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.

 

Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

page: 10
59
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


I don't disagree that you can't stop or police illegal downloading, the genie is out of the bottle. Just because it's easy, commonly done, and unstoppable doesn't make it legal, or morally right.

There's also no way to police and stop a flash mob of 200 people going into a random store and cleaning it out, but that's still a crime.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DangerDeath

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So according to you, if I find enlightenment in a new sports car I should be able to just take it? Never mind all of the people who worked hard to make it so that they could earn money. Am I enslaved because I can't just have everything that I want just given to me at my demand?

We're talking entertainment here. Leisure items, not "the idea of free, unobstructed communication between peoples of the Earth" ... talk about the music with whoever you want to, nobody will stop you.



You will not find enlightenment in a sports car. That car will steal your soul, actually. It is easy to enter such a car, but very hard to get out. Think about it. How much money will you need to sustain yourself in such an expensive car? You will need to steel more and more...



You missed my point entirely. I don't find enlightenment in cars, Beastie Boys music, or in a bible either. Even if I did I wouldn't go steal any of the above items.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


I asked you a simple question and you cannot answer the question. So why are you wasting time arguing something that the Supreme Court also asked these questions and came to a conclusion...IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE.

So if you don't have a solution than move on...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 



You missed my point. I grew up with Hendrix or Alvin Lee. Now, someone wants to charge me for knowing their music. You don't get what is going on. This is brainwashing at its highest. You have to resist it or they will empty your head of everything valuable, all your experience because you won't be able to connect to it anymore.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS
 


Well, your "simple question" was anything but simple...

1. How would you police 400 million Americans to make sure they never shared any artists work?
2. How do you police 400 million Americans downloading Music from the internet?
3. How many agencies would you create on a state by state basis as well as federal to monitor and police this activity.
4. The maximum penalty this could ever have would be a misdemeanor as it's under a face value of $500 dollars. So what would be the deterrent?
5. How would you pay for all of this policing?
6. Do you support censoring the internet?


I stand by my statement that I agree it's impossible to police, just that is still stealing. Take away the fact that it's impossible to police and answer my simple question ....

Is downloading copyrighted material without paying for it stealing?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Jimi Hendrix is dead long time now, yet someone collects money for his music.

Jimi and many others were pushed to death because of this. Lennon refused to go down in the same manner, so they found a nutso to kill him.

How strange, it never happens that some Rottenshield or Borgman choke to death in their gilded bath tubs?

I think we deal here with blood thirsty leeches who don's stop at anything. All the logic they try to implement into our hollow heads is false.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So you know that music, great. How did you get to know it? I bet you heard it on the radio (who played it so you would listen and hear their advertising too, which paid their employees, etc) which increased record sales and put money in Hendrix's pocket. Download it illegally and none of these people earn a dime. Hendrix ends up as a waiter or something.

Oh, and even if you don't illegally download it you still know it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So you know that music, great. How did you get to know it? I bet you heard it on the radio (who played it so you would listen and hear their advertising too, which paid their employees, etc) which increased record sales and put money in Hendrix's pocket. Download it illegally and none of these people earn a dime. Hendrix ends up as a waiter or something.

Oh, and even if you don't illegally download it you still know it.


You can bet all you want. I bought those records many times. So now I have to pay again and again? I'm not stealing records or CD's from shops.


It wasn't money that contributed to these people's geniality. What launched them was Woodstock - and the entrance was for free. Now, someone wants to make profit from their music. They lobby in Congress, and elsewhere, make everyone a criminal, bury those musicians who didn't fit. Now, if you want to pay for Biber or Lady Gaga, go ahead. It's probably worth all your blood and sweat.

But to Jimi or Bach, I will only pay to them personally.

edit on 5-10-2011 by DangerDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


If you already own them then why download them? That makes no sense... because of the media changes since LPs? Besides "knowing" music and "owning" a copy is totally different, there is a grey area in that if you already paid for it (and can prove it) you are entitled to a backup copy. Let's say that if you already payed for a copy of a recording you can legally get a digital backup, just to avoid that argument.

Let's stay with downloading something you never owned previously. We can agree that taking a product that you never paid for is stealing, correct?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The title is deceiving It doesn't say what you think it does. Illegal downloads are still illegal. The ruling had to do with legal downloads for which various tariffs (e.g. mechanical royalties) are already paid. Performance rights organizations wanted a piece of the pie but were denied.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


Woodstock wasn't "free", the artists were paid by the promoters who sold tickets. My mother paid for one and she still has it. Masses of hippies descended on the concert, knocked over fences and invaded the grounds forcing the promoters to make it "free" .... if it wasn't for the record and movie the promoters would have been deep into dept.

And are you saying you "knew" all of the music played at Woodstock after one listen? I would say you "knew of it" which prompted you to buy LPs and support the artist and record companies that supported them.

edit on 10/5/2011 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


If you already own them then why download them? That makes no sense... because of the media changes since LPs? Besides "knowing" music and "owning" a copy is totally different, there is a grey area in that if you already paid for it (and can prove it) you are entitled to a backup copy. Let's say that if you already payed for a copy of a recording you can legally get a digital backup, just to avoid that argument.

Let's stay with downloading something you never owned previously. We can agree that taking a product that you never paid for is stealing, correct?



