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: 11
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I think people may be overlooking the actual wording here.

The Supreme Court is stating that downloading does not equal a "Public Performance", and they are exactly right.

This is much different than saying a download should be free. They are saying it doesn't amount to a public performance.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
This is an absolute MUST SEE...!

Discretion advised...


edit on 5-10-2011 by Propulsion because: spelling

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



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Wait...you mean it wasn't legal already? hahaha
But seriously, didn't the RIAA give up on all those silly lawsuits years ago anyway because it was costing them too much money to carry on with lawyers and all that? Which essentially made it not legal, but OK because you wouldn't be prosecuted anyway?

Also, I wish I was the guy who came up with making paying 99 cents for a song "cool" and "trendy" again (cough cough...apple...cough). SUCKAS
edit on 5-10-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: because i wanted to



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
If I give my friend a CD, they didn't steal that music...now did they?
Piracy is more akin to making a copy, and then giving your friend the copy.

No, wait, that's exactly what piracy is.


If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?
If someone breaks into your house and takes your TV for their personal use, they didn't make money off it, so it's not stealing, right?

I also like how you assume your opinion should be held by every artist and creative professional.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Here's another....

Again, discretion is advised...




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


If someone stands outside your window and listening to YOUR music, shouldn't he be reported to the police for stealing it from you?

Maybe we should send to those property owners an MP3 with clinking clanking sound of money? Right?
edit on 5-10-2011 by DangerDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

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.
edit on 10/4/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)


...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.


edit on 10/4/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)
Do you have the slightest idea how much a lawsuit costs? The hassle and time? Where is Joe Pirate going to scare up millions of dollars? I assure you, any record company that is relying on suing people as a form of income will not be successful. DRM on CDs is largely pointless, since more and more people buy their music online or just pirate it. A few megs worth of bandwidth and a minute or two, and you have the latest Taylor Swift single. There's a good chance no one in the piracy chain will ever have actually bought the CD.

Incidentally, some CDs do have DRM. It's just not generally worth it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

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!
That's like going into a pizzeria and taking a pizza, declaring it's 'free advertising', then going out and telling your friends how great the pizza was. So your friends go into the pizzeria, take a pizza...

My point being that 'advertising' does no good if your advertising to people (pirates) who are by definition not likely to buy it. You can't pay the rent with Youtube likes. I know. I've tried.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resonant
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.
So you'd rather artists get nothing than pennies.

What a philanthropist you are.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: -



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
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.
There is a common claim that the company doesn't do squat. They provide promotion, development costs, housing, distribution, production, support, and other things that add value to the music. Jack in shipping needs to be paid too.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
To all of you whiny people posting: RESEARCH THE RECORD INDUSTRY... Artists really do not get much from the sale of their cds. The only way the artists actually make decent cash is from touring and selling their own crap i.e. being their own record label.

For example Radiohead did a thing where fans could pay what they wanted for their new cd and the average was like $2 or $2.49.. something.. and know what? They reported they made more doing that than they ever did when being with a record label. Some other notable bands that do this: NOFX, Nine Inch Nails. Hell Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails even puts new cds out for free and charges $100-$200+ for special edition releases... Guess what........ THEY SELL OUT.

Point is plenty of people buy products still (obviously) and bands should be their own record label. Do not wanna do the work? Hire family and friends. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRH.
edit on 5-10-2011 by ElectricWizard because: coz



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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?
Like most pirates, there is no gap between "I don't want to pay" and "I should still get it". Everything else is just rationalizations, no matter how much they blather about t3e ebil record companies, or "free advertising". I've heard of people who are willing to spend a ton on anime merchandise, but download fansubs instead of buying the DVDs 'cause they're "too expensive". If you can't pay ten-fifteen bucks for a CD but can afford a computer, you need to reprioritize. Or just read books.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricWizard
To all of you whiny people posting: RESEARCH THE RECORD INDUSTRY... Artists really do not get much from the sale of their cds. The only way the artists actually make decent cash is from touring and selling their own crap i.e. being their own record label.

For example Radiohead did a thing where fans could pay what they wanted for their new cd and the average was like $2 or $2.49.. something.. and know what? They reported they made more doing that than they ever did when being with a record label. Some other notable bands that do this: NOFX, Nine Inch Nails. Hell Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails even puts new cds out for free and charges $100-$200+ for special edition releases... Guess what........ THEY SELL OUT.

