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: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


What about countries where file sharing is legal? In spain they have ruled that it is just like shareing a book or physical cd. Could it be that the corporations bought better legislation in the US?




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


What about countries where file sharing is legal? In spain they have ruled that it is just like shareing a book or physical cd. Could it be that the corporations bought better legislation in the US?


Possibly...

...or, could it be that the Spain, with their direct democracy, is a country filled with communists?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


What about countries where file sharing is legal? In spain they have ruled that it is just like shareing a book or physical cd. Could it be that the corporations bought better legislation in the US?


Possibly...

...or, could it be that the Spain, with their direct democracy, is a country filled with communists?



There's a communist party in the US as well. I would think that if anyone would stand behind the autonomous townships of Spain it would be you. Less federal power, more local government.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


This whole corporations line really gets me. Laws have to be in place and protect those we may not agree with just as much as those we do. If the law is protecting me the average Joe, it must also be just as valid for everyone. The corporations are not the sole benefactor of this law; in fact it protects me more than them. They can afford to lose a few million a year in sales. I do not even make anywhere near that much in sales during my entire life. However the law has to apply to everyone. We can’t pick and chose who the law protects and who it does not.

I myself do not go with a “publisher” for my software for the very reason many have mentioned. They take a huge percent of the sales and I get very little in return for my work. However if I did go with a big publisher for my software I would indeed be making far more than I do now. It is the principal that I do not agree with and thus why I avoid them. I could make far more than I do now with their advertising and distribution behind my software however.

As for other countries; that is a moot point I do not live there, their laws do not affect me. And our laws do not affect them. This is a totally irrational argument.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
the artist can choose to release his work in whatever form he wants. most artists choose the mass production form because they see more dollar signs down that route. unfortunately if he chooses that route he has to deal with everything it entails, including easy re-production. thus is usually the nature of greed.

he has the option of releasing it in a different more secure form, but unfortunately for him it will not reach the same amount of people as easily. this is a trade off that the artist is burdened with, not the individual (consumer). we do not get to choose the form of release.

he also has the choice of occupation and hobby. there were times in this world when people didnt make a dime off writing a song. now all of the sudden due to technology and convenience, there is a market for readily available music. but just because that market exists and there's a potential profit doesn't mean that its an inherent right.

this whole idea of copyright is a relatively new advent, and we are now at a crux. just as this new market and all the potential profit that came with it arose from the appearance of technology and a particular demand, there now is now new technology and a new demand and the effect of that is the seeming loss of what a few individuals mistakenly perceived as "rights"

technology(individual ability) is constantly changing as is demand. the potential that comes with each must change with it. in this case, artists must find a new form of releasing their work, if they value security over profits.

i know that it seems like it should be a right because thats the way its been for a while (relative to our lifetimes) but on a bigger time scale it is simply not so.

example: nobody is making any money off "row row row your boat" or "ring around the rosey"

i think that i sneeze in a unique way. just because i think that i am the author of that particular method of sneezing, does not mean the rest of the world is obligated to honor my request of refraining from sneezing in that particular way. why? because every single one of them has the ability to emulate my sneeze. for me to impose my idea on everybody with that ability, to consciously with-hold from doing it in that particular way because i "claimed it first" is nothing short of tyranny.

you say respect your right.
i say respect my ability.
edit on 4-10-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





There's a communist party in the US as well. I would think that if anyone would stand behind the autonomous townships of Spain it would be you. Less federal power, more local government.


The communist party of Spain is the third largest political party in that nation. This is no where near the case for the communist party of the United States.

I appreciate your general sense of my ideology. However, it is rare to find me screaming and nattering about 10th Amendment rights. Not that I have any issue with the 10th Amendment, but my particular concern at this juncture is the Ninth Amendment.

I am much more concerned with individual sovereignty than I am the sovereignty of any state, or township. 17 regions broken up and enjoying their own autonomy, still leaves the threat of tyranny, and at its worst, 17 tyrants.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
A friend pointed out to me the real nature of this situation.

Time is something that is invaluable, something that cannot be retrieved.

We are spending.. giving parts of ourselves to listen to a particular track. Essentially we are giving THEM our time to listen to their music.

Downloading music is a lot like drugs. People are going to do it regardless if its illegal.

Artists need to make their money off being artists, not salesmen. Make their money off live shows, performances, merch, CD's etc.

I'm a metal head and music is my life, i download a lot of music, but i also buy a lot. I buy CD's from the artists i feel deserve my $25. I will happily attend a concert and pay $100.

