principles rest squarely on the notion of work and reward.

If taxation is theft, which occurs without any defense

Then so is the theft of ones work and the value which that work represents

My band spend $35,000 to record and produce a record, OUR MONEY, OUR TIME-

No different than a factory owner investing in his business

However our work was - taken and used to generate profits for others in ten country
by the end of the first day of release.

However you make a distinction that one is violent and the other is not, while both deprive the rightful owner to the fruits of their labor.

To see this unprincipled deviation in the core of your typically steadfast principle
is confusing and appears to by a contrary addition to your across the board views.

Kind of like adding a propeller to a submarine because it looks so cool


Actually... you're mixing up a bunch of crap that doesn't fit together.

You can either have a market based off of the government REGULATION of information, data, technology, ideas, and techniques OR you can have a FREE market.

Just because you WANT to make a profit by hoarding data doesn't mean you can or should be able to in a free market.

Copyright, anti-piracy, forever-patents, and prosecution of those who SHARE data (no matter the scale) is a form of DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT and CORPORATE REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES. It is absolutely unacceptable. The same debates went on about cassette tapes and the ability to record music from the radio or records and then share them with friends.

Face it, the world is changing and "piracy" is here to stay. The market either needs to ADAPT or die off if it's unwilling to change itself with the changing times.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I understand the arguments against piracy, I really do.

But go to youtube and you can find millions of songs and listen to them instantly for free. Go to Pandora Radio and you can hear free songs all day.

What's the difference between downloading a song and youtubing a song? It is just the times nowadays.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
I would like to mention one thing real quick. I work in the music industry. Artists do not yield nearly as much from album sales than they do ticket sales at shows. From my experience, it is better to let your fans have your music for free, and distribute it for you and lose a little bit of revenue, than to wallow away in obscurity like the vast majority of artists do.

In fact, I would say it would be far more lucrative to give your albums out for free and have a greater audience, than sell your albums and be inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers who won't pay for something they haven't heard.

This war on music and film fans only benefits those that make money from other peoples art.

It is not a fight against piracy, it is a fight against fans. Any artist that needs to force their fans to pay tribute is a terrible artist. If only people would open their eyes to the reality of the whole situation.


This is true, but never the less it is forced upon the creators, producers of the product.

Should I demand that employers pay out more because it gives their employees more to spend in the economy??? Happiness, productivity, peace and prosperity.

You are applying communistic lefty logic and justification, I am just saying...


Not really. It is more like he is saying that the "piracy" isn't hurting the people who make the music. The artists. i have been to a couple dozen concerts in the last 2-3 years. At almost all of them they will ask the audience, "Did you buy the album yet?" The audience will cheer. "Did you download a pirated copy?" The audience cheers even louder.

Three Days Grace, while at the Sunken Garden in San Antonio, said, "It doesn't matter if you steal it, pirate it, beg it, buy it...just get it because we are proud of it and want you to hear it." THAT'S ART right there.

The people who make the music don't care. The corporations do. I am hoping that The People win, and the artists walk away from the record labels. With YouTube, recording labels are just about obsolete anyway. It is a tool waiting to be used for a free license purpose.


well BFFT, my point is, DINSTAAR is applies his principle when it suits him/her.

In other threads he argues against these same principle's...

Ownership, "violence", theft of ones labor, A.K.A - TAXES

I personally think the internet is how it is-

But I am questioning the divergence in the individuals logic towards property.
I think DINSTAAR is very intelligent and usually steadfast, basing many arguments
on this concept that he/she now defends in this case.

I am only looking for an explanation, as I can apply the same logic to price fixing of goods and get bashed every which way for it...

And the truth is we do care, there is not much time to work on your musical ability
when you are selling yourself because you need to survive in a basic fashion. However,
we do what we have to, just like everyone else, because we love it...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Its a good thing i don't listen to very many MAIN STREAM pop culture musicians... but the people who are actually going to have another NAPSTER happen are the people down loading Hannah montana, and things like that...

However, my qustions are how would this really be inforced, and what about public domain.... and if the aritist/license owner doesn't persue charge can the government charge you anyway...?

here's a small sample of the root of my questions... (hopefully enjoyable for everybody)

www.youtube.com...

[relative to the thread at about 10:00 min - in]



[edit on 24-6-2010 by nvprose1]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown
Joe Biden


"It's smash and grab, no different than a guy walking down Fifth Avenue and smashing the window at Tiffany's and reaching in and grabbing what's in the window." -- U.S. VP Joe Biden


That's just like what you did with the bailout situation ... and stimulus package right Joe?



