Marvel Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Artists (music) make their money in pretty much two ways. First, by public performance. They get a cut of the take. Roadies, sound techs, lighting techs, etc., get the rest. Forgot the managers and other involved. Second, they make money by sales of the music by some media. Tehcnology isn't quite there that restricts the download from a file server to one copy. And yes, the cd can also be copied, but at least the one copy was bought. Every time you compy the music, the artist doesn't make any money. Most don't make much, even on what they do sell. Royalties are small per copy, so songwriters also lose if large volumes of media aren't sold. Artists (painters, cartoonists, etc.) don't have quite the same problem, but many things get scanned and placed into publications or on web sites without paying. Cartoons are actually pretty cheap from most cartoonists. Maybe only five to twenty dollars for a one time use, like a newspaper, etc. It would depend on the artist. Copying without paying robs the artist of his livlihood. Plus all the related personnel. (Like the sound man, lighting tech, etc.) When they don't make money, they can't tour, and all lose out. My 2 cents. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 ---------------- On 9/12/2003 4:08:33 PM dbflash wrote: I have a question about this copy right issue. They are two other topics in this forum: Rolling Stones and Guitar Mag top 100. These list's are both copyright protected. Did the poster get permission to post them? Danny ---------------- Fine... Sue me! If I broke the law, then I desirve to be sued. You guys are splitting hairs here. You know you are! difference being, the media was all ready out there on the net. I could just provided a URL and you would have seen the same list. HOWEVER here is the big difference, if I had purchased the magazine scanned it in, then posted it, or if I had an online subscription where I was only authorized to see the list via my paid online subscription, copied the list and posted it here? Yeah sure, I could see where there would be an issue, but that was not the case was it? I simply cut and pasted something that was already free for everyone to see and look at anyway by visiting their sites. Huge difference between that and sharing illegal songs on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbflash Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Moon, I knew that would pull your chain. I agree with you. I think this post is getting out of hand. After reading this last night driving home I was thinking the forum was more fun when you were going through the Belle experience. I think this should be debated in a pre law class and not here. I hope you and everyone one else has a good weekend. Danny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Ok... I see how you are, wanna get my goat for your own personal pleasure... It has been a very fun and VERY insightfull debate. Best thing about it is, is that people have maitainted composure, respect and have not resorted to name calling. Been a very mature thread on a very heated subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbflash Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 I knew you could handle it. I think it will get nasty before this is over. When a topic goes over 1 page it explodes. Don't let it get to you. Danny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_highlander Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 moon, you talk too much...you know you are as guilty as the 12 year-old...there's not a single person on this board that doesn't download music files one or another way...so stop being a hypocrite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Do you want to come look at my PC? Until you can prove it, stop accusing me. You have no idea what is on my PC, what I do and don't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruinsrme Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 I am guilty of downloading tunes. Downloading songs is very similar to borrowing someones LP or cd or cassette and copying it. That has been going on for decades in the home and not in an open environment like the web. Violating copyright laws is illegal. But then again charging what they charge for a CD should be equally illegal. Two wrongs and a whole bunch of over paid fat cats and greedy lawyers will see to it that they get every penny out of pockets for mediocre attempts at the thing they call music. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_highlander Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 "Do you want to come look at my PC?" that doesn't prove anything...you could have wipe your hard disk clean (though unless you destroy the disk, the contents remain)...you could have back them up on another PC...you could have burned them onto CDs and stashed them somewhere...etc...etc...give it up, moon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Hey... I never said I was not guilty myself... Ohhh no. I never said that. ... I admit, I downloaded a few (really just a few) MP3s years ago. The stuff I downloaded was pre kaaza. Back in the early days of Napster. The stuff I had was all 80's glam band and top 40's of the 80's... See, nobody asked until you did, so there was not reason to fess up. BUUUUT.. Yeah I could be sued too. Do I have them anymore? No.. I don't actually, they got wiped out in a hard drive crash a long time ago and I never bothered to go back and get them again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_highlander Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 and the verdict is...guilty as charged... ok, my point is unless you're 100% innocent (have never ever commit the crime), don't accuse other of the same crime... