It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by byeluvolk
Hospitals are in business to make money. So are apartment buildings. They pay to play the music to make more money. As they should.

As for music for ‘free’ in a town square? I’ve yet to see anyone do something for nothing. In fact in every case I’ve ever been to a park offering ‘free’ music - it’s in order to expose people to a cause, a politician, an organization - all that need money. That’s commercialism.

Beyond that if someone was to offer the music for free to others - while they pay for it? Like your example of you paying for a band to play in the park for others to enjoy for free? There's no difference between your example and someone who buys a CD - uploads their favorite song to You Tube for others to enjoy - for free.

edit on 5-10-2011 by silo13 because: crop bbc

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:00 AM
gotta chime in...I'm a musician. Granted I'm no pro as I don't get paid, but if you wanna use my music for ANYTHING, feel free. I really only care about being recognized. So throw my name in the credits and we'll call it even. Any musician who complains about people using his work without permission or without pay, simply doesn't understand the nature of music. Go ahead and ask.....I've got a can of worms in my hand.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:12 AM
reply to post by mnmcandiez

Wait wait, so downloading music is really legal now? X_X

Also to those saying that people are stealing "artists work", let me tell you that most of the income they recieve comes from live concerts. Most of the money from cds goes to the managers and they are already rich. One other thing I would like to add, if I was an artist I sure as hell would like my work to be around for one reason. 1. its free advertisement. 2. My voice is out there. 3.I would make millions anyways through concerts, THAT is where the real money is at. The more the mp3's are out there, the higher the chances of a concert being filled.

The only people that loses are those that abuse artists in the first place.
edit on 5-10-2011 by RisenAngel77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by haarvik

You are right it is no different than recording the music form the radio; however it is very different than your friend giving you a CD. The difference being the recording method was and still is illegal. But giving someone a CD is not. As you paid for that CD, and when you give it to him you did not make a copy for yourself, so there is still only one copy of it and it was paid for.

I see most everybody who is upset about paying for music either tries to make it out to be evil corporations or the fat lazy artist wanting more cash for doing nothing. But unfortunately we the public are to blame. If we did not pay the price for a CD they would be cheaper. The law of supply and demand is such that if nobody is willing to pay for it, the price will come down until we are. This is what determines the value of an object, not some formula based on how much it cost to make it. So this means a CD is indeed worth what the store sells it for. Maybe you do not want to pay this much, but it is indeed the real value, as the majority of the population still buys them.

Funny thing is that I absolutely agree with IP laws as they are there to protect the average Joe as much as the corporate fat cats. However, I myself do not buy many CD’s, I do not go to many movies, very rarely buy a DVD, and do not download them illegally either (obviously). I do not buy these items as I agree they are overpriced. However just because I think a Ferrari is overpriced it does not mean I can go steal one, or should expect one to be given to me. The IP laws may indeed help out big corporations but they also help the small guy as well. So if I agree with them for the small guy I have to agree with them for the big guys as well. We can’t pick and choose who is protected, and who is not. The fact still remains that the artists and the labels they use, private or otherwise. Still put a lot of time, effort, and money into making the music, and then providing it to the public. You can’t expect all this to happen for free. You may not like the price of a CD, so buy the one song you want from Amazon, or only listen to free services, such as radio or Pandora. These provide you with the music at no cost to you, while still paying for the music.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:19 AM
Will this have any effect on ThePirateBay?

i don't understand why they mention Metallica in this, sure Metallica sued Napster but Napster was runnng a business making money from other peoples work, this is something else entirely, free sharing, nothing to do with Metallica and the poisoned dwarf the have on drums (i love Metallica, except St. Anger, before you start hating

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:20 AM
You are so correct. All music/movies will have to change with the times. People will have to pay money because they want to. This is the world we live in and people either adjust or find another method of income. Now anybody can get the music by downloading, it's never going to change and nobody can stop it period. Then you try to make money by tours and products or whatever makes money - maybe even having people buy the CD because they actually like your music!!!

People are totally wrong when they say that you steal their income because most of if not all wouldn't of bought it the first place. Think of it as the radio playing the music and people deciding they want to buy it after hearing it. Think of the internet and downloading as the radio was before.

This is the times we live in.

Originally posted by Resonant
Even if songs were purchased online, individually or through a service such as Rhapsody or eMusic, the majority of those proceeds do not go to the artist. The artists get pennies. There are instances where I will support a musician and buy their album, say if it were self-released (in which case, it's almost always cheaper). The best way to support an artist is to see an artist or to buy other merchandise, not by digitally buying their music. If I like and listen to an artist enough, I will buy a physical copy of their album, in vinyl if I can (not because I am pretentious, but because it's closer to owning tangible art than a CD).

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by silo13

The reason it is different is to pay the band to play in the park I paid them a “public performance” fee I did not pay them the 25 cents they earn from your CD purchase. Furthermore they agreed to this fee and then provided the music. In your case they do not agree to your fee. And lastly many artists would happily agree to allow you to do this, assuming you asked them first. The key point it was their decision on how their music was used, and how it was distributed.

I can see this thread has hit a dead end everybody is yelling about the greed on the part of record companies and artists, all I see is greed on the part of the posters here.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:38 AM
Surely there is a better source than Surely the supreme court publishes their decisions somewhere, so you think we'd have a better source.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:59 AM

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand, how is it that blu-ray discs and most dvd's nowadays have copyright protection coded in to prevent this, yet cd's have absolutely none? It's because the record labels stand to profit much much more by suing the pants off of idividuals instead of investing in technology to prevent it in the first place.

