Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

Originally posted by Hellhound604
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)

Caveat Emptor.

Originally posted by ElectricWizard

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.

No, wrong. You cannot control whether you end up famous. All you can do is try.

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?

But will they? I've seen excellent videos with only a few hundred views.

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.

Haha nope. Doing that is no guarantee of recognition, fame, success, or rent money.

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

Nonsense. Most people cannot fly under their own power, because it is physically impossible. There are plenty of things that are outside of people's control, especially fame, regardless of your pop-psych "believe in your dreams" tommyrot.

reply to post by constantwonder


One thing pirates seam loath to explain is why they deserve a free copy. How the industry doesn't deserve their money, sure, how piracy is free 'advertising', but why they deserve it for free in the first place? Very rarely. I actually respect people who admit they just want stuff for free more than the apologists.

Originally posted by daskakik

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.

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

Yes, how unfair that you can't get things you don't pay for. If you listen really hard, you can just hear a tiny violin.

Originally posted by Rule34
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 ?

Problem is, the definition is subjective. And it's not like 'copyright infringement'--which, as the name indicates, violates someone's rights--is any better than 'theft'. It just has more syllables.

Originally posted by Rule34
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.

So they should give away their stuff to make money.

Yes, that makes lots of sense.

Sure, everyone needs to make a decent living , same as me and you. Do artists really need to make XXXX millions per year ?

No.

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.

Yes. Record companies and studios are shutting down left and right, and they can afford, less and less, to actually hire new artists. You think Interscope would have been able to take a shot on Lady Gaga if they didn't have the likes of 50 Cent and the BEP signed?

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.

No, it's not. Because only one person can listen to a CD at a time, unless you make that copy.

Originally posted by Ookie
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?

Gosh, I dunno, maybe you should campaign to change patent law. Creative work is different from patents.

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.

A lifetime + 50 is not even close to forever. If I were a successful writer and died now, my copyright could easily see my hypothetical grandkids into college. Creative works are an asset, just like your grandma's pearl necklace or grandpa's watch, and legally very different from patents.

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.

I never said copyright and patent terms should be the same. That is your straw man, so no, it is not right. What you are doing is the equivalent of taking me saying "Murder should be punishable by life in jail." and going "Does it make sense that petty theft can get you just a few months and murder gets you a life sentence? Huh? What sense does that make? Are you saying people should go to jail for just a few months for committing murder?" It's an apples and oranges comparison. You choice of "20 years" is completely arbitrary.

Originally posted by daskakik

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.

You are taking a copy without permission. The owner/creator holds the sole right to make copies. That is what copyright means. Unless he sells that right to someone else. The guy who tried to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon website (think Potterpedia) asked JKR for permission, she went "no", and he tried to print it anyway. The court determined that he had no right to print the lexicon, which heavily quoted from the Harry Potter books. In other words, it would've violated her copyright.

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's not a "monopoly", it's a right.

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

I love how you can say "it's not a crime, except when it is!" without missing a beat.

Originally posted by 000063
Yes, how unfair that you can't get things you don't pay for. If you listen really hard, you can just hear a tiny violin.

It's unfair for the copyright holder.

They're the ones hearing the tiny violin.

Originally posted by 000063
You are taking a copy without permission.

You don't take a copy you make a copy.

It's not a "monopoly", it's a right.

It's a right that grants a monopoly over IP. Monopoly

mo·nop·o·ly noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.

5. a company or group that has such control.

I love how you can say "it's not a crime, except when it is!" without missing a beat.

It depends on the place. In some countries it is a crime and in some it isn't. On the other hand in some countries drinking alcohol is a crime while in others the morality of it isn't ever questioned. Leading me to believe that using laws in place to guage the morality of an action is inaccurate.

well thats pretty cool, i guess

im still about supporting the artists though!

and buying albums doesnt really support the artists as much as people believe!

reply to post by daskakik

I'm sure Henry Ford and his assembly line idea put alot of people out of business.

It sure did. Grand Theft Auto was a serious felony long before it was a video game though.

People went from paying for one form of transportation to paying for another form of transportation. Your analogy does not work.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'm sure Henry Ford and his assembly line idea put alot of people out of business.

It sure did. Grand Theft Auto was a serious felony long before it was a video game though.

People went from paying for one form of transportation to paying for another form of transportation. Your analogy does not work.

It's pointing out the fact that new technologies force businesses to adapt or shut their doors.

For a long time record labels had no real competition in the marketplace. Digital technology and the net has made it possible for people to record and distribute music on their own and to offer that service to others at a much lower price.

Rebecca Black's parents payed $4000 for the production of a song and video while it is estimated that Def Jam spent $78,000 to produce Rhiannas Man Down (video not included) which went up to $1,078,000 after promotion. While the artistic quality isn't the same the production quality is much closer than the costs would have you believe.

Like I said I know a couple garage bands that have no intrest in getting signed. That is what is going to kill the large labels unless they adapt and trim the fat.

reply to post by 000063


Your views are old and archaic. You do not choose to recognize the evolution that is indeed taking place before your eyes. Denial and you are best of pals. It is fine with me we all have free will Also you contradict yourself while replying to other people.

