Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

rt.com

The United State Supreme Court has refused an appeal that would have made downloading music an infringement of federal copyright law. Take that, Metallica!

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, or ASCAP, had been attempting to appeal to the Supreme Court an early ruling by an appeals court in New York that said that a downloaded song constituted a public performance of the song under federal copyright law. Attorneys for ASCAP were fighting to reverse that decision in hopes that they’d be able to collect additional royalties off of songs downloaded from the Web.

ASC

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is good. Now people can stop crying about evil down-loaders being thieves.

If I give my friend a CD, they didn't steal that music...now did they? Or back when people would record off the radio from cassettes..

Or if you save a photo to your hard drive and view it multiple times, are you stealing that photographers work? The whole thing is ridiculous IMO and I am a visual artist myself. If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?


rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by mnmcandiez

If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?

Your income.

Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.

It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?

This is a good thing! I am a photographer
and have seen my work posted by someone
else on another site besides my own, I actually
felt honored that they liked my photo well
enough to post it.

reply to post by pause4thought


It's so easy and tempting... but we wouldn't accept it in any other form...you expect to pay for your tv and you side against those who don't... this is the same thing.

Sure you can argue about the record labels being the oneswho horde all the money, but once again you downloading music hurts the artist more because of it.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?

Your income.

Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.

It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?

This has very little to do with the actual artists. It's the record companies that are trying to cash in on this. Just look at how they treat their own artists. They basically rob them blind, leaving the artists holding the bag while the fans shift the blame on them. Artists have a thing called "touring" which nets them more money than any album could.


...plus, how is it that blu-ray discs and most dvd's nowadays have copyright protection coded in to prevent this, yet cd's have absolutely none? It's because the record labels stand to profit much much more by suing the pants off of idividuals instead of investing in technology to prevent it in the first place.

reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

Artists have a thing called "touring" which nets them more money than any album could.

Good point. But can you really imagine a world where every band on the planet either pulls big crowds or is reduced to music-making as a hobby? The only music to succeed would be mainstream - hardly a suitable crucible for creativity...

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by pause4thought

 

Sure you can argue about the record labels being the oneswho horde all the money, but once again you downloading music hurts the artist more because of it.

I can see that hurting the already established mainstream artists, but for new and emerging artists...you just can't get any better advertising than that.....and it's free advertising!

Even if songs were purchased online, individually or through a service such as Rhapsody or eMusic, the majority of those proceeds do not go to the artist. The artists get pennies. There are instances where I will support a musician and buy their album, say if it were self-released (in which case, it's almost always cheaper). The best way to support an artist is to see an artist or to buy other merchandise, not by digitally buying their music. If I like and listen to an artist enough, I will buy a physical copy of their album, in vinyl if I can (not because I am pretentious, but because it's closer to owning tangible art than a CD). I've managed bands and worked for record labels and have done radio and promotions, and I know where the money goes, and it's not to the artist. People that rip off Rihanna or Lil Wayne aren't really taking away from their millions. They're locked into endorsements with Pepsi and earning royalties every time they're played in a film or on a major radio station. They have no problem selling out 40,000 seat venues. When it comes to independent artists, they require an avenue to disperse their music to the masses and doing that freely and digitally helps to virally do that, because they've realized they don't make money off of iTunes. They would rather sell out shows and sell shirts or posters and build a larger fan base. If anything, this helps weed out a majority of "artists" that enter the music industry for money alone. The industry is already saturated with individuals that couldn't care less about the art of it all, afterall it is art, and are just around throwing words at "beats" to make a quick buck. If you take out the easy money, you're left with a lot more pure-hearted talent, and that's truly what music or any artform should be.

reply to post by pause4thought


they are not stealing income they are stealing "perceived" income.

huge difference.

one exists, the other does not.

if your going to use a word, a better one would be "duplicating" or "unauthorized use". but "stealing" implies that you were once in possession of something tangible and now you are empty handed.

Originally posted by crazydaisy
This is a good thing! I am a photographer
and have seen my work posted by someone
else on another site besides my own, I actually
felt honored that they liked my photo well
enough to post it.

Are you 12 and still living with your parents?

What part of - - getting paid for professional work - - to make a living - - do you not get?

reply to post by pause4thought


except artist make didly squat from record sales. they make their money with live performances and touring.

so its not really the "creative" people being screwed, its the record company owner who is used to making tons of cash off other peoples talent.

This is great.

I hope they do the same thing for porn soon, I'm sick of my mom yelling at me about the copyright notices for my porn downloads.

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?

Your income.

Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.

It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?

This is so wrong.

What are they thinking?

Its time for the Supreme Court to work for free.

reply to post by Annee


service and sales are not comparable.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?

Your income.

Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.

It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?

Its time for the Supreme Court to work for free.

That's the best idea I've heard all day.

If anybody comes in this thread with all righteous crap about artist compensation and illegal downloaders ....If thats the case then....

EVERYBODY should buy their OWN SHHHHHHHHHT...none of this borrowing shhht, giving stuff out or inviting people to listen,watch, or read ANYTHING copyrighted you bought.DVDs,CDs,sharing MP3 files,Books,ect.

NOW I KNOW ALOT OF YALL OUT THERE "DO IT"!!!!!

Let THEM buy their own so that ARTIST will rightfully get paid!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that TECHNICALLY STEALING???????????????

reply to post by Annee


I am both a visual and music artist.

I get paid for my visual work, (graphic design). And I have my "beats" posted online for free. If someone isn't taking my art and trying to resell it then you are losing nothing. If you make music and don't want people to hear it then you should try a new profession. This isn't 1960 anymore, no one is buying records...welcome to the digital age. If you are signed to a label, you literally get pennies of that cd purchase.

So don't cry to me about artists....blah blah I am one, and I make money doing it.

reply to post by VonDoomen

...artist make didly squat from record sales. they make their money with live performances and touring.

I see where you're coming from. But at the very least startups and musicians who haven't attained stardom are still better off having the option to generate regular income from their work via media sales. As Resonant said, some have the integrity to voluntarily buy the music they want to support. Not everyone can find the strength to lift the card out of their wallet, though.

Good thing. Its always like this in Canada and is our constitution. Its called equalizing really. Equal rights no matter what your circumstances. Software too.

Our constitution provides SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY.