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.

 

The END of Online Piracy

page: 15
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 



Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by soficrow
The OP assumes that the majority of the world is on-side with Western-style capitalism, and eager to pay distributors instead of the original creators and producers. But no, that's not the way it is - the US doesn't have the support needed for this one.


Actually, I personally am very pro Free-Market captialism when it comes to non essentials, like art. Thats why I am opposed to state granted monopolies (AKA Intellectual property laws) in this particular field.



The definition of all digitalized 'information' as a commodity, and the parallel/derivative/expanded Intellectual Property Rights legislation is international law. The precedent was set in the US/Canada Free Trade Agreement - and then exported around the world in other "free trade" agreements, also as international law.


Long copyright terms actually discourage the production of new content, simply because you can still sell your old stuff too.




Your ignorance is showing. FYI - it's the distributors NOT the creators who profit - artists have to keep producing to eat.


I do not think free markets can solve everything. But this thing: yes, it could.


See above.

I'd support the "free market" if it protected producers and creators - but it doesn't. The deck is stacked - under international law - to reward good old-fashioned usury and feudal empire-building.

Not my idea of "free" - or Libertarian, or just, or sustainable.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I hear a lot of argument here. Where is the line?

Say I buy a CD. And I am terrible with keeping CD's in good shape, so I burn a copy of the original and put the original on the shelf. This is for my personal use, and only to keep my original in good shape. I'm ok here right? I purchased the intellectual property, not the physical disk itself, correct? I should only have to pay for 1 copy for my personal use.

So a friend wants to borrow my CD. I am not loaning him the original, because I keep it for the purpose of having an undamaged original copy of the intellectual property that I have purchased. I loan him the copy. He forgets about giving it back and moves away. I have to make another copy.

Piracy?


Different situation here:

Say I purchased a CD and I lose or damage it. Should I have to pay twice for the same intellectual property? What If I download it from bittorrent and burn myself another CD? Is this ok? I already purchased the original intellectual property on a physical medium and the medium was damaged. Piracy or no?


Again, where is the line?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by debunky
 



Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by soficrow
The OP assumes that the majority of the world is on-side with Western-style capitalism, and eager to pay distributors instead of the original creators and producers. But no, that's not the way it is - the US doesn't have the support needed for this one.


Actually, I personally am very pro Free-Market captialism when it comes to non essentials, like art. Thats why I am opposed to state granted monopolies (AKA Intellectual property laws) in this particular field.



The definition of all digitalized 'information' as a commodity, and the parallel/derivative/expanded Intellectual Property Rights legislation is international law. The precedent was set in the US/Canada Free Trade Agreement - and then exported around the world in other "free trade" agreements, also as international law.


Long copyright terms actually discourage the production of new content, simply because you can still sell your old stuff too.




Your ignorance is showing. FYI - it's the distributors NOT the creators who profit - artists have to keep producing to eat.


I do not think free markets can solve everything. But this thing: yes, it could.


See above.

I'd support the "free market" if it protected producers and creators - but it doesn't. The deck is stacked - under international law - to reward good old-fashioned usury and feudal empire-building.

Not my idea of "free" - or Libertarian, or just, or sustainable.








Actually the US did import International copyright law, that has been around in Europe since the 18th and 19th century (16th century if you count Von Speyer in Venice). The US just ignored it until they started to "export" more IP than they "imported". Then they suddenly became very interested in it, for some odd reason and joined the Berne Convention in 1989.
But regardless if a monopoly is granted by national or international law, it is still a monopoly. With IP it just isnt worth much if its only valid in your neck of the woods.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Radiohead have the right idea, as does Trent Reznor and a few others who have in some way or another encouraged the bending of systematic rules in the record industry, and in some cases broken away from the draconian elements of the confusing publisher deals etc.

On a a smaller scale , many bands and dj's have the abilities to produce stuff 'on the fly' with portable music technology - effectively promoting themselves and creating their own labels.

