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: 9
59
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


All of your examples are tangible objects and taking them without paying deducts from the total.

A copy of a digital song, does not.

If I could not afford to buy a mercedes benz, and instead made a hillman hunter look like a mercedes benz, am I stealing the mercedez?




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


I too am a visual artist across a few media types, mostly film and video jockeying. Every time I release anything into public domain, I assume it will be copied, pretty simple really. Many honorable companies will purchase rights to use youtube/etc footage, so copyright laws are not particularly needed in most cases, depends on how you play your cards really.

You can always release things in lower quality, those wanting full quality or rights to media can pay for it. This isn't optimal for music however it could be made to work reasonably effectively. Just that the greedy film/music companies won't adapt or compromise, so are going the way of the dinosaurs.

I can remember growing up with double tapedeck amstrad PCs, people loved using them for dubbing. High speed dubbing was a marketing feature on many stereo systems of the day. Would be a bit like sony building a double bluray disc drive today and promoting high speed duplication... Times have simply changed because uneducated masses don't know law, they stand to be trampled by crafty legalese in letters - it's a huge business now!

Another one that gets on my goat;
Youtube/insert video hosting site here gets a dmca letter and takes stuff down, problem solved. No court no nothing. Meanwhile, Joe bloggs downloads something and they get a sneaky legalese letter conning them into settling out of court. Only difference between the two corporations is that youtube can afford attorneys while joe bloggs can't.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Resonant
 

yes, exactly. downloading music lets the owner have his pie, AND you also get to eat it. it's like....the pie is replicating or something O.o. *plays twilight zone music*


Well Pie is irrational and may be considered infinite.

Yay ! Pie for everyone!!!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
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.


It is logical, I agree, but the logic is wrong.
It is the result of manipulation what, in most cases, people really "want".
People are even conditioned to want only things that "cost", as if the cost was the real measure of quality.
There is plenty of quality music for free, that is what really hurts the businessmen in this dirty job.
Masses listen and pay for conditioning crap which makes them even more pleasantly dumber!
Do you really support that?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
About time they removed that corrupt law. The artist doesn't make anything off album sales its the record agency that gets the cash then its all shipped oversea's. If anything this will help the artist by increasing there fan base. I know some are cryn over this makes me wonder if they have stock in the record lables. about time they screw over the thiefs they get filty rich off the artist's and toss them scraps in return. I am sure that law that failed had some messed up loop holes that would screw everyone over.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
How is this even debatable?

When someone creates a product to sell, the who people take that product without paying for it are called thieves.

The only people who disagree with the above statement are the ones who are illegally downloading copyrighted material and they want to justify their illegal activities so that they don't feel guilty.

Artists make less money when people download illegally, that's a fact. And don't give me the "I would have never have paid for it anyway so the artist isn't losing money" argument, if that's the case how come before downloading people would buy albums/cassettes/cds by the millions? Some successful musicians in the past never even had to tour.

If you enjoy a meal - pay the chef. If you like to wear fashionable clothes - pay the designer. If you want to hear good music - pay the musician ... and let the artist worry about their deal and/or compensation from the record company, it has nothing to do with you.
edit on 10/5/2011 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Ha`la`tha
 


Actually you may very well be breaching intellectual copyright laws. If say skoda made a merc lookalike and sold it they would be prosecuted, fined and made to pay all earning to Mercedes.

Now if you personaly did that you could get in trouble, they probably wouldn't know about it, but if they wanted to they could sue you for copying their design and making a product that looks like their, but which is different which makes ther product look worse if for example someone were to see your merc think its a real merc despite its poor performance etc



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


But if you dont enjoy your meal you can refuse to pay?!?!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


You are indeed correct that MOST record companies screw over their artists, unless they are enormously successful.

However, touring, does not net most bands as much as you would think. Approximately 90% of bands that get signed end up in the red by the time their contract has run out.

I hold a degree in Audio Production, and engineer and produce albums, as well as tv and radio ads. As a professional in this field, I feel that this is a great step forward. Even with the decline in record sales, there has never been more of a demand for quality recordings. The only thing is, bands and artists want to be able to do this at a cheaper more affordable rate, and with the price of quality equipment steadily declining this is completely feasible. This allows independent labels to produce more albums cheaper. Sure they may give a lot of music away for free, but that only helps spread the word. And it enables independent artists to produce their own tour with a real chance of making money.

To all you naysayers (ahem, metallica, ahem), huge bands like metallica, led zeppelin, (__Insert_Popular_Artist_Here__), have a ridiculous amount of money, they don't need anymore. It's the same concept as the top 1% needing more tax breaks so they can buy their 9th mansion or 42nd ferrari.

