Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

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 correct.

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.

Why are you people intentionally muddying the waters? I did not speak to any contract violations, nor did I present a scenario where a violation of a contract would be lawful. It is simple. If the label distributing an album want to give it way digitally or by any other lawful method, this is their right to do so. Some one other than the proper and lawful owner of that property comes along and distributes that product digitally for "free" downloads, and doing so against the express wishes of the lawful owner of that property is acting unlawfully. It is really not confusing. It is simple, as all law is. It is universal and true, as all law is. And as all law is, it is absolute.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I don't think you understood what I was getting at. Record labels often set-up "leaks" in order to reach a wider audience. When I say, "leaks", I mean they release material completely disguised as if someone were to ripoff an advanced copy of an album and throw it online. This creates buzz for them and their artists, one, since it catches people off guard, and two, because if you find something that isn't "supposed" to be free (say a dollar bill on the street) you put an added value to it. It works much better than handing out free copies of an album. If people know something is supposed to be free, it doesn't have that same "excitement". I am not saying I fall into this crowd that gets all caught up in the hype of things, I'm just stating that a lot of people do, and this strategy, not conspiracy, is something that is actively used with wide success in the music industry. This, however, obviously puts a cloud of confusion over downloading digital music. If an artist comes out saying that they had zero intention of putting their material online for wide, free distribution and will be taking legal action, then yes, that constitutes as stealing. But when most releases just basically "show up" on internet, it's basically impossible for the average person to decipher whether or not it was intentionally released as a leak or not.

As a musician, I often see people sharing my work around the net and downloading illegally! However like others have posted I feel it is an honour to be recognized... Although artists need to pay their bills, there are other means of gaining money like concerts and merchandise.

reply to post by Resonant


Nope. I understood perfectly what you were getting at. You walked up to this perfectly pristine pond and took a stick and stirred the mud profusely. You offered up a hypothetical of which you ask us all to believe is standard practices with record labels. Just take your word for it, the guy with the stick that he keeps using to muddy up pristine ponds, that record labels really do orchestrate schemes where they will covertly release an album they ultimately want to sell for free download, and do so in a way as to make it appear as if it is a forbidden download, because even though they are using this strategy to create excitement over sales of the new record, if they just tried to give the record away for free and lawfully, no one would want it, but if they arrange it in a way where people think they are stealing it, then people will take the free product and get so excited about this free product that they think they stole that they will turn right around and buy it.

Yeah right.

Can't give it away, but if we convince people they're stealing our product, then they'll buy it. Uh-huh. That psychology sure gets complicated, does it not?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Law is absolute? lol what about Jim Crow Laws?

Things change......

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Law is absolute? lol what about Jim Crow Laws?

Things change......

The so called "Jim Crow Laws" were not law, merely legislation. Legislation is not law, and lately not even evidence of law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Resonant

 

Nope. I understood perfectly what you were getting at. You walked up to this perfectly pristine pond and took a stick and stirred the mud profusely. You offered up a hypothetical of which you ask us all to believe is standard practices with record labels. Just take your word for it, the guy with the stick that he keeps using to muddy up pristine ponds, that record labels really do orchestrate schemes where they will covertly release an album they ultimately want to sell for free download, and do so in a way as to make it appear as if it is a forbidden download, because even though they are using this strategy to create excitement over sales of the new record, if they just tried to give the record away for free and lawfully, no one would want it, but if they arrange it in a way where people think they are stealing it, then people will take the free product and get so excited about this free product that they think they stole that they will turn right around and buy it.

Yeah right.

Can't give it away, but if we convince people they're stealing our product, then they'll buy it. Uh-huh. That psychology sure gets complicated, does it not?

The psychology doesn't really get that complicated, actually. Record labels have done their best to adapt to their current environment because they've realized it's essential if they want to survive. I've worked for several independent record labels doing distribution and promotion and releasing material this way is commonplace. The label sends advanced copies, digitally or physical, to outlets all over with the intention of creating a leak. In a lot of cases it's individual tracks or singles, but it happens with albums too. The easiest way to tell is to simply take a look. For instance, James Blake - Enough Thunder EP "leaked" today, and is slated for actual release October 10th. This happens every day. These days, most albums leak before they ever meet their release date. Sometimes, it happens due to direct theft. For example, a few months ago David Guetta hired an investigator to find out how his material was being leaked. The result was that there were people outside of his studio on the street hacking into the wireless internet and ripping the tunes. This happens, but that sort of thing only really effects big name artists. Obviously, that's wrong, but in that individual instance, David Guetta cited his reasons for taking the effort to figure out where the leaks were coming, and it wasn't to stop people from downloading his music, but so material that had not been finalized yet would not be released, and listeners wouldn't regard his music as something worse than it actually was. Labels and artists can not outwardly say that this is how they operate, by putting out these releases ahead of time because that detracts away from the buzz. I have years of personal experience in the music industry and if you do not want to take my word for it then don't. I am just telling you how things work.

