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: 13
59
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

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.
That's nice. So the artist's wishes are irrelevant.


Just because you wrote it doesn't make it yours forever. That is stupid.
I'm noting a lot of statements with no logical connections here.


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.
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.


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.
So people should stop making money off of things given a completely arbitrary timespan?




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

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.
If my 'monopoly' you mean 'the people who make it get to control reproduction', then yes.


It is not theft because theft means the taking of personal property and copying does not include taking anything.
You have not answered the question. I did not ask about CI. Why do you lot find it so difficult? Yes/no/IDK. Simple.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: -



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


The answer is yes but it doesn't apply to IP because you don't own the song you own the rights to the song. If I copy the song I infringe upon those rights. So in the case of pirating it isn't theft.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 

Think about it.

There are many artists these days that argue CD's sold and music purchased online through paid programs such as itunes create next to 'no' revenue for the actual artist themselves. There are so many hands out for their share, the money that is received by the artist is next to nothing. Now you may ask, ''well how do they make there money then?'' well most money is made from live concerts and merchandise sold at these events, on top of merchandise sold on online stores and around the various shops you see. If it bares there name on it, it bares there bank account number on it and thats where they make there money. So. CD's sold really has nothing to do with who buys it, it's just who see's it and how many see it. Look at CD's as small advertisements, why do you think so much hard work goes into the cover/album art these days.

So in effect when people download music you basically showing statistics of how many people are interested and the more you download, the more an artist is known, the more an artist is known, the more they owe those that promote there music a favour.

If someone likes an artist so much, what happens? They buy their CD eventually, they buy the custom T-Shirt baring their name, they buy the posters, the accessories, the stickers they plaster themselves with and people become yet again walking advertisements.

I am glad they decided this.

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

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



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The majority of artisits make their money from touring anyway. Unless your a big mainstream superstar like Katy Perry or Kanye West, most of the money is made from touring. Most major label contracts only pay a small fraction of each CD, and there are reductions taken from the artist's royalties. So unless your CD sells millions of units, you're not going to make much. For live performances, however, the artist keeps most of the money.

Dowloading music doesn't hurt the artist as much as it hurts the record company =)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


Its free to listen to bands on myspace, in fact winamp has a radio service that plays any genre of music all day anything you want. I compensate where I can I buy merch to support bands etc and I stay away from illegal downloads.

But if it was legalized I'd probably que 10 000 songs to dl. Stuff I always wanted but due to being in africa its nearly impossible to have access. Bands that HAVE come to south africa have done so mostly with the help of piracy though to have a big enough fan base to tour.

My arguement is the record companies are resisting progress in technology out of greed, and especially non commercial artists have much more to gain from uploading music and established artists milking their fame for what its worth...

In that case the guys working on wall street who had to study years at the best schools deserve their millions no matter how bad the economy is.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

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".
I am, but not music. Not that it matters.


OK, let's say you are a painter then (just for this example), if I go to a gallery and snap a photo of your work, then post it on a webpage, my facebook photos, or even just use it for personal use on my own computer (as a desktop background or as a slideshow or something), is that stealing from the painter?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


The headline was erroneous, as the body of the article almost stated. This case was about, as I understand it, the difference between live and recorded performances which fall under different rules for the payments to the artists. It is still illegal to download peer to peer unless the artist has licensed the song for such use.

I can't wait for the day that they go after people who pass on their used books as it is actually the same thing regarding the artists intellectual property. By giving my friend a book, the artist loses the money he/she would have made if my friend had to go buy the book.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Yeah screw it. If someone wants to show off work I do, I say go for it. As long they aren't claiming it as their own. I think these multi million dollar record companies can lick my ass if they don't like me downloading One song they produced.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


That depends as that is a vague question.

If I download a MSNBC video clip and watch it, I don't think that's stealing copyrighted material. If I download and listen to Michael Jackson thriller on the net, I don't think that's stealing. Remember in order to even stream, you have to download. Your question is vague, so there you go.

Now answer mine!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


This great news for everyone, including canadians, hopefully this will end harpers bill C32.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What does a song, painting or a movie accomplish? Nothing.

There is no value to these types of artistry, so why should anyone even expect to be paid for it? Every band or producer since the beginning of time has had to earn peoples admiration for creating something people like. To file legal bs against people for not liking your stuff enough to pay for it just means your a crappy artist that has forgot where you came from, not only that, one that probably doesn't even deserve anyone's money anymore.

So... that's why your stuff is free on the internet *ahem* Metallica.

If someone likes something enough to pay for it, good. If not, then why try and force someone to pay for something that is useless?

It's like if I gave you a perfectly smooth stone, told you how much fun it was tossing it in the air, tossed it a few times then let you have it for a minute, then said "That will be 5 bucks, cough it up".
edit on 5-10-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jaguarsky
 


"By giving my friend a book, the artist loses the money he/she would have made if my friend had to go buy the book."
If you give your friend a book there is still only one book.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
We have started a small Small Record Label, with the intention of giving away ALL of our music away for free... I won't release any of our trade secrets but I will try to as simply as possiable explain how we generate revenue.