OH also, those nifty little, ticketmaster "service fees", yeah, a good chunk of that usually goes to the artist. So if you've ever wondered why you just spent 90 bucks on Roger Waters tickets, only to have another 25 added on at the end... yup, most of that goes directly to Roger Waters.

It's a tricky situation, but copyright laws in this country are FAR outdated.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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). I've managed bands and worked for record labels and have done radio and promotions, and I know where the money goes, and it's not to the artist. People that rip off Rihanna or Lil Wayne aren't really taking away from their millions. They're locked into endorsements with Pepsi and earning royalties every time they're played in a film or on a major radio station. They have no problem selling out 40,000 seat venues. When it comes to independent artists, they require an avenue to disperse their music to the masses and doing that freely and digitally helps to virally do that, because they've realized they don't make money off of iTunes. They would rather sell out shows and sell shirts or posters and build a larger fan base. If anything, this helps weed out a majority of "artists" that enter the music industry for money alone. The industry is already saturated with individuals that couldn't care less about the art of it all, afterall it is art, and are just around throwing words at "beats" to make a quick buck. If you take out the easy money, you're left with a lot more pure-hearted talent, and that's truly what music or any artform should be.


I agree with this!!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by clintdelicious
 


Yes, actually. Go to a any restaurant, take 1 or 2 bites and say it's horrible...you won't have to pay for it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
"Artists" create an idea and then demand to be paid perpetually forever and ever for that idea every time there is a mere utterance of said idea. To work once, and be paid forever is truly incredible. To pursue legislation in order to bind everyone to submit to that idea is intellectual slavery. That control stifles innovation and destroys creativity.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DJM8507
 

Are you saying that a song or musical composition is just an idea and not an actual product?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


The reason for private property is beyond buying and selling. It is about enslaving. This whole copyright scam is about criminalizing everyone who has no means to pay for his enlightenment. Copyright idea is about destruction of the Tower of Babel which is the idea of free, unobstructed communication between peoples of the Earth. This whole thing has very deep roots.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I'm a photographer and a musician. I personally agree that as long as you aren't taking away the "right" to make money from the creative work (as long as you're not making money off of someone else's work)- you're not stealing. If someone uses a photo I took on their website, that is stealing (builds brand look, etc), if they use it as a desktop background, I couldn't care less. Same goes with my music, if they play it at a party or around the house, I don't care, if they use it to help them advertise their site...pay up.

The amount of "money" that platinum-selling artists are losing from downloading is pennies (if not less) per download, and if it aids in keeping the artist popular so you might spend $40 going to their show...thats what they really want anyway. They make all their money on shows, appearances, and tv/movie/radio syndication.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by RedParrotHead
 


Its different for certain countries but in the UK you can actually do this after eating most the meal and argue it wasn't worth the price or even anything at all. Its jusrt very embaressing and noone knows this is an option, but you can do it and not pay if there is a good enough reason as to why is wasn't worth the money.
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So according to you, if I find enlightenment in a new sports car I should be able to just take it? Never mind all of the people who worked hard to make it so that they could earn money. Am I enslaved because I can't just have everything that I want just given to me at my demand?

We're talking entertainment here. Leisure items, not "the idea of free, unobstructed communication between peoples of the Earth" ... talk about the music with whoever you want to, nobody will stop you.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by clintdelicious
 


Same in the USA, but on top of that if you really enjoy the meal and service you can leave a tip! I don't understand why that's not true (or at least common practice) in the UK.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Okay, this goes out to all of the nut jobs who are against this ruling. Answer the following questions.

1. How would you police 400 million Americans to make sure they never shared any artists work?

2. How do you police 400 million Americans downloading Music from the internet?

3. How many agencies would you create on a state by state basis as well as federal to monitor and police this activity.

4. The maximum penalty this could ever have would be a misdemeanor as it's under a face value of $500 dollars. So what would be the deterrent?

5. How would you pay for all of this policing?

6. Do you support censoring the internet?

I will await your replies.




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedParrotHead
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


So according to you, if I find enlightenment in a new sports car I should be able to just take it? Never mind all of the people who worked hard to make it so that they could earn money. Am I enslaved because I can't just have everything that I want just given to me at my demand?

We're talking entertainment here. Leisure items, not "the idea of free, unobstructed communication between peoples of the Earth" ... talk about the music with whoever you want to, nobody will stop you.



You will not find enlightenment in a sports car. That car will steal your soul, actually. It is easy to enter such a car, but very hard to get out. Think about it. How much money will you need to sustain yourself in such an expensive car? You will need to steel more and more...



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join