In a nutshell, the giants are panicking.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SPOONS2020
 


People should be happy that at least you are reading their book, listening to their music, watching their movie, or looking at their art?! You think it should all be given to you for free? This is what they do for a living, and how do you suppose they pay the bills if it should all be free? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't feel this way if you were an artist, singer, etc. People work for their money and although they might love what they do...IT'S WORK. Maybe you should do your job for free...if you have one.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephanies-chase
reply to post by SPOONS2020
 


People should be happy that at least you are reading their book, listening to their music, watching their movie, or looking at their art?! You think it should all be given to you for free? This is what they do for a living, and how do you suppose they pay the bills if it should all be free? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't feel this way if you were an artist, singer, etc. People work for their money and although they might love what they do...IT'S WORK. Maybe you should do your job for free...if you have one.


It's a question of scale though:
Should you be able to pay your bills for a time if you write a good book, lots of people enjoy? Propably.
Should you be able to make sure that the next 4 generations of your family do not have to work? I don't think so.
Is the ability to make sure that the next 4 generations of your family will not have to work, worth spending billions of dollars and euros of tax money on prosecuting?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


How do they have the right idea.. This idea was not theirs.. These artists were forced to look at other mean of revenue.. Or at least creative ideas to still make money.. They were forced to.. Because of a bunch of tech theives!!

They have families.. They went into this with the understanding that this was going to be their career/ their income.. Little did they know, that bunch of theives with a sense of entitlement would be forcing them to alter their business plan.. Its 100% pathetic.

I love when someone says "radio head and NIN have the right Idea"...If you were actually paying for the product, nothing would have changed for you.. But if you are one of the leeches of society that feels it should be free.. I bet these same people are the ones that offered ZERO dollars or a measily $1... This just made it so, everyone that pays the true value of the CD.. basicly just paid for the leeches copies also..

So quit saying they had a good idea.. they had an idea that would allow them to feed their families. They had to battle online theft one way or another.. It was not by choice...and not out of the goodness of their heart.

A bunch of Home depot employees or burger flippers telling these men/women how to run their businesses... Pathetic if you ask me..Maybe these same people that think that their work should be free, should work for free for a few years...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
since 2006 Ive downloaded over 700 movies and I dont know how many thousands of songs big bad scary government hasnt dont crap to stop me yet long live The Pirate Bay!! Viva la Axxo!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


Its not like the musicians actually lose anything at all. Before those cd's are even printed the checks have been cleared, the first 1-2 million cd's are already paid for. The industry doesnt lose any money at all. The big money comes from tickets,merch, radio and tv spots not cd and mp3 sales. The music is only there to make the new band of the week popular. Thats how the industry has been working since the 80's years.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I say we close down all those librarys and throw all those thieves in jail as well.


[/sarcasm]



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


They have families.. They went into this with the understanding that this was going to be their career/ their income.. Little did they know, that bunch of theives with a sense of entitlement would be forcing them to alter their business plan.. Its 100% pathetic.


You are right: Nobody ever should have to change their business model, just because the world has changed.
You should remember that next time you go to collect your unemployment benefit, and they ask you if might want to consider a employment opportunity outside your chosen profession.


Originally posted by Mobius1974
the true value of the CD..


is around 10 cents.


edit on 22-9-2010 by debunky because: Quote mixup



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Ok so.. LoL I am done in here.. There are 50k excuses why your right in stealing..I wont convince anyone differently.. So to sit here and listen to all of the theives give excuses as to why they are not just broke scum bags.. Is getting old!


As to the mental giant that said "True value of a cd 10 cents"

wow.. so there is no production cost ? no over head? Material cost? That is the single most ignorant comment I have ever read..

And to the genius that said .. by the time the cd comes out the check has been written...Just like with right and wrong.. you know nothing.. Some bands dont see a single cent until a certain number of cd's have sold.. There is a minimum quota on almost any bands cd.. BEFORE THEY SEE A DIME!!!!

Dont bother to respond.. I wont be back.. I pray your lives are ruined and your homeless over your theft!!!




edit on 22-9-2010 by Mobius1974 because: (no reason given)




edit on 22-9-2010 by Mobius1974 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


How do they have the right idea.. This idea was not theirs.. These artists were forced to look at other mean of revenue.. Or at least creative ideas to still make money.. They were forced to.. Because of a bunch of tech theives!!


I agree with you, but as a hundred thousand other musicians accept it, a few musicians 'are' doing something about it. I never said the idea was original did i?

