Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by crazydaisy
This is a good thing! I am a photographer
and have seen my work posted by someone
else on another site besides my own, I actually
felt honored that they liked my photo well
enough to post it.

Are you 12 and still living with your parents?

What part of - - getting paid for professional work - - to make a living - - do you not get?

What's with the low blow? So crazydaisy is a 12 year old living in her parents basement because she is a photographer that had some of her work used on the internet? Help me here, I'm failing to see any logic in your post. Troll much?

....Nevermind, I went through and read your post history. You are just a troll. Kthanxbye

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

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

Good point. But can you really imagine a world where every band on the planet either pulls big crowds or is reduced to music-making as a hobby? The only music to succeed would be mainstream - hardly a suitable crucible for creativity...

Isnt that the way it is today?
If you aren't popular with the public, you won't pull crowds.. which happens today.

Usually it's not the crowd's fault.
Can't blame everyone for not thinking your art is...art

reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand


She must live in a fantasy world where photographers get royalties every time someone uploads their picture to photobucket...

So if I were to go on a torrent site, and go download some albums that I can't find reasonably elsewhere, it'd be legal now?

I'm just curious.

~
I think artists should find a way to specify if they want their music sharable. A copy protection that they have to consciously put on would do the trick. It'd have to be the artists choice though, not any companies. Bands more worried about getting their name out, will release sharable CDs. Bands who are more worried about getting max profit from their work(after already getting their name out via other sharable CDs or other methods) can put copyright CDs.

That maintains the artists rights, and allows sharing/downloading/piracy when it's in a position where the artist is ok with it.

reply to post by BadNinja68

Isnt that the way it is today?
If you aren't popular with the public, you won't pull crowds.. which happens today.

Naturally. But if you're a relatively successful artist producing music of a non-mainstream genre, say, a significant proportion of your income is going to come from media sales, is it not?

reply to post by pause4thought


you cant assume that somebody is going to purchase your work simply because they do not have a free option.

some people truly have no money, and would simply go without.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by pause4thought

 

except artist make didly squat from record sales. they make their money with live performances and touring.

so its not really the "creative" people being screwed, its the record company owner who is used to making tons of cash off other peoples talent.

Exactly, this is why I download everything and go to as many concerts as I can get to.

That way the artists I like are rewarded and the con men who run the labels dont get a penny, its a win win for me.

The only people who make money from CDs are the Metallicas, Madonnas, Elton Johns etc and pardon me if I dont feel sorry for them and their hundreds of millions theyve already made.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand

 

She must live in a fantasy world where photographers get royalties every time someone uploads their picture to photobucket...

Not exactly.

I worked in publishing.

A law is only effective so long as it can be enforced. If you think about how many people "illegally" download music, it would put a sizeable portion of the population at odds with the law, so much so that it would be incredibly taxing to enforce. If you noticed, the pressure that the RIAA and courts were putting on people to stop downloading was immense, but it was not enough to stop much of anything, which has essentially lead to this.

It should be up to artists to decide whethe they want their work to be avaialble for free or not - and those that choose to go with large publishing companies have made that choice.

Whether they get the majority of the money is irrelevant.

I know of local muso's who "self publish" pay-to-play music and anyone who wants their music and doesn't pay them directly for it is depriving them of rightful income - with no record company in between taking a cut to justify the robbery.

Also I think the headline is wrong - as I read it this doe NOT make downloading legal - it just makes it not a breach or 1 particlar piece of legislation that carries more significant penalties than others that are still applicable.

So dowloading is still just as illegal after this decision as it was beforehand.

For those who feel that downloading of music (to listen to on your mp3 player) is stealing....
Do you think the libraries are complicit in allowing people to steal by not buying the books they read?

about 10 years ago i had over 1000 cds which got 'lost' during shipping cuz we were moving. Now somehow, i am supposed to buy the same set of CDs again, all of them? I am not going to pay twice to get a song that I had a license for. If I lose my microsoft windows installation CD, i dont have to pay for it again since i already paid for the license. I call them, and they send me a download link.

The entertainment industry has siphoned more money than they should have when they set prices and licenses for digital media. And they ripped off artists as well by promising them royalties. Tell me why it is difficult for artists today to form an online database/server of music and license their own songs so the money goes directly to them?

Knowledge should be free, I love what android is doing right now...giving everybody a chance to get creative. Music or arts should be free too

This may well upset a number of apple carts in the music industry with some good and bad for all concerned. For the artists themselves it may actually smooth out the road somewhat, even out the playing field bridging the gap somewhat between superstardom and starving musician and smooth out those high peaks and low valleys.

From all I hear the record labels often treat their artists like chattel. Many big stars or well-known artists from the 70's got screwed-over and only saw a fraction of the take. Many of them are back performing there work today and doing well. I don't know that the industry did not offer them the opportunity for their work to become as well-known as it did, and that they didn't (the labels) earn every penny they took, but there will always be a place for artists who have talent.

