Supreme Court legalizes downloading music

I'm not sure what the big deal is. I don't see the point in downloading music when I can just go on YouTube and play the song I like. These bands got smart and put up "Official" videos in HD and it spreads their music to much bigger audience. An audience they probably wouldn't have any other way.

Did anyone actually read the article?

The Supreme Court did not "legalize" downloading. They refused to hear an appeal from ASCAP in which ASCAP alleged they ought to be paid a type of public performance royalty IN ADDITION to the royalties already paid to them based on music downloads.

This article refers to "legal" downloading-- like from iTunes or other sources that compensate the necessary musical authorities. Basically, it means the cost of LEGALLY downloading music won't go up due to increasing royalties paid to ASCAP.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING.

Originally posted by MrWendal

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.

Record companies have money invested in bands. Who do you think pays for advertising, recording sessions, lawyers, tours, also it's not free to make cd's that costs money too.

This is good!

In all honesty, I feel "pirates" should only be held back by their own honesty. This is really all that it's about: humility and honesty.

First of all, art should not be mixed with business. (By business I mean working for a living.) Art should be free of all that, no bounding boxes, no restraints, deadlines, all of that just holds back creativity. Art should be done for the sake of art, not profit. Once art becomes a matter of pride, it dies.

Looking at the "pirates", I have this to say. Let them download all they want. Only judge them according to their honesty. What is it to a (completely honest) artist if one downloads their work, and enjoys it for themselves? Even on the matter of (honest) republishing (for blogs, website, etc.) what more is worth gaining than credit?

When people feel honored when someone mentions their work, or shows it off (in all honesty), I'd say that is an honest artist right there. The moment the "I'm honored he likes my work." becomes "Hey, that guy is using/stole/downloaded/plagerized/etc. my work!" I'd say that artist has died, so to speak.

Art is not greed, or a means of survival. Art is love.

reply to post by KamiKazeKenji


Are you saying that people like Mozart did not get paid? You fail to realize to create true art it is your life. There is no room for a day job. To really make that masterpiece you spend your entire life working at art. If you are not getting paid for it you can’t continue as you must buy food, and shelter. There are actually some very talented homeless people that do not make money of their art. The key word here being “homeless.” And one day due to sheer luck, an epiphany, or maybe a muse, you create that special something that gets you recognized by the world at large. From that point on you do not have to be the best or even really active. You have gained fame and everything you do will be looked at by the world for better or worse. But if you are not earning a living from your art then it will suffer as you spend too much time at your real job to really make art, or you will be impoverished and spend all your time with your art. Artists do indeed create art for the love of the medium, but love does not feed their family. They have to get paid.

reply to post by wezy2005

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.

Yeah, there ya go. How about we just pay a tax on our EARS to all the artists out there! That way when we hear their tunes in the mall, down the hall, on a train or a plane, in a boat, on a float, a parade or serenade - THEY'LL GET PAID.

That's just absurd. We're 'allowed' to listen to an artists tune for 'free' as long as we're in McDonalds sucking up the commercialism - but we can't download and take the very same tune with us to enjoy while weeding the garden.

Think about it. Putting restrictions on music is like putting restrictions on our collective souls!

peace

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
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.

These are a bunch of people who just want to sit around and collect money for doing nothing all day. I'm sorry, but if you are an artist, especially a musician, you should get paid for your performance. NOT a recording of it.

To me, this is just a whole bunch of "artists" and I use the term loosely wanting to sit back and get rich off their 20 year old crap.

reply to post by Infrasilent


Yes I pointed this out a few posts back. But of course those that want music to be free ignore this, in the hopes that the claim made that it is no longer illegal will be true.

reply to post by silo13


In fact they are getting paid for it. The provider of this music be it McDonalds, a radio station or some other sort of music provider is paying for it and providing you with the benefit of this “public performance” they have paid for.

reply to post by Nutter


If it is 20 year old crap, and is not worth listening to anymore, why would you want to download it in the first place?

Originally posted by byeluvolk

Funny thing is: I don't.

reply to post by byeluvolk

In fact they are getting paid for it. The provider of this music be it McDonalds, a radio station or some other sort of music provider is paying for it and providing you with the benefit of this “public performance” they have paid for.

What part of commercialism didn't you get from my first post?

As for 'old tunes' over 20 years old? Sure I want to download them. Music these days sucks anyway. And no don't bother coming back with 'then why do you download it' because I in fact do not. But that doesn't mean we have the right to stop anyone else from doing it.

peace

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.

Which there is no way of proving, unless you can prove they would have paid for the content if they didn't download it for free. I know at least one person who's never purchased a CD in their life despite not having access to the internet as a teen (being in their early 30's).

Originally posted by silo13
As for 'old tunes' over 20 years old?

I ment it as a subtle jab at metallica. I would listen to them but not since this whole ordeal. I even turn off the radio when metallica comes on now.

And I don't even download songs either. So, lose-lose for them.

reply to post by silo13


Music is music no matter where you hear it, or who provided it.

If I pay some band to perform in a park one day, and all the people of the town come and listen for free. I have provided them with free music, I do not make any money off it, yet the band still got paid. No difference.

If I am the owner of a hospital and I put some music on my PA system and you are there and hear it for free, where is the COMMERCIALISM?

If I pipe music into an elevator in an apartment bulding, you hear it for free, yet I still paid for it. Where is the COMMERCIALISM?

This could go on for pages of examples. But the fact still remains all of these are protected by the same laws. If I want to provide music to people free of charge in any venue I am able to. However I as the provider must still pay for this music.

Originally posted by byeluvolk
This could go on for pages of examples. But the fact still remains all of these are protected by the same laws. If I want to provide music to people free of charge in any venue I am able to. However I as the provider must still pay for this music.

I'm all for this.

Bill Gates will be getting my itunes bill.

Oh, I see my mistake.....he doesn't provide people with music free of charge.

I wonder how much of that dollar he makes....the producer makes.....the recorder makes...etc. etc. until it gets down to the percentage of a cent for the "artist".

Go out and play some music to get paid.

Sorry if this was asked already, but what about downloading from a torrent website, then burning into a CD to listen in my car?

Downloading the music is no different than when I was young and we would record music off the radio. It is no different than a friend giving me a CD that they no longer want. Not only that, but I can go to youtube and listen all I want so there really is no difference. It does not cost that much to produce a CD. It is way cheaper than vinyl was to produce, yet it costs more than the vinyl did. This is nothing more than money grubbing music labels making cash off of other peoples talents.

reply to post by Nutter


Not sure what Bill has to do with the conversation… However if he did provide music over a PA system at Microsoft for his employees, he would have been required to pay for it not the employees. They would still be hearing it for free, but the artist would be getting paid by Microsoft. So once again this is just like the free music in a park, or an elevator.

Originally posted by haarvik
This is nothing more than money grubbing music labels making cash off of other peoples talents.

Led by left overs from the eighties head bangers who are pissed because they seem to not have made enough money.