[edit on 24-6-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by Janky Red
Yet the entirety of free market principles rest squarely on the notion of work and reward.

If taxation is theft, which occurs without any defense

Then so is the theft of ones work and the value which that work represents

My band spend $35,000 to record and produce a record, OUR MONEY, OUR TIME-

No different than a factory owner investing in his business

However our work was - taken and used to generate profits for others in ten country
by the end of the first day of release.

However you make a distinction that one is violent and the other is not, while both deprive the rightful owner to the fruits of their labor.

To see this unprincipled deviation in the core of your typically steadfast principle
is confusing and appears to by a contrary addition to your across the board views.

Kind of like adding a propeller to a submarine because it looks so cool


Actually... you're mixing up a bunch of crap that doesn't fit together.

You can either have a market based off of the government REGULATION of information, data, technology, ideas, and techniques OR you can have a FREE market.

Just because you WANT to make a profit by hoarding data doesn't mean you can or should be able to in a free market.

Copyright, anti-piracy, forever-patents, and prosecution of those who SHARE data (no matter the scale) is a form of DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT and CORPORATE REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES. It is absolutely unacceptable. The same debates went on about cassette tapes and the ability to record music from the radio or records and then share them with friends.

Face it, the world is changing and "piracy" is here to stay. The market either needs to ADAPT or die off if it's unwilling to change itself with the changing times.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by NoHierarchy]


Wank wank

Ya Ya...

By FREE, you mean COMMUNIST - gimme gimme - I am entitled to free stuff?

It is the communal disbursement of other people work, IT is completely socialistic and undermines the basic principles of Free Market engines of motivation, $$$, thru ones
own works...

However if you want to dilute yourself it is fine by me, I don't mind a little socialism myself. But it is funny to see that many will promote socialism and hide it with FREE
market talk, this is an interesting thresh hold. I will undermine you guys in the future,
Billions of gimme gimme free, I am entitled to this free stuff cause I CAN justify it.

Have at it guys, like punching a hole in your own boat



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




Yet the entirety of free market principles rest squarely on the notion of work and reward.


Creating information and forcing consumers to pay for it is not a peaceful activity. How can one consider the music industry free when its profits are derived through threat of violence? Freedom comes from voluntary exchange and peaceful trade.



If taxation is theft, which occurs without any defense


Taxation is theft because it is taking something from me, while also depriving me of it. When a 'thing' (digital information) is infinitely duplicable by its very definition, then it exhibits a lack of scarcity.

If these artists and companies didn't want their information duplicated indefinitely, then they shouldn't have recorded it. It is not realistic to assume they can reap all the benefits of digital information for themselves while preventing others from doing so.

The very reason the music/film industry uses digital mediums is because when information is stored digitally, it is free/cheaper-than-dirt to reproduce.



No different than a factory owner investing in his business


It is different. The paradigm has changed. The music industry is trying to herd the cats back into the bag. It's useless. It is now time, as an artist yourself, to change the way to seek reward for your works. From what I have seen in the industry, artists have found success through having cheap CDs to sell at concerts, free music on websites, all using that as a means to advertise their merchandise and shows. Host your music on your own site, and get revenue from the traffic. Sell concert tickets, and don't set up any barriers to your works and your possible future fans. Even $5 is a lot to ask for a CD of something one is not informed about. From what I have seen with a local artist, people will buy his album at a show after they have downloaded it for no cost.

Be creative with how you make money.



However you make a distinction that one is violent and the other is not, while both deprive the rightful owner to the fruits of their labor.


This is wrong and here is why. What is being deprived is not the fruits of ones labor but the possible future fruits one could make from selling their works and preventing others from reproducing it. The digital bit changes everything. If you don't want a selection of digital bits (your music) from doing exactly what digital bits do (replicate indefinitely), then don't make them in the first place. Thats like a company assuming that all profits will be theirs, but all loses will be payed off by the government. That is not freedom, it is fascism.

Actually, a better way would be to utilize the power of the digital bit and create instant, global hyper-distribution as a means of marketing. Sell your shows, sell t-shirts, sell tangible goods. Make a premium CD, with a special picture book that fans can buy on your site. Trent Reznor and Radiohead are doing it.

Selling information is like trying to sell bottled ideas.



You are applying communistic lefty logic and justification, I am just saying...