I am optimistic that something equitable may arise from this if it causes a change in the way the music industry operates. There is some great talent at the lower echelons of popularity that may be better heard and recognized as a result. There may be a few less promoters driving Bentleys, as well even some artists, but maybe more will be eating and making a living from their talents.

reply to post by RainbeauBleu


the libraries buy the books, and in some place they actually PAY the authors to be able to lend them - it is called Public Lending Right.

In others it is covered by laws that let them do so - in the USA it is the law of first purchase - but it specifically does not apply to electronic information - and it is a matter of considerable debate.

The fact is, most people don't have money to pay for any form of art.
This (lack of money) in fact prevents spreading and sharing knowledge.
Money is the means of control.
This decision is good, very good.
Copyright should have nothing to do with money.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by pause4thought

 

except artist make didly squat from record sales. they make their money with live performances and touring.

so its not really the "creative" people being screwed, its the record company owner who is used to making tons of cash off other peoples talent.

It is the record companies' greed that is driving the issue. And screw Metallica, they are millionaires many times over. They need to take a page out of LIL'Wayne's book and post their stuff for free.

The case effectively provides those who download music explicitly for personal use some safety. If you take that music, however, and broadcast it over another medium, then you're risking infringement.

Like Aloysius the Gaul said, there is a thing called Public Lending Right and the First-Sale Rule, which allows libraries to lend books, and I think this is where digital downloading might end up, as it's already heading there with music subscription services. I do not think it will be the end result, but it could be the next result that we see in this ongoing battle.

the library argument still applies to the "perceived" loss of income.

as libraries do carry music cd's and video's.

in essence, if a library serves say... 100 people in a given amount of time a particular cd. based on the logic of the perceived sales loss, the artist just lost out on 100 sales, due to the assumption that had there been no free option, all of those people would have ran to the store and purchased the cd's.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


The Supreme Court did not "legalize"downloading music simply because they declined to hear ASCAP's case. By declining to hear the case, this means that until the SCOTUS does hear the case, and only if upon hearing the case they reverse the ruling made by "an appeals court in New York", then that ruling stands. Presumably, since ASCAP was appealing to the Supreme Court, this "appeals court in New York" that the article you linked calls it must be the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The article you linked does not name the case that has been ruled upon, so without that information, we can only assume it was the 2nd Circuit that ruled that downloading music constituted a public performance under federal copyright law.

However, this does not mean that - assuming it is true that it was the 2nd Circuit - they "legalized" downloading music. Courts do not "legalize" behavior. Neither does Congress, or other legislatures, for that matter. Under the principles of our Constitutional government, whatever is legal cannot be unlawful. Without having read the ruling so sloppily referenced in that article you linked, prudence and valor would dictate we give the 2nd Circuit the benefit of the doubt and assume their ruling is founded upon that principle: What is unlawful cannot be made legal. Under this mandate, courts then look at cases such as this and consider the merits of the arguments before them.

This point, however, is somewhat moot, since whatever court actually made this ruling, it is not binding in regions where other Circuit Court of Appeals have jurisdiction. The State of California, for example, is not bound by the "New York" ruling, although the 9th Circuit and lower courts can look to that ruling for authority. Whatever reason the "New York" court applied, if the 9th Circuit disagrees, they have the authority to render a different ruling, even if it is in direct opposition to the "New York" ruling. If the issue is argued in several regions across the country, creating a situation where several Circuit Court of Appeals have rendered conflicting rulings, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Supreme Court will stop declining to look at this issue.

If and when the Supreme Court does look at the issue and renders a definitive ruling, that ruling does not - as some academics would have you believe - "make law", or "legalize" or "make illegal". Whatever the ruling, if and when that time comes, that the Supreme Court makes in this matter, they are Constitutionally mandated to uphold the law. It is the Supreme Courts job to view the issue in light of that mandate: To uphold the law.

What is the law?

The law is a collective body of work that recognizes the unalienable rights of the individual.

What is a right?

That action that is done in the pursuance of life, liberty, and happiness. It is a right to defend ones life, property, and the lives of others in need of that defense. Outside of these rights, what else is done that causes no harm, is done by right.

Does downloading music online without any compensation for that music cause harm? If that downloaded music is music that businesses are trying to sell in the market place, then the downloading without regard for the cost of producing and distributing that music is most assuredly causing harm. Those who have been harmed have a right to remedy. To recompense.

The law does not fall prey to bias. It has no distaste for economy, and profits and loss. It cares not whether one is a rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. Doctor, lawyer, Indian, Chief. If downloading "free" music is causing harm that is not done out of defense of life or property, then that action is unlawful.

That is my reasoning and determination. Whatever the courts will rule remains to be seen.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


For harm to be caused wouldnt the downloader have had the intention of making the purchase to begin with?

If an item would have never sold in the first place then not selling the item couldnt be considered harm, could it?

Wanting to listen to something or view something isnt the same as a decision to buy something.

For instance, I live in a rural area with no theater under a two hours drive away. I havent been to the theater since I've lived here and have no plans on ever going. Say I downloaded a movie, watched half of it then deleted it.

I was never going to drive two hours to see it. I was never going to purchase a DVD of it. At most I may have rented it or borrowed it from a library.

Have I caused quantifiable harm?