It makes a lot of sense. Here is why. Technology changes. I had, still have, but it is not in use any more, a turntable. Then I bought CD player. Outdated that one too. I did this many times. Newer technology arrived. Now I have a PC. I paid for it. I cannot use my old records any more. They are still there, collecting dust. Maybe they have some value on the market of antiquities. PC is now the primary multimedia device. Do I really have to pay again for the same thing?

Technological advance is not really absorbed as a common value, it has been perverted by parasites - and in this case it is too obvious. Those people do not deserve to collect money for something they never created in the first place. It is the system that makes it legal and logical, but it is not - true. And even the system in many cases do not support the demands from those who claim the right of property.

Knowledge is common property of humanity. Pornography which is called music - I am all for that, it should be taxed and paid well. Those who like things that destroy them, they should pay dear price for that. But not everything is pornography.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 



Here is another question for you.

1. If you have purchased a song already, why should you be required to pay for it again? Do you go to home depot and buy a lawn mower every time you cut the grass? Do you buy an ipod every time you listen to a song? Do you buy a new car every time you get in one? It's the same principal of the matter. Why should you be required to re-purchase a song every time you want to take a copy with you? That makes no sense as I have given you questions to answer that are on the same merit. So please answer the questions as they relate to this discussion?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Wow this is a surprise. Now what does this mean for limewire as it had been recently shutdown and i like the picture of games at the top of the article hes gonna be pissed.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
The title is deceiving!! It doesn't say what you think it does. Illegal downloads are still illegal. The ruling had to do with legal downloads for which various tariffs (e.g. mechanical royalties) are already paid. Performance rights organizations wanted a piece of the pie but were denied.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 



Here is another question for you.

1. If you have purchased a song already, why should you be required to pay for it again? Do you go to home depot and buy a lawn mower every time you cut the grass? Do you buy an ipod every time you listen to a song? Do you buy a new car every time you get in one? It's the same principal of the matter. Why should you be required to re-purchase a song every time you want to take a copy with you? That makes no sense as I have given you questions to answer that are on the same merit. So please answer the questions as they relate to this discussion?




You never purchase a song, unless you're a recording artist and you buy the song and record it yourself.

As a consumer you buy a 'recording of a song' and you're free to take that recording anywhere you want. What you can't do is duplicate that recording. If you download the iTunes version of "Stairway to Heaven" you have to buy the LP to play it on a turntable. The same is true in reverse, sorry.

Again, you don't own the song! Besides we all know we're talking about music that you NEVER PAID FOR. It is wrong to illegally download copyrighted music that haven't paid for. Accept that you're OK with stealing music recordings from musicians and the companies that support them.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


Excuse me, you own the song when you purchase it. You have that incorrect. You just cannot play that song on a radio without paying a royalty. You do not understand that you purchased the song and yes you can record that song onto any other media if you so choose to. Boy oh Boy, you are not informed.

With your theory every bar, restaurant and club in America couldn't A. Play the songs in their establishments..B. Have DJ's alter the songs.

I am done with you as you clearly do not understand what this ruling was about.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
FIFTEEN years ago, I was busy telling friends that unless CD stores went to a model where you could go into the store, select tracks that you wanted, and burn them to CD on the spot and then pay a fee for just those tracks, they would go the way of the dodo. They all thought I was nuts, said that the CD would never die, people would still want covers, graphics, cds on their shelves.

Looks like I'm being proven right. Music sales make up a very small percentage of sales of retail chains that used to rely on this business for their income. They've had to find alternate revenue streams.

Movies will soon go the same way.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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?




As a musician I have to be blunt:

If you're trying to get by on record sales, you're doing it wrong.

If you've gotten to the point where people are duplicating your music and sending it all over the place, you're doing it right.

Breakthrough artists will make sales on iTunes because the mp3s aren't popular enough to be floating around the net. Usually by the time they are floating around, you have enough of a fan-base to be touring, and when you're touring you have no place complaining about the pennies you'd be making on record sales in comparison.

If you're struggling past these, you probably just aren't very good.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Partisanity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

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?




They have taken "ownership" of intellectual property way to far to the point that mere sounds are deemed the property of someone. Back in the days music was truly free. Everyone sang songs at parties...perhaps gathered around a piano...and no one seemed to really care if they were particularly "good" or not. Now in the days of recording, people have slowly stopped singing. There is always someone better than me is the motto. You can go to the store and buy the music of some distant artist who you don't know instead of listening to Jim, Jessica, Joe, etc sing. This is also why present day folk music doesn't really exist.

But no one really feels like a criminal when illegally downloading music. Deep down they know this so-called property is something that should be shared, not commodified in an anonymous market. Is it really a crime if there is no guilty conscience?

Besides as for artists such as painters and digital artists have a choice to put their work up online or not. So frankly they really cannot get "robbed" unless they display it in a public venue (online or in the real world.) And if it is on display they are likely getting compensated for some sort of contract anyway. Video-game concept artists don't get paid by the number of views...they get paid by the company they are drawing for.

Radiohead recently did that gift economy styled album. Where you donate whatever amount of money you feel it is worth. Some might say they only did this because they had a lot of money and were not worried about additional profits. They still made plenty on the album regardless. Many of my favorite books are COMPLETELY FREE to view from front to back online. If you want a hardcover copy you have to pay...but the knowledge itself is free.




top topics



 
59
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join