Lot of the 'music' these days can barely be considered music as it is. *cough* MTV



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I can see in the middle of a song it stops "and now a word from our sponsors, this song is brought to you by..."
For all that say it only hurts the labels, if you want to listen just listen at live shows that way that way the record company wont even sell 1 copy. that will show them.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RelentlessLurker
 


Comparing a sneeze to the literally thousands of hours I have put into writing this software is ludicrous. If you spent the better part of your life developing a truly unique Sneeze and it becomes a trade mark for you and a source of income. You study in school for years learning how to perfect a Sneeze. This costs you thousands of dollars on Sneeze training. You then spend the next 5 or 10 years studying the population to find just what is appealing in a Sneeze. You spend countless hours to fine tune your Sneeze to give the true Sneeze connoisseur what they desire. You then go online and to various large corporationy “Sneeze Distributers” and decide what method you wish to use to bring your Sneeze to the masses. You then over the next few years spend more time and money to ensure you do not get sick as if your head is stuffy you can’t reproduce this Sneeze when you need to. You also must constantly buy new sneezing powder to create this Sneeze when you perform. You now find yourself dubbed the “King of Sneeze”, and life is going well. Then someone comes along and just says “Hey that is a great Sneeze, I can copy that. “ And just because he has the “ability” to copy it, he does so. He did not put any time or effort into developing this awesome Sneeze. He did not spend any of his hard earned cash to create and maintain this “Uber Sneeze” yet you have done both. Now nobody is willing to pay to hear your Sneeze anymore, as this guy will show his for free. Then you can compare your oh so “unique” Sneeze to someone’s IP.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
BRING BACK LIMEWIRE!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wezy2005
If anybody comes in this thread with all righteous crap about artist compensation and illegal downloaders ....If thats the case then....

EVERYBODY should buy their OWN SHHHHHHHHHT...none of this borrowing shhht, giving stuff out or inviting people to listen,watch, or read ANYTHING copyrighted you bought.DVDs,CDs,sharing MP3 files,Books,ect.

NOW I KNOW ALOT OF YALL OUT THERE "DO IT"!!!!!

Let THEM buy their own so that ARTIST will rightfully get paid!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that TECHNICALLY STEALING???????????????



No, sharing (borrowing) usually implies that you will receive that item back at some point, and the person you shared it with will no longer possess it. Meaning that you payed for the item and then loaned (shared) the item, and then it was returned to you.

Sharing (in the spirit of downloading/bit-torrent) something that you originally stole is not morally responsible either, that makes you a thief and also implicates another person as well.

Stealing something means you have it in your possession without having traded something of equal value for it.

Downloading music you have not payed for is STEALING, it doesn't matter who it is that you are stealing it from theft is theft.
edit on 5-10-2011 by mileysubet because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


What about countries where file sharing is legal? In spain they have ruled that it is just like shareing a book or physical cd. Could it be that the corporations bought better legislation in the US?


Possibly...

...or, could it be that the Spain, with their direct democracy, is a country filled with communists?


Lord have mercy bud commies are just people too....
The artist paints a picture.
The gallery shows it.
many people come and take photos of it....do they charge for this? Does the artist cry foul?
The same goes for other media too.
You cant separate the ears from the eyes and legislate for both differently.
The world need less and simpler laws not more and more complicated laws.
The amount of world resources that enforcement and courts etc suck out of the system is enormous.
The whole shmear needs eradicating and rethinking.

The art once produced and performed is public domain.
Its too damn complicated after that and it makes both the law, and that artist an ass.
Art is for the people.
Money doesnt enter into it at all.
It is the business people that have sucked and sxrewed the profits out of practically everything.
Does the inventor get renumerated?hardly,there are countless legal businesses out there tryong to screw him out of his ideas.
China doesnt even twitch about such niceties as copyrights to anything at all....
Seems the people who need to get their ears trimmed are the Lawyers and agents and the rest of the crowd that does nothing productive .



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Think of it this way, if I walk into my local delicatessen and I ask for a sample of something, they will gladly give me a sample. If I like what I'm trying, I will gladly buy some of it. If I really enjoy it, and I can tell that it's a mark of quality, I can trust that this delicatessen knows what they're talking about and I can trust their credibility. Not every delicatessen does this, no, but many of them do.