#1 Corporate sponsorships...I feel selling records (in any format is dead...WHY FIGHT IT?), if Buick would pay Tiger millions for a commercial or two and to drive a Buick to tourneys, why wouldn't a company pay to have a sponsor band push produt at shows and events, film commercials and the like? Let's just say 3 shows a week average attendance 10,000 that is alot of people hearing "(insert "BAND NAME" would like to thank " insert Sponsor Name")...Good night!"), said Product Name every year... Isn't that the idea of mass advertising? Find your target group of buyers, show them that other people that they admire (sometimes to the point of worship) using thier product, and wait for the checks to arrive? Like I mentioned a moment ago why sell records? Why not sell your band as the best opportuinty to reach a focused group of potential clients Face-to-Face in the most ecomomical way. Advertising budgets are HUGE...Most athletes make much much more from thier sponsorships than their contract to play whatever game it is that they are good at. I am sure everyone sees the potiential here. The Bands and label still get paid by the venue for filling the seats and a portion of concessions, and sales of band related merchandise. There is money to be made while not charging for the music at all, and we haven't even touched on Movie Sountracks!

#2 SUPERFANS of particular label bands (hopefully ALL label bands) will have the opportunity to purchase "advanced acccess to each of our bands individual pages" on a pay-per-view status..I can't mention more of our ideas on these exact advanced access privlages are, but trust that any real fan of any of our bands would give a body part to have a chance to ingest what we plan to offer.

#3 I've already said to much...

I don't agree with artist NOT getting paid for what they do, but the industry needs to wake up already... The world has changed, and this is the true test of capatalism... Adapt and over come or fail and fade into the history books. PERIOD!

This is America, only you are preventing your dreams from being your reality!

Best regards,

Wastedown



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

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.


They can get the persons assets if they can't pay. Who said anything about the record companies relying on suing people as a means of income? It's certainly wasn't me.

If the songs had DRM on them in first place, they wouldn't be up on the internet to be pirated. So you are arguing in circles.




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.


The last time I checked you can't make a copy of a tv. Bad analogy.



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.


You are talking about perishable goods. What do they have to do with digital content?
But I'll say this:
You have 2 pizzeria's across the street from each other. Both have just opened. One place decided to give out free samples of their pizza to all new customers in their first few days. The other one does not.

Which one do you think is going to be more successful?



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.


The artists do the promoting themselves. Housing adds value to music? Writing music, playing it, and touring it are much harder than making a phone call.




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.


A pizza was already bought, it does not matter who eats it, the cost was paid. That's a horrible analogy. So what you mean is that when pizza's are delivered to someone's house, they can not share that pizza with others.

I wish I could go further, but I've got to go back to work.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
You people are reading this wrong. Good God. It doesn't mean you can now legally download from bit torrent, Limewire or wherever. It means they don't get a separate PERFORMANCE ROYALTY in addition to mechanical royalties for the actual song. It has nothing to do with whether or not you are violating copyright laws...you still are.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Quoop
 


Most bands get into a contract, get purchased new equipment, pratice spaces, a tour bus, and the most expensive part STUDIO TIME, not realizing they have to repay the Record Company all costs incurred producing the record.. Most press and drop thier first records already MILLIONS of dollars in debt to thier own label.

MOST of the proceeds for ticket sales go back to repay the Record Company. My buddy had a #3 Song on the Billboard Charts, touring with 3 Doors Down, while fighting over peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches on the bus. 5 guys splitting less than $200.00 a show...NOT PRETTY! They made just enough to pay off the Record Company from 2 years of touring. Recorded a demo of thier 2nd album of thier 5 album Contract and the label dropped them. The label got what they wanted...Millions, they owned the studio, everoney from the top to the bottom got paid...EXCEPT THE BAND!!! If it hadn't been for the Anapolis soundtrack the band would still be broke.

The Industry is designed to get the label money NOT the artist.
edit on 5-10-2011 by wastedown because: typo

edit on 5-10-2011 by wastedown because: to add a missed point



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 00001
 


Exactly. If you photocopy that book so the entire state of Moronville get's a copy, then your'e breaking the law. By some of your logic, only one person need to purchase a group's CD then they are free to distribute it how they see fit. Do you really believe that? Honestly? Sony only has to print one copy of somebody's album because whoever buys it can distribute it to the entire world? Yea, that makes sense.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
all I can say is that I have bought CD's a lot of times, thinking that artist was good (based upon hearing ONE song on the radio), and then I would buy a CD of his, just to discover, that 99.99% of his music was totally crap and then that CD would just end up in the dustbin, and I would never, EVER buy another CD of them,..... Whereas, if I could download some of his repertoire, and find out his music is really good, then I would go out and BUY his music, not just ONE CD, but EVERYTHING I can find, just to support him .... but then, I guess I am not a typical music buyer either .....
edit on 5/10/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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.

I'm not saying getting paid for art is a bad thing. Getting rich and famous is not a bad thing. The bad thing is, creating art for those reasons kills the art.

I'm Christian so its natural for me to have these standpoints. Apologies if my original statement sounded muddled, it's difficult to explain things in such a way that the world will understand.

Art is love for God. When we go to heaven, we will leave all things (I'm talking about money and fame) behind. The only thing we bring with us is ourselves, and our memories and experiences. If we create art for the sake of earthly things, what will we gain for eternity? Money? It will burn away. Fame? You will be forgotten. But what is more splendid than the praise that comes from the Creator himself? The treasures in heaven are eternal.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join