Some of them have copy protection, its just that most ripping programs circumvent it real easy.
Same goes for dvd and blu-ray its fairly easy (with the right software) to put an iso file of those on computer.

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
This isn't 1960 anymore, no one is buying records...welcome to the digital age. If you are signed to a label, you literally get pennies of that cd purchase.

Ehm the 1960s ?? Ive been buying records all my life and I wasn't even born in the 1960s

By records I mean CD's in case there is any confusion.

I guess im one of those *no ones* mentioned, cause I still buy records and then put them on computer with lossless compression.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:17 AM
Cool, finally, bring me back Audiogalaxy

To people worried about artist's purses....
1. Majority of money coming to musicians, are royalties from it being played on radio, in the club, shop, ANY public place, coming from a pocket of a person, who benefits on it. FYI 'Happy Birthday' is copyrighted song, and treated as such, so better don't sing it on an official party, coz you might get charged by timewarner.
2nd income source are gigs, tours, apperances on TV, private parties (usually sanctioned with accordance to contract with label)

Musicians never calculate album sells into their finances. It's usually small amounts comparing to above, most of it goes to label and distributer anyway. Album sells are indicators of popularity, not valid source of income for a band.
I rest my case, lucky so did they ;].
edit on 5-10-2011 by stainlesssteelrat because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
Copyright was supposed to be for a limited term. Now it's forever. I don't understand why 20 years isn't enough. If you haven't made money off a song in 20 years, WRITE SOMETHING NEW!! Copyright was meant to encourage more new things. Not make everything off limits forever. Copyright should run out so new things have to be made.

And it can't be stealing. If I come to your house and make an exact copy of it and everything in it and keep that copy, you haven't lost a single thing. I merely have it too now. You can't steal if you don't deprive the owner of his property.

Copyright is just that. A right to copy. And if it was for a limited term like the constitution says it should be I would have no problem with it. But to create something and to keep it to yourself for 70 years after you die is just greedy, wrong, and immoral. And I do not obey immoral laws.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
Well you know what they say about home cooking. It destroys the restaurant industry!

As of July 23, 2010, Rihanna has sold approximately 5,563,000 album units in the US. She has sold over 10 million records in the UK.

Don't think she will feel it when someone downloads one of her songs

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:44 AM
It is all about taxing.
The easiest way to tax people is to criminalize them.
Like with smoking. It only worked when they criminalized smokers...

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:48 AM
reply to post by mnmcandiez

This post is not for the ones who are feeling good and are being entertained , specially for the ones who are enjoying their illusion.


Long ago , I was so suspicious about American music industry and level of access for American people.

Why is this kind of music with much connection to illuminati and freemasonry out of reach for American citizens ?

Now , there is no question left in my mind.

The low talented and illuminati slaves are going to be backed up and independent-talented singers and music composers are going to fail financially in near future.

It will be like American politics , The ones who sign the paper to respect illuminati will gain supports and other will fail in an unjust competition

Short live illuminati.

More clues for connections that I mentioned :

Michael Jackson - you rock my world


Lady gaga - Alejandro

Chris Brown - Yeah

Kelly Rowland feat. David Guetta - Commander

Kerli - Army Of Love



What are the next -near or far- steps ?

Movies and games are going to be free to download to feel every mind with their lies.

An example of games :

A picture token from Mass Effect 2 the doctor is saying that :

Executing dangerous people is some kind of helping them.

So that is why they are killing innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. To help them

An example of recent movies :

Story of a man who is addicted to a new kind of drugs :

Limitless (the movie)


My last message as lady GAGa says :

You were born to be entertained

So, Have fun and download your music.

edit on 5/10/11 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/10/11 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by pause4thought

I am a musician and have studied music business for 2 years now and I can tell you there is no way to police this preoperley and artists are not loosing their livelyhood over this at all. Smaller artists like myself actually give our music away for free as exposure will earn you more alone than music sales.

Any other business would have evolved by now and seized other revenue streams and use music as the tool to get a consumer base. This is being realised now and one can make more money from using the internet to get exposure to literally hundreds of millions of people while giving music away for free. Musicians and artists are brands nowerdays and make money from a multitude of revenue streams. Any artists complainig about this are greedy or not good enough to make a living from their music.

Too may artists expect to sit back and watch the orders for their albums to roll in, music is a hard business and artists need to adapt and evolve. They have so many potential income streams and loosing a % of this one is not anything to be too bothered about.

Labels are mad atthis but they love the exposure the internet gives their talent, you can't have it both ways!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by Ookie

because say you have just one hit album and its sells for decades why should you suddenly not get paid for it after a set time? If an artist paints a painting and its sold 40 years later don't they deserve the money?

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:10 AM

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Ookie

because say you have just one hit album and its sells for decades why should you suddenly not get paid for it after a set time? If an artist paints a painting and its sold 40 years later don't they deserve the money?

You don't sell one painting over and over. Some even prevent images of their paintings copied from Internet to your PC. That is insane and sick.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Annee

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?

This is so wrong.

What are they thinking?

Its time for the Supreme Court to work for free.

I guess you do not watch free tv, or listen to the radio?

If you do, then by your logic, you should be paying each and every time you listen to a song or watch a show.

Or you're stealing.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by DangerDeath

Yes but copies are sold though arn't they? It just makes not sense why you shouldn't earn money on something which is still being sold which you created. Over here it used to be after 60 years the works are no longer in copyright so anyone can sell the music after this time. I think the artist or their family should still recieve some of the money being made since they created the product that is being consumed.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:24 AM
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

Musicians on radio and tv are paid a royalty everytime their music is played on them. The consumer doesn't pay for this as they are the ones who fund the radio and tv by watching ads and doing phone in etc.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in