Of course, I am not saying that an album is the equivalent to a piece of cheese, but what I am saying is that many record labels and artists are offering albums as a sample. If the listener likes what they are hearing, then they might buy that album, they might buy other albums, they might buy a ticket to see that artist live, they might investigate other artists on that label and see if they like them, all of this compounds. By allowing people to sample music, you're not closing them off and rather doing the opposite, you're allowing them to expand their tastes. It is my personal belief that music, nor art of any sort, should be hidden away from anyone. As long as they have the interest, it should be available to them, rather than the money. Of course there needs to be a balance. Of course the artists should see some sort of compensation for their efforts, but charging $15 or more for an album from a band that no one has ever heard of, or even if they have heard of, is more of a barrier than anything, especially with the vast amount of music available. Sure, maybe it was more practical when you only had a few hundred artists to pick from at the record store, but today, there is music everywhere.

Ultimately, if this is just a case about stolen property, the music industry must strive to find a better way to secure its material instead of wasting time and trying to squeeze millions out of eighteen year old kids. If you have beautiful red roses growing at the foot of your property along a busy street, would you not expect the occasional passersby to pick one? If you have a problem with it, sure you chase them down the street, you can call the police and try to have them arrested, but wouldn't is just be more worthwhile to build a bigger fence?

If the law does not work in the respect that it exists now, whether it is the "law" or not, it either needs to be done away with or restructured.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 



If people aren't trying to make money off my work then what are they stealing exactly?

Your income.

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.

It's not uncommon for websites to request a donation for downloads / information. Should artists be reduced to this?




Are you honestly trying to imply that "artists" are not compensated for their "labor"...have you SEEN how much they have been able to make? Most of the sustainable long term money they make is from the "effects" of their marketing/advertising/popularity/concerts/media attention...NOT from selling CD's...

endorsements, reality tv shows etc...the brunt of the artists "compensation for their labor" comes from everything BUT selling outdated mediums such as CD's.

The music/art industries are having a problem realizing that the content they produce is in overabundance and is an easily mass produced medium...they REFUSE to accept a world where they don't make freak tons of cash..

Their industry is severely over inflated and there is a "charging redundancy" that has allowed them to get so over inflated. The charging redundancy is called "royalties" which is an interesting term in and of itself.



edit on 5-10-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The band does not just wake up one morning and, poof, a CD in on the shelf in the stores. This effort to put this CD on the shelf is a long and drawn out process.

1) The artists have to write and practice this music until they perfect it. This does not just happen either. They had to learn to play the instruments, they must buy new ones, and maintain the ones they have. Even if the process went no further than this there is considerable time, money, and effort put into this by the band.

2) They now need to rent a studio, Hire sound engineers, and spend the next few months playing and remixing the tracks until it has just the right sound. The studio rent and sound engineers do not come cheap either, this is their job after all they need to make their living at this. Even if the band members own a studio, and are sound engineers themselves, they have now put forth even more time and money on their part to get the album mastered.

3) Now the album needs to go to press. Again this is not cheap. Sure each CD may only cost a few cents but there will be millions of them made. Again if the band has the equipment and does it themselves this is still a huge expense on their part.

4) You now need an artist to make you an album cover. This is going to cost some cash as the artist who designs this cover is also trying to make a living. Or yes the band can make their own, but now even more time and effort, not to mention the years of working on this skill on top of their music.

5) You now package the CD with the album booklet costing another large sum of money.

6) Next you have to get this CD in the stores. This takes promotional work. Door to door, telephone, email, whatever it takes. This store is not just going to buy your CD to resell if you do not get the album promoted, and convince the store they can resell it. So now you have hired a promoter/agent.

All of this took a few years to accomplish, and millions of dollars. It involved far more people than the band. There are the small time factory workers working for minimum wage to mass produce the actual disk, case, and album booklets. The Delivery drivers that deliver the components and the finished products, Sales people in the store selling the CD, the owners of the factories, stores, and warehouses used to make, deliver and sell the CD. The sound engineers, Agents and promoters, and all the assistants to go along with these people; secretaries, janitors, caterers, etc. These people all have to have supplies to do their jobs, transportation to get to and from the job. Transportation to make the product. Gas, food, electricity, houses to live in. This is not just some nameless corporation that waves a wand and a CD appears in a store. There are thousands of people who depend on these jobs to make and sell this CD, that have absolutely nothing to do with the band. Sure the corporation may take the largest sum of money for the sale, but they also put up literally millions even billions of dollars in advance to make this CD possible.

