It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's nice. So the artist's wishes are irrelevant.
Originally posted by Ookie
Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Ookie
because say you have just one hit album and its sells for decades why should you suddenly not get paid for it after a set time? If an artist paints a painting and its sold 40 years later don't they deserve the money?
No they don't. The artists should no longer get paid for their work after 20 years. If they want more money they should WRITE NEW MUSIC. That makes more music for everyone.
I'm noting a lot of statements with no logical connections here.
Just because you wrote it doesn't make it yours forever. That is stupid.
Nope. Limits are the artist's lifetime+50 years. If someone gets the rights, it may remain active. There are a few court cases on the matter right now. So the entire basis for your rant is wrong.
Artists should benefit from their work. For a limited time. Then they should be forced to make new works. I see nothing wrong with that. It's the forever we have now that makes no sense.
So people should stop making money off of things given a completely arbitrary timespan?
You wrote a hit song? Great! There is no reason you should still get paid for it when you're 70. Unless you write it at 50.
If my 'monopoly' you mean 'the people who make it get to control reproduction', then yes.
Originally posted by daskakik
Copyright infringment is not theft. Copyright law says I can't make a copy because there is a monopoly on the copy and distribution of IP.
You have not answered the question. I did not ask about CI. Why do you lot find it so difficult? Yes/no/IDK. Simple.
It is not theft because theft means the taking of personal property and copying does not include taking anything.
Originally posted by 000063
I am, but not music. Not that it matters.
Originally posted by upgrayeddc310t
reply to post by 000063
Man just post the name of your band already so we can youtube you and see if your music is even worth buying...you seem mad, therefor you must be a "struggling artist".
Originally posted by 000063
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by byeluvolk
reply to post by KamiKazeKenji
Are you saying that people like Mozart did not get paid? You fail to realize to create true art it is your life. There is no room for a day job. To really make that masterpiece you spend your entire life working at art. If you are not getting paid for it you can’t continue as you must buy food, and shelter. There are actually some very talented homeless people that do not make money of their art. The key word here being “homeless.” And one day due to sheer luck, an epiphany, or maybe a muse, you create that special something that gets you recognized by the world at large. From that point on you do not have to be the best or even really active. You have gained fame and everything you do will be looked at by the world for better or worse. But if you are not earning a living from your art then it will suffer as you spend too much time at your real job to really make art, or you will be impoverished and spend all your time with your art. Artists do indeed create art for the love of the medium, but love does not feed their family. They have to get paid.