I have nothing to teach the close minded. I do simply not care enough

you know.. the access to music is unprecedented now than any other time throughout our entire history, you can download releases usually days or weeks before there official release.. etc.. a simple google search will allow you to find links to whatever it is you're trying to find.. etc..

now to my point.. unless it's one of my favorite bands i am impatient with music, meaning i usually can't listen to an entire release and i'll skip songs and a lot of times can't even make it through a full song.

this has a lot to do with so many crappy, cookie cutter bands snatched up by record companies looking to capitalize on a band because they sound like a band that may have had some success earlier on in the past but for the most part i believe it has something to do with our senses being overwhelmed all at once, the ability to get music in a moments notice is a bad thing i've realized recently.

i'm a rare type of person compared to a lot of people by today's standards, if i like a band or a particular cd i absolutely have to buy it mainly because if i buy something i have to have something tangible, something i can actually touch and feel. money is to hard to come by as we all know especially for a "luxury" item, something low on your priority list and buying bits and bytes just don't cut it for me and the only real "pro" to downloading music is having the ability to "try before you buy" but having said that i have more music than i could possibly ever listen to in an entire lifetime so where does it end?

i'm both glad and sad about downloading music. compared to before i got a computer and after, my music buying has at the very least tripled from discovering new bands and exposure to genres i've never heard of before but again, i literally have more music downloaded that even in a life time.

i'd never be able to listen to it all, i honestly believe my impatiences in listening to music is definitely because of the ease and access to any and all music.

so, as far as i am concerned, i'm going to have to say downloading music is a bad thing if you're a true fan of music i'm sure you'd agree. it has backfired for me anyway.

How can musicians sustain themselves on no income?

Making music is soon to be a lost art..

Even were I blind, deaf, and dumb regarding music downloads etc.... The fact that sir bono tried to regulate the internet a la China's fascist model in order to pad his billions, using the rally cry "We CAN do it. We HAVE the technology..... to regulate the internet!"

Yes, that's all I need to know. The greedy bastard tried to make regulating, and censoring, and policing the net as some sort of challenge of the day we had to meet. I kid you NOT!

~thepaulhewsonexperience.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Technically the artist can be held liable for leaking their music by the Record Companies. The Artist do not actually own the rights to the music they created, the Record companies do. Unless specified through other contractual agreements. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my understanding.

That is the problem. The record companies seek to create a monopoly by controlling and manipulating the artists. This is why I happily download everything I want.

1)They are not going to miss a non tangible copy they never knew was created. Sales are projected on physical copies sold. If I had no intentions of buying a physical copy, they are not missing my sale.
2) I don't feel bad for any artist who is stupid enough to get involved with these thieves (record companies) It's been known how the record companies operate since the 70's.
3) Times are changing world wide. We have technology now that will allow an artist to create and distribute his music without paying the record company most of their hard earned money. I will happily do my part to help take down this evil record industry so artists can be free. These middle men must Go.
4) If you don't want your product digitally copied, do not release it in a form that can be copied. Make it like money - something that can't be copied. If we used leaves from trees as money, we would all be billionaires - this is The reason it isn't done.. too easily acquired because leaves are everywhere - same applies to something so easily copied. The record industry can bitch all they want, they created the problem themselves with bad business practices.

Why is this illegal? Because the content owners, the thieving record companies bitched that the thieves (them) are getting stolen from. LOL.. it's so funny...I have no respect for corporate thieves, they are hurting tons of people, my single for personal use downloads are not hurting anyone.

I don't have to download music. I can listen online to almost anything I can think of through websites made for this and online radio stations. This data can easily be captured direct to hard drive without going through a torrent or similar site.

Did a new movie just come out on DVD? Same thing.. just search Watch Online and the name of the movie and you'll find a dvd copy available to watch direct from a web page, no download required.

Originally posted by yourmaker
How can musicians sustain themselves on no income?

Making music is soon to be a lost art..

Your kidding right? More people are making music now more than ever before because they can do it cheaply with current technology plus the internet for distribution. It's not that these non record industry artists don't have income, they just have a different avenue to make money. It's better for them not to be under the heel of the evil music industry. They make and keep more of their money in the long run. They are creating a new music industry and the record companies don't like it one bit. They know their days are numbered.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by yourmaker
How can musicians sustain themselves on no income?

Making music is soon to be a lost art..

Your kidding right? More people are making music now more than ever before because they can do it cheaply with current technology plus the internet for distribution. It's not that these non record industry artists don't have income, they just have a different avenue to make money. It's better for them not to be under the heel of the evil music industry. They make and keep more of their money in the long run. They are creating a new music industry and the record companies don't like it one bit. They know their days are numbered.

certainly that and the fact that most big name artist's are charging a minimum of 175.00 per concert ticket and i don't know about you but to me that's some major cha-ching when you add it up.