Point is plenty of people buy products still (obviously) and bands should be their own record label. Do not wanna do the work? Hire family and friends. DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRH.
edit on 5-10-2011 by ElectricWizard because: coz


Originally posted by 000063
So you'd rather artists get nothing than pennies.

What a philanthropist you are.
The only reason 'In Rainbows' worked was because Radiohead was already famous, and it made the news specifically because it was a famous group doing choose-your-price. They were already rich. Some random kid on YouTube doesn't have that kind of capital, whether in money or attention.

As I said before, publishers do actually add value to music. Not every artist has the resources to even so much as hire their loved ones, and it's not practical for a variety of reasons. It's like saying every writer should start their own publishing company.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:19 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?




That is fine if it distributed and sold in a market place, even a digital one, but that does not extend to peoples personal sharing habits. That is why they are trying to reinterpret the meaning of recorded music to mean "live performance" though it clearly is not a live performance. You should also know that musicians don't make much from record sales, but instead live shows.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx~
I think artists should find a way to specify if they want their music sharable. A copy protection that they have to consciously put on would do the trick. It'd have to be the artists choice though, not any companies. Bands more worried about getting their name out, will release sharable CDs. Bands who are more worried about getting max profit from their work(after already getting their name out via other sharable CDs or other methods) can put copyright CDs.

That maintains the artists rights, and allows sharing/downloading/piracy when it's in a position where the artist is ok with it.
It's called Creative Commons, and the publishers have investment in the music too. They don't just print CDs and ship 'em.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

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!
That's like going into a pizzeria and taking a pizza, declaring it's 'free advertising', then going out and telling your friends how great the pizza was. So your friends go into the pizzeria, take a pizza...

My point being that 'advertising' does no good if your advertising to people (pirates) who are by definition not likely to buy it. You can't pay the rent with Youtube likes. I know. I've tried.


No, it is like someone buying pizza and sharing it with others. Then the shop owner throws a fit because people who are otherwise unable to buy their pizza get it anyway.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resonant
A law is only effective so long as it can be enforced. If you think about how many people "illegally" download music, it would put a sizeable portion of the population at odds with the law, so much so that it would be incredibly taxing to enforce. If you noticed, the pressure that the RIAA and courts were putting on people to stop downloading was immense, but it was not enough to stop much of anything, which has essentially lead to this.
You're right.


There'll be some men around to your house to steal all your stuff later. Don't bother calling 911; the police will never catch them. That makes it okay, right?

Sarcasm aside, do you think everyone who drunk drives gets ticketed? Every rapist? Murderer? Thief? Stop trying to shift blame.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
"That is fine if it distributed and sold in a market place, even a digital one, but that does not extend to peoples personal sharing habits. That is why they are trying to reinterpret the meaning of recorded music to mean "live performance" though it clearly is not a live performance. You should also know that musicians don't make much from record sales, but instead live shows."
--from smokeandshadow

They definitely make more from shows than albums, and the best part is, you can usually get soundboard recordings or "tapings" of those live shows...guess what...FOR FREE!

Most live acts have a taping policy, whereas they let you record their shows with your own equipment, and a lot of the time they sound almost as good as soundboards.

Now that leads to a whole other topic, $^&#%* livenation/ticketmaster and their gigantic fees! I once paid more in fees than the actual cost of the ticket...I couldn't believe it

edit on 5-10-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: trying to get this quote thing to work

edit on 5-10-2011 by upgrayeddc310t because: didn't work so...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
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! That's like going into a pizzeria and taking a pizza, declaring it's 'free advertising', then going out and telling your friends how great the pizza was. So your friends go into the pizzeria, take a pizza...

My point being that 'advertising' does no good if your advertising to people (pirates) who are by definition not likely to buy it. You can't pay the rent with Youtube likes. I know. I've tried.

No, it is like someone buying pizza and sharing it with others. Then the shop owner throws a fit because people who are otherwise unable to buy their pizza get it anyway. No, it's more like seeing a movie, then going to the bathroom after it's over, then sneaking into another screen for another movie that you didn't pay for.

It's not 'sharing' or 'lending' if you never lose possession.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
For those who feel that downloading of music (to listen to on your mp3 player) is stealing....
Do you think the libraries are complicit in allowing people to steal by not buying the books they read?
Libraries paid for their books or had them donated, and only one person gets them at a time. An infinite number of pirates can effectively listen to one CD.

So, no. Photocopying an entire book would be stealing, and more akin to piracy. Even more so if the paper, ink, power, and copier cost effectively nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join