Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you for clarifying this! I could not find a single U.S. news source that verified this claim by RT. So it's a moot point. I have mixed feelings about this, working in publishing. I think that artists need to think about releasing something unusual at first (i.e., an illustrated hardcover edition, or a signed LP) that is only a rare collectible, then think about releasing something that is digitally compatible. Otherwise, digital will simply coopt the material upon its release. This is the world we live in -- thus, artists need to think about first editions, signed editions, limited editions, and otherwise special editions upon initial release.

reply to post by 000063


This is closest to patent law. Patents last for 17 years with one extension. Why do you think the fairy who writes a song is entitled to a life of profits from his song when you agree that the genius inventor only has 17 years? Surely the inventor has a right to his invention as much as the songwriter. Yet we as a society say that the inventor can only profit for a limited time while the songwriter or novelist's grandchildren will be rich off his work. That makes sense how?

No, 20 years is long enough. By far. 50 years plus life is essentially forever. There is no benefit to society for such an outlandish term.

But according to your logic, I should get paid for every Ipad and smart phone in existence since I invented these devices in 1981. Once I learned that the technology did not yet exist I declined to pursue a patent. If they were forever like copyright, you'd be paying me cash. Is that right? I don't think so.

reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

Artists have a thing called "touring" which nets them more money than any album could.

Yeah, but now they have to give a cut of their touring and merchandising to the labels. Why? Because they can not pay back the "advance" money.

Basically a record label gives the band money to live and record. Then the record label gets paid back for the loan. For decades they made the money back through record sales. That meant the artist got 100% of the money from touring and merchandising.Now, since nobody wants to pay for music, artists are forced to sign over large percentages of their touring income and merchandising.

The effect goes far past the record labels though. The engineers, producers, publishers, secretaries, studio managers, equipment rental companies, and others are going out of business. Some of the oldest and most historical studios around the country are closing their doors. Thousands of people are being put out of work.

It is a much bigger issue than artists and labels. There is a huge support network behind every artist. These are the people that suffer the most. The people that work for the least simply because they love the business. They are the first ones to get hurt.

It does't matter though. Who cares about all of the nasty truth? Obviously most people don't care that their actions are literrally bankrupting working class families.

I'm in a band named Quitting Heaven and we post all our music online for free. While everyone has their own opinion...our music is well recorded, studio quality rock music that a lot of people enjoy. So this is my take on the downloading situation.

As a musician, I can be paid to write songs, for my time recording and performing songs, and additional income from branding, licensing, etc. I can even sell the song (if I was smart with my contract) later on in life. I created this and I can do as I please with this. However...I understand that people listening to, or simply hearing my music is not theft...it is publicity that leads to all my other means of income. That would be assuming I do it solely for income and not for the love of playing. Mine happens to be the latter.

Today's bands should be grateful that people even care about their music. They/we are a dime a million. Keep selling your concert seats for $150, your t-shirts for $20, your "fill in the blank" for more...then realize that YOU are famous because these "thieves" actually paid attention to your music in the first place.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Some of the oldest and most historical studios around the country are closing their doors. Thousands of people are being put out of work.

That's true, but it's NOT happening due to downloading music. This is caused by major labels like Sony BMG or Time Warner. They simply bought the market, they have their own studios, and distribute records by themselves.
As you pointed out, there's long line of people between musician and listener. And because they been incorporated all-in-one, independent studios and labels simply can't afford to keep up, which eventually lead to being kicked out of business. And to homogenize music, as only songs which corporate hats will recognize as profitable will be promoted.

The real enemy here are greedy labels, which in matter of fact you can hardly call labels anymore, because they are part of multi-media empires focused on income, not artistic value by any means.

PS
I'm also a musician.

reply to post by pause4thought


I agree with you 100%. This is why I pay the money to support my favorite bands (or rather the recording label).

It's funny how some artists go as far as to promote piracy because of their hatred for record companies.

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat


I was an engineer and worked from Florida to Texas and spent a lot of time in Nashville. I haven't seen Sony or anybody else buying up their own studios. Sony downsized it's Nashville office. A lot of smaller labels and imprints under the major labels got closed. A lot of it did have to do with downloading music.