Also which idea are you referring to?


They have families.. They went into this with the understanding that this was going to be their career/ their income.. Little did they know, that bunch of theives with a sense of entitlement would be forcing them to alter their business plan.. Its 100% pathetic.


Well... Being honest i think a lot of people understand the risks involved, the record industry is not something you go into with your eyes closed, otherwise you'll last less than ten minutes. But to seperate yourself from one of the big four is a large risk, and quite brave.



I love when someone says "radio head and NIN have the right Idea"...If you were actually paying for the product, nothing would have changed for you.. But if you are one of the leeches of society that feels it should be free.. I bet these same people are the ones that offered ZERO dollars or a measily $1... This just made it so, everyone that pays the true value of the CD.. basicly just paid for the leeches copies also..


Which type of copyright are you referring to exactly?

The copyright, designers & patents act? The Digital rights management?

Just whom are suffering from illegal downloads. Because it's NOT the musicians in balance to the extortianate amount of money leeched from the artists themselves once they receive their 20 or 30 pence from every album sold, the rest of it going straight into the pockets of the fat cats.

You seem to be confusing illegal downloading with my arguement of changing the actual system to benefit the musicians, AND the fans by introducing new methods of distribution and production.



So quit saying they had a good idea.. they had an idea that would allow them to feed their families. They had to battle online theft one way or another.. It was not by choice...and not out of the goodness of their heart.


Being totally honest my friend, this is one of the six subjects i'm studying in university and i'll be quite happy to discuss the pro's and con's of this system, if you wish i'll even send you my recent submitted work which explores these ideas in some depth.

As for the motivations of their decisions, why are you making assumptions of what you presume i think?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


10 cents is actually retail, packing and shipping, and shelf space included (100 piece spindle)

... aint it funny that those "You are thieves" - commercials do not work, even if you type them? You are aware that those slogans are for the unwashed masses only? That the tune changes significantly once you look at the arguments publishers make outside the commercials?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I have been friends with a member of Taproot for roughly 20 years... He is PROOF that the theft of music online is affecting their bottom line.. They see it.. and they talk to new bands that dont have the lawyers to go after sites offering their music for free... Some bands you will never hear about... the 80k they have invested to get their album out there, was wasted.

So in short.. your telling the bands to stop releasing cd's all together?.. I would want to stop you from doing that.. Some of us still believe in paying for a product.. I for one have no problem what so ever paying for the music that I listen to.. I hear it on the radio .. then I buy it based on whether I like it or not..

I dont want to argue law... although the law prohibits dling music for free...
How about right and wrong? Pay your way in life.. dont be a leech!


Again.. I hope all of these people on their high horse justifying stealing.. get a knock on the door and have their blockbuster video checks garnished for life.. oh the irony.. then you couldn't afford to buy one from the istore!



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


Have you ever heard of Mariah Carey?

Do some research and you'll see that she is living proof of how corrupt the top end of the accepted system and she single handedly abused millions and millions of dollars and prevented genuinely talented competitors from attaining any recognition. Ask taproot.

The issue at hand .. is greed. And ways around it that can benefit both the artist and consumer.

By the way, don't call me a leech even indirectly. You misjudge.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by serbsta
 

It should be free, if I find it on some site it's not my fault it's there for download as long as I can download it.
It should be restricted, not available, password protected I don't know, but as long as it is click the link and download then I don't see the problem.



That is honestly a lame argument...

If that was justifiable, anybody could use that as an argument.

"Oh, I found some child pornography on some site, it's not my fault it's there for download as long as I can download it."



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


You keep saying how bad it is for musicians. And taproot has been around for 20 years and all that. Korn has also been around for 20 years. And here is there take on it.

www.youtube.com...

(Explicit Version)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mobius1974
 


Oh, thats of course true! Nobody should ever get less than what they expected in ROI.
Sorry Mobius, we can't be all on welfare...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by crashbehr
 


No.. I never said that.. Taproot has not been around for 20 years. Jared has been a friend all the way back to cedar point senior trip.. I was stating the length of time that I have known him to explain the rather personal conversation we had reguarding finances and what the spread of theft is doing to them....



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join