Not at all. It's quite libertarian. Copyright is not a natural right. It is a positive right. It may seem communistic for me to have such contempt for corporations, if only I didn't have a greater hatred for the government that creates them.



I think DINSTAAR is very intelligent and usually steadfast, basing many arguments on this concept that he/she now defends in this case.


It is strange if you aren't looking at it the way I do.

When digital bits are duplicated by anyone they are doing what they were created to do, regardless of the content of the bits. Information can travel over the entirety of the world without any barriers. Record Companies of old were created to pull money (to make money) to overcome these physical barriers(resources needed to create mediums of exchange, distribution, etc). The cost for me to give someone across the globe a song is negligible now in 2010, these Record Companies need to do one of three things: get with the times and think of new ways to make money peacefully, die, or use the violence of government to impose rights over digital bits that are entirely counterintuitive to the idea of the bit itself.

I hope I have clarified my position a little.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

For the time being I cannot even begin to see how they could enforce a measure like this. They'd have to hire tens of thousands of people just to serve the warrants. And then the overburdoned courts and the jails that are way over capacity???


Gotta employ those census workers somehow after that gig is finished.

Not to mention...well, just about everyone else worth less than 8 figures in a collapsing economy.

Welcome to the USSA.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
There is a big difference between piracy and theft. Theft is the stealing of an item or other valuable thing; Piracy is where you take a copy of the file and it leaves no one hurt, no one worse off for the experience, and everybody is happy. It's a victimless crime. I don't see how it hurts the artist, and the record label deserves it. Pirates keep them in line, and as long as they're selling albums at 500% markups, piracy will continue.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vyrox
 


It doesn't the record industry just needs more money.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




You, unfortunately are talking about mega-stars with long careers.

People who are lucky enough to only get a few hits out in their youth, most of the musicians you have ever heard of, are struggling to survive on royalty checks and gigs in clubs or at State Fairs.

Three Days Grace is a bunch of kids. Wait until they are in their retirement years and people who have never heard of them; then see how they feel about the small royalty checks they are still getting. Bands like that seldom last a decade and they damn well better have all the money they need in hand by the time they are has beens.

However; stealing is stealing, thieves are thieves and what kind of a parent by the way would teach their children, it is OK to steal sometimes, it is OK to break the law sometimes?

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




You, unfortunately are talking about mega-stars with long careers.

People who are lucky enough to only get a few hits out in their youth, most of the musicians you have ever heard of, are struggling to survive on royalty checks and gigs in clubs or at State Fairs.

Three Days Grace is a bunch of kids. Wait until they are in their retirement years and people who have never heard of them; then see how they feel about the small royalty checks they are still getting. Bands like that seldom last a decade and they damn well better have all the money they need in hand by the time they are has beens.

However; stealing is stealing, thieves are thieves and what kind of a parent by the way would teach their children, it is OK to steal sometimes, it is OK to break the law sometimes?

[edit on 6/24/2010 by Blaine91555]


Well, since we are not talking about anyones children, i will ignore that segment.


A "band" that only has 1 or 2 good songs may not be a "band" worth hearing. Should someone get a 1 shot piece of entertainment that is 3.5 minutes long and expect to have a retirement package? Like any other work, i would expect that if they love what they are doing, state fair gigs are just fine.

If they are unable to find people to hire them to play, then it is time for a career change. The glory days won't feed you.


But a recording of their song? I think it is questionable whether or not a recording of someone doing their job (play and write music) is trademark worthy.

But, like i said in an earlier post, i stick to buying my music. I can be assured of decent quality when i do it that way. And no viruses. When you have Windoze, that is always a plus.

Edit to add: love the new avatar.


[edit on 24-6-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
If they try to enforce this they'll have to announce ECHELON publicly or get the search engines support.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFinalTruth14
I understand the arguments against piracy, I really do.

But go to youtube and you can find millions of songs and listen to them instantly for free. Go to Pandora Radio and you can hear free songs all day.

What's the difference between downloading a song and youtubing a song? It is just the times nowadays.



Yup, I love the Pandora radio for my android. When I get tired of all those commercials I start my phone up and listen to Pandora.

I still have my XM because the pandora eats my battery alive.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Just a question.

I am from the era of cassette tapes. Where were these people that worried about piracy back when we used to make tons of copies of cassettes and trade among friends to get all the latest music?

It is a serious question. We used to make cassettes all the time and nothing was ever said on the news about anyone being mad. I bet each of us (people I knew) had over a hundred recorded cassette tapes.

Raist




top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join