Sorry, but the inability to make back the money on their initial investment forced the labels to stop taking chances. I know, I have been in meetings with some of the biggest names in the business. The new "360" deals came about because the record labels were failing to make their money back. Now bands have to pay back their advance from their merch, publishing, and touring. That really sucks because a lot of bands were actually losing money on tour.

I remember Warren Haynes saying, "It was a weird summer for all of us. A lot of people were losing money on the road. The crowds just aren't there." That was before the economic collapse of 07/08.

People keep talking about how this will help the industry. It won't. Labels aren't going to take chances like they use to. Bands like The Stooges could get rereleased over and over again because the profit from other projects covered the loss. Now that even big name artists can't recoup the cost of an album the money isn't there to rerelease some old classic album. The money to do that deluxe remaster on an album like Kind of Blue or The Planets doesn't exist.

It also hurts the consumer. I don't have time to hunt through the thousands of band websites looking for that great new artist. I just stick to what I know. I use Jango and Slacker. If it doesn't end up on there I probably won't hear it. The average person does the same thing. They use the radio, an internet station or two, and occasionally hop around on You Tube. A band can give everything away, but if they don't have the resources to push their product it does no good. Since the "free" bands don't have the capital to push new stuff to fans people will revert to what they know or be stuck with awful pop music.

That is where the labels came in to play. They gave the artist the resources to make the music and promote the music. The way it is going now only people like Taylor Swift, that come from a family with money, will get that big. People like Selena Gomez and Brittany Spears will be the future of music because they were groomed for it on TV. The name recognition will ensure sales and recoupment.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I was an engineer and worked from Florida to Texas and spent a lot of time in Nashville. I haven't seen Sony or anybody else buying up their own studios. Sony downsized it's Nashville office. A lot of smaller labels and imprints under the major labels got closed. A lot of it did have to do with downloading music.

Obviously they don't see Nashville as profitable asset. And of course you woudn't seen Sony buy new studio, they rather let it fall, customers won't have choice anymore.

I remember Warren Haynes saying, "It was a weird summer for all of us. A lot of people were losing money on the road. The crowds just aren't there." That was before the economic collapse of 07/08.

Lack of promotion?

That is where the labels came in to play. They gave the artist the resources to make the music and promote the music. The way it is going now only people like Taylor Swift, that come from a family with money, will get that big. People like Selena Gomez and Brittany Spears will be the future of music because they were groomed for it on TV. The name recognition will ensure sales and recoupment.

There you go, you pointed out what the problem is. There's less labels on market, because of politics of giants. They groom THEIR artists on THEIR tv shows, and sells this retarded music as bona fide artistic crap. They alsoo groom listeners, so (bit exaggerating) overdriven guitar will sound to most teenagers like nails on chalkboard.

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat

Obviously they don't see Nashville as profitable asset. And of course you woudn't seen Sony buy new studio, they rather let it fall, customers won't have choice anymore.

Sony didn't own a studio. The labels in Nashville, Miami, and other places did not own studios when I was in the business. It was cheaper to rent than make the capital investment. Then they would have had to pay for a staff to maintain the studio and make constant reinvestments to keep up with changes in technology. Most record labels got out of the business of owning studios a long time ago.

Nashville was actually one of the more profitable places for the labels. Country music always sells very well. Plus, Nashville has a lower cost of living, a lower cost of doing business, and a well trained pool of job canidates.

Lack of promotion?

Nope. People don't go to shows like they use to. Despite the "I download to screw labels and go to shows" mantra, many smaller venues have closed or went to canned music. A lot of artist have went to more abreviated touring schedules that are highly targetted. The money just isn't there like it use to be. People want it for free, or they want ten bands for $20.

There you go, you pointed out what the problem is. There's less labels on market, because of politics of giants.

You are missing the point. They take this approach because it was the best way to ensure they make back their investment. Believe it or not there are a lot of people at the labels that like music. They would sign a Brittany Spears so that they had the money to risk on bands like System of A Down or Slip Knot. The pop garbage was a way to fund the stuff that real music fans at the label wanted to hear. The bean counters squashed that because it become more popular to download the album than buy the album. A lot of bands became losing prospects because their young fans wanted it for free.

The giants started closing up smaller imprints because they couldn't recoup their investment any more.

A lot of the reason people went to downloading is the industry's fault. That is something I have expounded on elsewhere on ATS. I believe the move away from album oriented radio to single based radio changed how the industry made albums. It lead to a lot of albums with a handfull of singles and mostly filler. So, when technology opened the door people poured through.