reply to post by Resonant


No, I am not going to take the word of someone who is advocating theft as a valid form of marketing. Your anecdotal "evidence", is just that, anecdotal. You cannot possibly be good for the "independent" labels you work for if you honestly believe that advocating the theft of music is good for business.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Law is absolute? lol what about Jim Crow Laws?

Things change......

The so called "Jim Crow Laws" were not law, merely legislation. Legislation is not law, and lately not even evidence of law.

Couldn't the same be said of copywright laws? Does the fact that there are countries where it isn't deemed illegal to share files prove that it isn't absolute?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Resonant

 

No, I am not going to take the word of someone who is advocating theft as a valid form of marketing. Your anecdotal "evidence", is just that, anecdotal. You cannot possibly be good for the "independent" labels you work for if you honestly believe that advocating the theft of music is good for business.

If the copyright issues were cut and dry and were able to be enforced and policed then this wouldn't be an issue, and labels would not resort to this type of marketing to gain exposure. It is not good for the business as a whole and makes it difficult for others in the industry to take the honest route of releasing the music when it is set to be released. Given the actual climate and reality, however, labels would rather provide their material themselves so that they can ensure quality and offer listeners high bitrate audio. If you actually think that every time the record gets into the hands of some audio engineer or someone in distribution and that's how an album gets leaked, then you are mistaken. If that was the case, you can bet the label would find the trail and fire them or never work with them again. If it isn't working, and the industry is crumbling and people aren't buying music anymore, then tell me why artists are still breaking sales records (i.e. Lil Wayne - The Carter IV broke the iTunes record for sales when it was released just last month)?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Resonant

 

No, I am not going to take the word of someone who is advocating theft as a valid form of marketing. Your anecdotal "evidence", is just that, anecdotal. You cannot possibly be good for the "independent" labels you work for if you honestly believe that advocating the theft of music is good for business.

This is where we simply have to agree to disagree. You call it theft, but in my opinion the real theft is what the record companies have been doing to the artist for decades.

reply to post by MrWendal

This is where we simply have to agree to disagree. You call it theft, but in my opinion the real theft is what the record companies have been doing to the artist for decades.

An honorable and ethical man need not justify their actions. Justifications are reserved for the dishonorable and unethical.

How can you steal something that you never take?

When I walk home from school I often hear people listening to music in their cars, am I stealing their music then?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
How can you steal something that you never take?

When I walk home from school I often hear people listening to music in their cars, am I stealing their music then?

Downloading is taking. It is not walking on the sidewalk listening briefly to the music blaring out of a passing vehicle. It is not listening to the music coming from your neighbors house. It is not even being at your neighbors house and listening to music there that you didn't pay for. Downloading is an action all its own, and that action constitutes a willful and cognizant taking.

I suppose you can accidentally download something, but a continued "accidental" downloading is just another word for consciously downloading.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Downloading is not taking it is copying. When your done downloading the original file is still there. What was taken?

If I take a picture of your car (digital copy) does that mean I carjacked you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Intellectual property hampers capitalism.

Against intellectual property.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Downloading is not taking it is copying. When your done downloading the original file is still there. What was taken?

If I take a picture of your car (digital copy) does that mean I carjacked you?

It never fails with the morally bankrupt. Invariably all they can do is create preposterous hypothetical situations to justify their immorality and unethical and dishonorable behavior.

When you make a copy of a song, it functions in the exact same way that the version you copied it from does. There is no comparison between making a copy of recorded song and taking a picture of a car. When you make that copy of the song, you get to listen to it. When you take a picture of car this does not facilitate you driving that car.

It becomes necessary for the advocates of theft to obfuscate because they cannot rely on truth to make their case.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But you keep saying that it is taking and it isn't. Sure the picture of your car won't get me from point A to point B but I never said it would. Just because the copy of the song does function like the original doesn't mean that I took the original file. I copied it. That is what the words mean.

I believe that this time, as you like to say, you are the one that is letting language speak you.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


zzzzz nothing but labels...

think big picture thoughts