On top of this if you are “with” a label you do not just go out on tour and make cash. This tour is paid for and promoted by the label, and they are indeed making their cut of this as well. If you sign with a label they basically own you and your music for the duration of your contract. You can’t go out and do anything on your own. This would be a breach of contract as they have leased you and your talent as their sole property for some amount of time. This ensures them a return on their investment in you. They are paying for your CD to be made, they pay for your tours, they pay for your promotion and advertisement. In some cases the contract may even be that they own the music you make during this time even after the contract is up. This is all reasons why some Musicians do not go with a major label. My cousin is one of them. She is a fairly popular singer in today’s pop world. However the label she was with did not sit with here morals and ideals. And she did not like some of the contract clauses. So after the contract with them was up, she started her own private label, and now puts up all the money for every aspect of her music from her pockets. Sure she could be a “Britney” or a “Madonna” now, but she did not agree with the morality of this record label and their level of control on her life. She chose the lower key career, in favor of the freedom it gave her.

I do not use publishers for my software for this very reason. I do not see that this corporation needs to be making so much money off my talents, and labor. But if I did I could indeed make far more money for my effort, as this corporation also will be spending this money to produce, promote, and distribute my work. Maybe I am selfish, as my efforts could be providing jobs for thousands of people in the manufacturing and retail industries. This also assumes my project is wanted by enough people to warrant this however.
edit on 5-10-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Oh and just to comment on the original article as we have digressed.
They did not say it was legal copy and distribute songs on the internet. The title of this entire thread is misleading. The case was not about copyright laws, but about royalties. They were trying to get a law passed that would make people like iTunes pay an additional “Performance Royalties” payment on top of the fee for the actual sale of the song. The Supreme Court still stands by the fact that IP is copyrighted, and you can still be prosecuted for the illegal copy and distribution of music.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 


I was going to respond to your post 1 by 1 but there wasn't enough characters left lol...so I'll try it this way

1) NOT ALL artists need to practice and perfect MOST now a days go in with pre-written lyrics to a pre-mastered generic "pop-mix" the "musician" in this case is more of an entertainer than an artist...the Industry is "manufacturing" hits like Thomas Kinkade calenders...have you seen what the cost of his "art" has gone to?

For the actual MUSICIANS unfortunate enough to get lumped into the same "artistry" as the above crapola of entertainers...it is very unfortunate I agree, they do put in a lot of time, effort, and care into their creations. They are still rewarded handsomely though.

2) Sound-engineering is grossly over-inflated as well, mostly because they can be. They know how much profit will be made and how much they can charge in relation to that.

3) All the more reason to stop producing a craptastic medium such as CD's and move into the digital download world which pretty much eliminates this cost all together.

4) again move away from CD booklets toward digital media and digital art. Digital art is so incredibly easy its a joke...period. Should be plenty of starving graphic artists plenty capable of producing a high quality album/song/single graphic at very little cost. So pretty much eliminates or reduces this cost to negligible...

5) Above...

6) Above...this step/cost can be eliminated completely as well with the age of the dinosaur industry that is still trying to keep its age old process of ALBUM releases legitimate in a world where it is completely unnecessary. Music stores are going the way of the dinosaur as well. Its a very small niche market now that wants physical albums. Mostly collectors and the like...CD's will go the way of the vinyl, tapes, etc...obsolete and unnecessary...

So basically in a nut shell the music industry is refusing to adapt and take advantage of how incredibly easy digital media and the internet makes their whole entire process...

I mean don't get me wrong they are taking advantage of digital media and the net via I-tunes etc however they are still trying to legitimize the age old "album production monster machine" they refuse to let it die as it should. Its on life-support and they are wasting away trying to keep it alive...all to justify their jobs and salaries.

All industries are like this...the advancement of technology makes things cheaper and easier yet the costs keep going up and up and up...all because they refuse to only have 3 ferrari's in their garage instead of 5....


as a side note I myself have produced probably over 200 songs in the last 15 years and created enough digital art to smack every one of them with two of their very own individual graphic designs...in my free-time while working 40 hours a week going to school etc...I'd imagine if I had the time to focus as much as they did on it...Id have 400 songs and 1000s of graphic art to spam the I-tunes with...ALL by myself on my own in my free-time as a hobby...

They are being raped by marketers really because without their "marketing team" (labels) they would probably be in the same seat i'm in...200 songs and nothing of it...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Oh I agree on the CD thing entirely. See my posts about not going this route for my software. It Is all digital download sales. However removing the CD manufacturing and sale does not negate the need for copyright on IP. It does not now mean that since it was released as a online file, that it is now free for anybody to copy and distribute as they see fit.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
You don't want your music stolen, then dont be famous period

and its not technically stealing..
edit on 5-10-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


They get all their money from sponsors and contracts anyways so in the end they are getting paid no matter what. Hmm wonder if its legal to download movies now lol



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join