Plus they failed to account for the fact that a solid portion of CD sales came from people replacing old viynl and tape collections. That market was bound to dry up eventually. They didn't really plan for that.

There was a lot of bad leadership in the industry. I could go on for days about it.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I'm sure Henry Ford and his assembly line idea put alot of people out of business. Saddle makers, horse carriage builders and bit into the amount of horseshoes blacksmiths were making. What are you gonna do that is what the market demanded.

Many guys I know have gotten a multi input sound card and just record themselves. Music distribution sites let them take their music and sell it or give it away on the net. Both examples of the artists cutting out the middle man and why the middle man is going broke.

You said the bands are not making the money that they used to from CD sales to cover the advance to produce the CD. If you look at it objectively you can't help but notice that the deal was a racket.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Sure, go download one of my tracks. I don't care.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Thanks for your opinion m8, it was really interesting to read.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Fame don't pay the rent.

I love how many artists who support piracy as a means of publicity imply that other musicians should feel the same.

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat


The real enemy are the people who lower the profit on music so the industry can't afford to take as many risks. If you got your money stolen, are the bad guys the people who set prices at such a point that you have to choose between eating and rent, or the people who stole your money and put you in the situation in the first place?

Originally posted by daskakik
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.

Okay. The people who own the song are the artists and publishers. When you pirate it, you take a copy for--no, wait, that's still taking something without permission.

Originally posted by kykweer
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...

Do you understand the concept of 'business'? The whole point is to make as much money as possible. Record companies would just love to open up new markets in third-world countries, but they can't because of licensing restrictions. They legally cannot sell everything everywhere. You are arguing that the businesses are deliberately choosing to make less money out of greed. That makes no sense.

Originally posted by upgrayeddc310t

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?

idk

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
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!

So, you're saying 'no' to the question 'is downloading copyrighted material without paying for is stealing?'.

Thank you for finally answering.

1. If you have purchased a song already, why should you be required to pay for it again?

If you want a new copy, yes.

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?

No. Apples and oranges. More accurately would be if you wanted a lawn like your neighbours; you couldn't just steal his lawn and put it on your land in the dead of night. You'd have to go and buy your own lawn.

If someone else wants to listen to your song on their iPod, they have to buy it themselves or have someone buy it for 'em.

If someone else wants to drive the car I bought, I have to either lend them my car or sell it to them. I can't magically copy my car. I can't magically copy lawns or iPods either.

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?

You aren't. You just have to move it from your computer to your device, unless restricted by DRM. You're addressing a straw man here. If you go to the movie theatre, and want to see the same movie twice, do you only have to pay for one ticket?

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?

I don't think they do.

Originally posted by RSF77
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)

Your post is based on the premise that a song, movie or painting is worthless.

The people who make it tend to disagree.

If you want to go that road, just about everything is worthless.

Originally posted by 000063
Okay. The people who own the song are the artists and publishers. When you pirate it, you take a copy for--no, wait, that's still taking something without permission.

Wrong again the copyright holder doesn't own the song. He owns the copyrights to the song. When I make a copy of the song that they hold the copyright to I am not taking anything.

What I am doing is not honoring the state granted monopoly that the government has given them to copy, distribute and sell the song.

It is an infraction but not a crime (though they have made it one in some places) and definitely not theft.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
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.

That's like saying a burglar alarm keeps people from breaking into your house. It makes it less likely, sure, but there's no absolute guarantee.

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.

You didn't say anything about making a copy, you talked about making a profit. You're moving the goalposts.

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?

In that free publicity is useless when dealing with people who, by definition, don't pay for stuff.

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?

Nope. Piracy involves taking the pizza, not the joint giving it away for free. I have no problem with artists using piracy as a means of promotion. I have a problem with people deciding that the pizza joint doesn't deserve their money, but they still deserve pizza.

The artists do the promoting themselves.

I'm sorry, I don't think Britney Spears does her own makeup before setting up a background and folks for an autotimer. And to my knowledge, she doesn't pay for videos out of her own pocket.

Housing adds value to music? Writing music, playing it, and touring it are much harder than making a phone call.

You have no idea what promotion actually entails. I assure you, it is a lot more complicated than just making phone calls. Who books the venues? Who pays the city its fees? Who pays for transport? Not the artist, generally.