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 you have valid point there, but my thinking on that is this... It's because I AM guilty, I HAVE done it, I feel that it gives me the right to feel the way I do. Hmmm.... Not really getting out in words what I am trying to say... I may have to come back and restate this after I have figured out a way to say it such a manor that it makes since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_highlander Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 "you have valid point there, but my thinking on that is this... It's because I AM guilty, I HAVE done it, I feel that it gives me the right to feel the way I do." you're wrong moon...you're not only accusing her but you're being extremely harsh on her as noted here: "Again... I stand firm... She broke the law. Cut and dry. We can't feel sorry for one person and then stick it to another... That thinking is simply not fair." you have no right of accusing her in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Fair, but I am also admitting my guilt and saying, hey, I too am subject to getting in trouble and if so, I have nobody else to blame but myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Intelectual property is a huge part of our economy. What do folks think of the Russians, Chinese and third world countries not paying for 99% of thier software that they steal forn US companies while US consumers pay full freight for imported goods from those countries? This is a much bigger question that folks seem to want to ignore. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Yes, it is a good discussion. And we have been civilized. If Ideal wants to go after me for modifying the image and using it here, I'll just have to wait for the papers, file a responsive writ, and see what the federal judges say. None of the defenses will be that I'm young or ignorant or didn't consider what I was doing. Smile. Those wouldn't stand up in court. Actually I'm quite proud of the Avitar. It was inspired by Lethal Weapon. The black figure of the initial avitar remided me of a target range figure. Is that modeled on Capone or Dillinger? Something on cable TV hinted at it. In any event, Martin Riggs shooting out a smiley face is one of the greatest shooting demonstrations in cinema. Perhaps the owner of the movie rights will join in the suit. Then again someone may claim an IP interest in the smiley face. The first time I saw it, it was on WMCA "good guy" sweat shirts. It was a pop-rock station in NYC in the '70s. Those images did not have a nose blip, though. So there could be three plaintiffs! Ideal, the movie studio, and WMCA, versus little old me. The estates of Capone and/or Dillinger might come in too. Best to all, including Maron. I hope we're still buddies. We are in my book. Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 We have all pushed THE LIMITS in our lives, Yes we are all friends & buddies. IT,s so easy in making the wrong turn in our lives. What are friend far but to point us in the right direction and not shove us over the cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 ---------------- On 9/12/2003 6:35:38 PM the_highlander wrote: "you have valid point there, but my thinking on that is this... It's because I AM guilty, I HAVE done it, I feel that it gives me the right to feel the way I do." you're wrong moon...you're not only accusing her but you're being extremely harsh on her as noted here: "Again... I stand firm... She broke the law. Cut and dry. We can't feel sorry for one person and then stick it to another... That thinking is simply not fair." you have no right of accusing her in the first place... ---------------- the_highlander, yes I am being harsh but at the same time I am NOT criticizing her. I am simply pointing out that she broke the law. I have tried to stay away from the moral aspect and focus on the legal aspect only. Example, I am 110% against drinking and driving, have I done it in the past, you bet. Did I pay the price ooooohhhhhhh yes, I sure did! Regardless, I still feel it's wrong and simply, I deserved what I got. And in this particular example, I am happy I got what was coming to be because had I not been busted, I would have eventually killed myself. Sure this is extreme compaired to downloading illegal files but I hope the point I am trying to make came through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Okay, this has sure been interesting here. First, and formost - engaging in P2P (uploading and downloading files) is not theft!. It is copy-right infringment! In the case of the RIAA, these are civil suits, not criminal suits, as theft would be. The Supreme Court has also ruled that copy-right infringment cannot be considered theft. What people are being sued for is the unauthorized distribution of music files. Also, it is the uploading this getting people in trouble here, making many files available for others to download. As DrWho so nicely put it in his postiing, it is currently not illegal to merely download files. Also, if they do catch you only downloading files, they have no way or proving that you already own the original material and fair use does allow you to have personal copies, wether you made them yourself or obtained somewhere else. For example, I may have a CD that has one track that skips because of a nasty scratch. I may go and download that one track and rip the others that are good