It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

page: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Intellectual property hampers capitalism.

Against intellectual property.



Stealing music from the people who invested their capital to make sure this music was recorded for the express intent of selling it is not capitalism. The artist, and the investor behind that artist have just as much right to earn a living as a janitor or a ditch digger does.

Hell, a doctor who charges for the diagnosis he, or she makes is an intangible product. Why pay your doctor? As far as Kinsella goes, his legal advice is just as intangible as the intellectual property of any musician. Is Kinsella giving his legal advice away for free? Is Kinsella some independently wealthy person who need not charge for his legal services, and has plenty of cash and time to blow on offering up free eBooks?




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I think you're missing the point...... just read his book, it isn't long and he makes a really compelling case against intellectual property.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 





Sorry if this doesn't agree with the popular bandwagon - but I reckon creative people deserve to be recompensed for their labour as much as anyone else.


Lets say I'm,

Leonardo Da Vinci:. I work for 2 years crafting a major painting with skills I honed all my life. I finish the painting and put it on the market and ask 5000 gold coins. Ah, a nice prince wants to buy it.. good.. whats this outside my door a strange light.. a Man..

Hi, I'm Future Man: and I know for a fact one day this painting will be destroyed in a fire and the future world will never see it. So, I'm here to give you this magic box that will copy this Masterpiece so every person in the future world can have a copy.

