Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

reply to post by mnmcandiez

Someone in the comment section of that article going by the handle "passer-by" said what I was going to say a bit clearer than I probably would have, so I will quote from the comment:

[passer-by October 05, 2011, 22:13

Just so people know, the headline and first summary sentence are 100% incorrect. The case does not get at that at all. This has nothing do with the legality of downloading. It is merely about whether the copyright holders get paid once or twice for the downloads Yahoo and RealNetworks were doing. Needed to write an attention-grabbing headline, even if totally wrong, huh?

FYI, the case is US v. ASCAP - In the matter of Applications of RealNetworks, Inc., Yahoo! Inc. (627 F.3d 64).]

reply to post by axslinger


What I said was the book has been paid for. Giving THAT book away is fine. Giving away copies of THAT book is not fine. Im against the downloading. I don't know much about these "free" download sites, do they have advertising on the sites. Do you think these sites just give away free music. They profit from someone elses work, the way I see it that is stealing.

reply to post by wastedown


About #1:

Because then they would try and force you to pervert your artistry in order to receive money from them, then it's just a form of social manipulation that you pay for. If you wouldn't change your artistry for money, now that is something I could really respect.

There is nothing wrong with the concept, just human nature is not accounted for.

Originally posted by wastedown

 

The Industry is designed to get the label money NOT the artist.

Sorry about that. I hear a small portion of Americans might be trying to fix that.

Originally posted by 000063

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: +

People will adapt if they are meant to be in whatever industry they "want" to be in. If one is good enough they will get popular by any means necessary. It is easier than ever to get popular and recognized via the internet AND THAT IS ONLY ONE ROUTE. WOWOWOW. You can host a video for free and hundreds of millions of people can watch it? DAMN! It is called advertising... it is an old old old method of getting recognized. You do not need much capital to spread your "warez" these days.

Writers? It's called open up your text editor and making an ebook and getting paid via paypal which can all be done for free.

For every whiny complaint there is an answer that IS practical. The only people that are limited are the ones that limit themselves.

awesome! dont let them lie to you artist generaly lose money on album sales. they are paid very little per album depends on their stature a very big/established name in music will make more than a new/obscure artist but the range goes from very low (idk the lowest possible) to ive heard as high as one dollar if your huge pop star.
here is where there is no profit... the artist has to pay all recording cost as well as pay back any cash incentives(cash advance). these costs sometime go into the millions even a budget album can be 100s of thousands (the digital age has reduced these costs but the artist pays all studio time sound engineers etc lots of money) most recording contracts allow the record company to pick the producer and the artist pays even if the producer demands 1 million per album. they also stick in weird clauses like 10% of your gross goes to their lawyers. plus the artist manegment takes 15% of the gross, then the government taxes, next all monies made go to paying back the recording costs producer etc. if theres anything left over it goes to the artist. its not uncommon for bands to lose money on an album. consider paying all that with 25 cents per album and then splitting 25 cents per album in a 3 or 5 piece band.

i support artists but its not the consumers job to protect the artists work and if it wernt possible to make a perfect copy of their work for cheaper than you could buy a manufactured cd they wouldnt have this problem.

if you were able to make an exact copy/duplicate of a 100k dollar ferrari for 1k dollars would you drive anything else? legal/moral or not.

reply to post by RSF77


I see your point... and you will be happy to hear that we will not compromise the art... Focus studies will let us dial in on the right product line to be pushed by each individual artist following... No compromise needed... Amp covers showing a product will not change what the artist has to say... That and careful selection of our artistists will help to fine tune the advertisers we go after... We are looking to run it more like an advertising agency that a record lable.

reply to post by bhornbuckle75


Dont shoot me, shoot RT, the source

reply to post by mnmcandiez


I think that the Supreme Court is wrong here. You are stealing someones work/income if you download music for free. There are some artists that release their music to public downloads for free...

However each artist has a choice to do this. They have every right to say no I don't want to just give it away.. If someone gets the album then uploads they have effectively removed that choice from the artists hand.

Say you work at a small software company.... Your lively hood relies on selling your product. . . One person putting your product out for a download hits you right in your pocket book.

This is all part of the hate the wealthy mentality to be honest. You feel like you have a right to get their product free because obviously they aren't going to miss the money.... I'm sorry but that is CRAP.