from my own copy and re-burn a good copy of the CD. If you are going to accuse somebody of doing something illegal, at least accuse them of the right thing. Somebody mentioned that RIAA and gang ought to go after the P2P software providers and networks themselves. Well, they indeed tried, but a judge has ruled that the P2P software and networks are legal, as is the VCR, Tape Recorders, MP3 players, etc. There has also been stories in the tech-press about how the RIAA is talking about actively engaging in under-handed techniques to try to disrupt the networks, such as putting up bogus files, initiating DDoS attackes, launching viri, etc. There is a bill in congress attempting to give copy-right holders immunity to anti-hacking laws so than can engage in the above mentioned tactics (and I pray that that bill fails - I can just see the pandamonium that would arise if such is allowed - I'd willing to bet it would render the Internet virtually useless!). Now about useing the Avatars on the forum. If I am not mistaken, that is considered fair use. Nobody is profiting off the use of the Avatars - they are merely using them as a reflection of thier personalities, no different if I made a sign and posted it in the back window of my car. About m00n posting the top 100 guitar player lists - that is definitly covered under fair-use. He did indicate where the lists came from (cited the source) and made no claims that he made them up himself. Now, if he went and scanned the entire magazine from cover-to-cover and made a PDF file and attached it for all to download - than that could get him in trouble (although the mag in question may not necessarily mind - more eyes to see the ads - provided he kept the ads in). Now about the whole issue of trading files on the internet. I personally don't have moral issues with it myself, even though it is considered illegal. I will admit that I have engaged in it myself - mainly to check out tracks to see if a given CD is worth it. Is it wrong - perhaps, although I personally don't see any harm in the occasional downloading of tracks to check them out. However, the whole sale downloading, and more importantly, the making available, of entire albums of works with no intention of paying for any of it, I do have issues with. I guess it is like speeding - just about everybody does it - hell, I do 65 everyday into work on the 55mph road, but not a single cop has so much as even flinched. I have passed up many, and I have also talked to many of the cops in this area and they all say they don't even bother unless you are doing over 10+ mph over the limit. I have no problems with the bit of speeding I see most people do, but I do have a problem with the few jack-@$$es that are doing like 75-80+ on the 55. As for the example of if the 12 year-old hacked an account and took $1,000 - that is real damage done and is indeed theft. If I was the owner of the account, I would demand restitution to get my $1000 back. However, I have yet to see definitive proof that all the sharing of files is actually causing real damages to the record industry. I have seen studies that says it does, but I have also seen more convincing studies that indicates it doesn't and in some cases, may actually help. It seems that the loss of the sales is most likely attributed to a soft economy, as well as, direct competition from the DVD and video game markets, not to mention that overall, there have been less releases made available for sale. For example - I have a $20 bill to spend in the local Best Buy. I see that Lord of the Rings DVD for $15 and in the next rack over, I see Britany Spears latest for like $18. I'll give you one guess where I'll spend the $20 bill, and it ain't on bubble-gum pop! I also don't agree with the ethics of the whole RIAA campaign. Come-on - suing a 12-year old child? They say she has around 1,000 files or so. I have seen collections that make that look like small potatoes - as in 10s of thousands of files - over 20+ gigs worth (and no, I am not talking about my own, although my own collection of MP3s is well over 1,000). Also, this is going to cause such a huge consumer backlash that it will not be funny. I am also afraid that this may very well turn violent. To be honost, I would not be surprised if I saw a story where the president of the RIAA ended up with a bullet in his head. I hope not, and I certainly don't condone violence, especially when you think about it - this is just friggan music - a luxury item. It if came down to it - I'll simply do without - I got a nice big collection of CDs already, I can live without, plus there are plenty of thrift shops around that I can get older, used material from. To be honost, they can file lawsuits until they are blue in the face - American citizens may stop sharing filess, but what about the rest of the world? The only way this issue is going to be solved is that the recording industry come up with a very compelling on-line distrubution solution as well as pricing CD's to compete (believe me, I'd rather pay the $10 to have the actual CD instead of hasseling with file-downloads ). Apple's iTunes service is a good start. There will always be the hard-core scofflaws that will still download files for free, regardless of what solutions are available, just like there are always going to be the people that do 80 in the 55. For those, than hell, yea - slap'em with a lawsuit! Sorry for the long posting, but this is a complex issue that demanded a complex response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 SKONOPA......Well written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.