Leonardo Da Vinci: Splended ! Wonderful, How many people is that.. about 6 billion you say.. I'm getting 5000 pieces of gold for the original, I reckon I should get 5000 pieces of gold for each copy too..No matter that it cost nothing to make a copy, I did the work and I want 5000 pieces of gold for every copy dammit. Say, do you have 30,000000000,000 pieces of gold on you now?

~~~~~~~~~

Now is that right? No.

This is the same exact thing the record companies are doing, same with the software companies etc. If they wanted to protect their stuff they should put it a format that's uncopyable. Just the fact that is IS so easy to copy because there is NO copy protection on any song, invites people to copy it, and thus the bad guy are right there to entrap you for copying their song. Shame on those clever bastards for trying to entrap us,

Should Leonardo Da Vinci get paid something for his work? Absolutely. Should he get 5000 pieces of gold for each copy, a copy he didn't even use his own tools to make? No. This is nothing but greed no matter how you look at it. By downloading songs you help stop the greed. It's a good thing.

People have been downloading songs from the internet for 20 years now.. if they were that concerned about it, don't you think they would have made a new format that's uncopyable by now?


edit on 4-10-2011 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I think you're missing the point...... just read his book, it isn't long and he makes a really compelling case against intellectual property.


I got your point, and spoke to it. Also, I assure you that my above post is not nearly as long as Kinsella's book, but I just made a compelling case in defense of intellectual property.

A novelist should have the right to protect the intellectual property of his work. He is not obligated to write novels for free. Expecting to get paid for his effort does not hinder capitalism.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
John Lennon put it this way.

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it."

Glad that the supreme court agrees with my boy Johnny.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StevenDye
reply to post by pause4thought
 


It's so easy and tempting... but we wouldn't accept it in any other form...you expect to pay for your tv and you side against those who don't... this is the same thing.

Sure you can argue about the record labels being the oneswho horde all the money, but once again you downloading music hurts the artist more because of it.


You all so have to pay for the internet... you dont have to pay for each tv show you watch as well.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I think you're missing the point...... just read his book, it isn't long and he makes a really compelling case against intellectual property.


I got your point, and spoke to it. Also, I assure you that my above post is not nearly as long as Kinsella's book, but I just made a compelling case in defense of intellectual property.

A novelist should have the right to protect the intellectual property of his work. He is not obligated to write novels for free. Expecting to get paid for his effort does not hinder capitalism.


Why do you think I want him to write for free?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I\'m very happy about this. We\'re atleaston step closer to a truly free society.
My personal thought about this is that people should make music with a message they want to get out there , not for monetary gain. Music sounded much better in the 60s and 70s when it had purpose and a meaning to it then the overproudced junk thrown out there for money.

That\'s just my opinon though. You\'re entitled to yours
.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
RIGHT ON!!!!


Been waiting to hear this good news.

Pursuing happiness one must have music anyway they can.

edit on 4-10-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Very interesting!

We've been studying Copyright in one of my classes the past two weeks (I'm going for degrees in Music Business and Audio Production Tech). I'm really interested to see what my instructor's take on this is going to be come Thursday's class.

The more I learn about how the business works these days (I got out of it in the early 90's, performance-wise), the more appalled I become. From recoupment to 360-degrees contracts where the label's take 90% of everything... no wonder we're seeing a serious decline in good music, only a fool would sign themselves into that.

I want to get into ethical artist management once I graduate. Artists need someone who is willing to look out for them, and their best interests, instead of being out for what they can get for themselves. It's truly disgusting.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
This is great news.

but! we will have to keep an eye on the web companies.
they will try to get us to pay for this.
but they get it free to ! so they Must give it out free to.
so they can only make up pay for the web link up.
AND NEVER WHAT WE DOWN LOAD

they will try. you just wait and see.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez


This is good. Now people can stop crying about evil down-loaders being thieves.

Or if you save a photo to your hard drive and view it multiple times, are you stealing that photographers work? The whole thing is ridiculous IMO and I am a visual artist myself. If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?




You are thieves, musicians are getting killed because of moronic justifications like yours.

You don't have to practice for months to craft a tune, or spend thousands of dollars to secure a studio,
an engineer and a producer. You are worst kind of artist, turn coat for the corporate conglomerates
who make billions off of other peoples music.

Your opinion is corrupted
edit on 4-10-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

I think you're missing the point...... just read his book, it isn't long and he makes a really compelling case against intellectual property.


I got your point, and spoke to it. Also, I assure you that my above post is not nearly as long as Kinsella's book, but I just made a compelling case in defense of intellectual property.

A novelist should have the right to protect the intellectual property of his work. He is not obligated to write novels for free. Expecting to get paid for his effort does not hinder capitalism.


Why do you think I want him to write for free?


Because you throw up your hands and entertain no other option



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Musicians are getting killed because of dowloading?

That I have to ask proof of.



edit on 4-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Musicians are getting killed because of dowloading?

That I have to ask proof of.



Yes, I know, because I have been in bands before and after the downloading has become rampant.

Recordings don't pay for themselves, guitar strings don't grow on trees, engineers are not slaves to
be captured in a field...

Humanity will ultimately get what they pay for in the end.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
John Lennon put it this way.

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it."

Glad that the supreme court agrees with my boy Johnny.


Meanwhile John, was fabulously wealthy and able to have a viable career because he profited from his
work.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Its all up to the artist...ALL......
Teach them the ART of signing a contract....
And then they might get more out of the sales...
Its not the publics fault they allow themselfs
getting raped on their contracts....

And hear this, im also a composer.....
Have never sold anything...AllforFREE.........



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
artists make their money on tour and concerts. they keep all the profits. downloading music has probably helped more artists make money since d.j.'s started playing songs on the radio.

if someone downloaded one of their songs, became a fan, then went to a concert and payed $65 dollar to attend and then started downing $15 beers, that more than compensates the artist than buying their c.d. in the 99 cent bin at walmart.

if anything they should file a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against apple. the ipod has damaged the music industry more than anything,

if downloaded music is a bullet, the ipod is the gun.


edit on 4-10-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
What most of you miss with your comments about lending a CD to a friend or checking a book out of the library is the exact nature of the issue. There is no problem with lending a book or a CD as the law is setup such that no 2 people may be using the same copy of the media at the same time. So while it is legal to lend a book or check it out form the library, it is not legal to make a photocopy of it. This is because the book was purchased and only one person at a time has this book in their hands. The same goes for movies, music, software etc. The lending is not the problem; it is more than one person using it at a time. That is why the copying is illegal you have now made a copy for the second person to use anytime they wish, but no purchase of that copy was made. And in most cases you are legally allowed to make “backup” copies of your media to prevent loss. Once again with the provision that nobody will be using this copy at the same time you are using the original.

Weather this is purchased from a big record label that is ripping off the artist, or form the artist directly it makes no difference. If the artist feels they are being ripped off by the label they can go private, that is not our fight, but theirs. However, if the laws do not protect everyone the same, then who is to say who gets protected? The laws have to be enforced the same for the big labels as they do for a private label.

As for inviting people over to your house and listening to music or watching a movie: There does indeed come a point when it is illegal. I do not have the exact numbers but something like 15 or more people constitutes a public performance, and indeed becomes illegal without a permit. So yes, all your house parties etc. where you have 50 people over and listen to a CD could be considered illegal.

On the topic of computer software: Many software companies do not care if you copy and distribute the actual physical disks, in fact many actively promote it as a free method of advertising and distribution. They do so because the “sale” is made when the person gets this disk and then registers their account online to use the software. Again the physical disk was not the issue, but rather the fact you had to pay the fee before you actually used it. This is why so many games these days have gone to an internet based setup. You must log into the online server to play a game like Warcraft etc. And to log in you must pay the fees. So the copying and distribution of the disks is not an issue. This is how Microsoft does the licensing for their products. You can get the disk and install their software on your computer and it will run just fine as a “trial” copy for 30 days. At this time you need to then register online to purchase your license. This works out well to protect the legal consumers as there is a record of your purchase and if you ever lose your disks it is not an issue. With software distributed like this you can always download a new installation or borrow disks form someone and just input your registration information at the time of installation, thus saving the consumer from having to keep backup copies of the disks.

TV, Radio, Cable networks, and internet streaming: While you the consumer may not be paying for each time you watch a movie or hear a song form these mediums, the providers do. So you may not be paying for it but someone is. Each time a movie is streamed from Netflix etc. they pay a fee for it. Each time a T.V. station airs a program they pay a fee for it. Radio pays a bit differently they do not pay for each time a song is aired, they pay a monthly fee for “public broadcast” that is generically put back into the music industry in a convoluted and totally irrational way. Most labels and artists never see any income from radio; it is usually just chalked up as advertising. But once again recording the media from the radio or TV etcetera, and then playing back later is illegal. As the copy you have is now being used without purchase.

All of these copyright laws boil down to the same idea. Lending is not an issue; it is the duplication without purchase that becomes an issue.
edit on 4-10-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
And yes before any of you ask, as I have been asked this before on these topics. I do indeed have intellectual property I have made. And indeed I have seen it illegally copied and distributed. I have seen it being resold by other people as if it was theirs. And no there is not any efficient way to enforce these laws. All you can do is go after the cases you can, and just suck up the losses when you can’t. However when I see this happening it indeed hurts. No, you may not be reaching in my wallet and stealing cash from it. But you are indeed stealing from me. I spent many hours creating that IP, and if you are using it without compensation for my time it is indeed theft. No different than going to a fabricators shop, and having them make you some item, then walking off with it and not paying. If as so many of you say IP should be free there will not be any more music movies software etc. As the creation of quality IP is very time consuming. You can’t expect someone to have a normal job to pay the bills and still put in the time it takes to create quality IP. My little projects are nothing, yet I spend nearly all my free time on them. They are not anything "mainstream" that I can make a living with, but it does help to make ends meet. But in the process of creating and maintaining this software I have very little free time. If I am not at my regular job I am working on this software. I am not out having fun with friends, going to movies etcetera, this project is my life.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join