After more closely reading the article I see that it doesn't actually say downloading is legal... That being said, the argument from the free music, movie, software, proponents is still garbage. . .

Anyone has the right to be paid or compensated for the service they provide be it flipping your burger or filling your life with beautiful music. Would you demand your one dollar double cheeseburger for free because McDonald's has enough money?

Quit being cheap, quit feeling like y ou deserve a free copy. You don't your not special they worked to make it you work to buy it.

I'm from the older school of tape trading. You record your band in the garage onto a 4-track machine - bounce it down to standard stereo 2-track cassette, then ship it to Olaff in Norway, and in two weeks, he sends you a tape of his band the Brutal Cavity. That's basically what file sharing was.

Same principle today - recently when I saw my band's EP on some music blog available for download, I've gotta admit, I dug it! So what if I'm not gonna make major bread... the fact that someone is willing to *listen* to my music is pretty damn gratifying enough!

As a professional musician, I'm cool with this! I'm very cool with it!

Originally posted by the_philth
I'm from the older school of tape trading. You record your band in the garage onto a 4-track machine - bounce it down to standard stereo 2-track cassette, then ship it to Olaff in Norway, and in two weeks, he sends you a tape of his band the Brutal Cavity. That's basically what file sharing was.

Same principle today - recently when I saw my band's EP on some music blog available for download, I've gotta admit, I dug it! So what if I'm not gonna make major bread... the fact that someone is willing to *listen* to my music is pretty damn gratifying enough!

As a professional musician, I'm cool with this! I'm very cool with it!

Not everyone is you or Tom Petty. . .

The point is you or me or the OP has no right to decide if someone work ought to be given away for free. It's not your place to make that decision about someone else's work. It's really just that simple.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


This did not legalize Piracy. That's wishful thinking on the part of thieves.

I'm continually amazed at how many thieves post about their criminal activities on the Internet. You have to be a real lowlife to steal the fruits of other peoples labor and investments of time and money in intellectual property.

There is no difference between that and shoplifting CD's. Same thing exactly. Don't be fooled into thinking it is legal.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


For the heck of it. Why do you think it's OK to steal? Can I come steal something you created? That OK with you?

Originally posted by constantwonder
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

I think that the Supreme Court is wrong here. You are stealing someones work/income if you download music for free.

Wrong, it's not theft it's copywright infringment.

Stop trying to make it something it isn't. It isn't theft and honestly it isn't really wrong. Maybe a little unfair.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

 

Dont shoot me, shoot RT, the source

Ha ha...fair enough!
Honestly though it really is RT's reponsibility to not make such misleading headlines....They can either be a credible news source or an uncredible one, and if they allow misleading stories like this one to get past their radar then I would have to assume the latter.

reply to post by pause4thought


I only get mad when people figure out how to do something for free that I've been paying for.

Only people that are mad are the ones who cant/dunno how.

Think some people need to work out the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement."

Everyone has a search engine built into the browser they use ( even smart and not so smart phones have them).... how about using it or do I have to post a link or two to educate people on the differences ?

How about we just let the artist decide if you have to pay for it or are allowed to download. Case closed?

But I have to show this video.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


Your right, but anything posted like artwork, stories, music, is still copyrighted on the internet to that person, so when down loading someones work, please give them credit for it. you don't want to upload your work and some one shows it as theirs. add a water mark to your photos, etc. free downloads is one thing, but a .99 ct, song for someones work. well business is business. yes this reply is copyrighted to me.

When the music industry thieves like Metallica stop charging $500 a ticket to see a live show, maybe I'll pay the buck to download one of their songs. But then again, Metallica hasn't produced anything worthy in almost 20 years!

reply to post by Jepic


Unfortunately its not down to the artist to decide , That decision is down to the record label they have a contract with. These companies need to work out that free downloadable content is the way forward, Its a fantastic way to advertise the people they produce.

Sure, everyone needs to make a decent living , same as me and you. Do artists really need to make XXXX millions per year ? Do the record labels really need to make XXXX billions per year ? Its greed and its a cancer that's eating away at society across the board.

I will be honest and admit to downloading stuff from the web, If I like it I buy it. If not, it gets deleted. Kinda the same as buying a CD from a shop and bringing it home. Play it once , realise its rubbish and bringing it back to the shop for a refund . How about ripping a copy of a CD from a friend , Same difference isn't it.