|
  Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | Re: good ruling However a very uneducated on for a federal level judge. His decision would be more relative to making cassette or CD copies for friends.
I can point out several differences
1. You have to go to the library to use it.
2 There is usually only 1 copy of a book that only one person can use at a time,
3 Very few people copy entire books as that would cost more than the book would.
4 The access to the copier is limited to immediate community
5. Most copy machine have user cost involved, limiting use (as in not used to copy complete works.
Now P2P on the other had a single copy can turn into millions literally over night from a single source, and no limiting cost.
That is a HUGE difference, that any smart Judge should comprehend, and never issue such an ignorant ruling... hope he is one of those judges for life, I sure wouldn't put him back on the bench, if he can't comprehend something as simple as that.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
|
 | | | Re: good ruling That judge also knows that there is a levy on every piece of blank media(tape, vhs, cd, dvd and now hard drive mp3 players) that goes to the musicians. Also we give a shit load of tax dollars to the music industry to keep them going, as well as mandate that "made in Canada" music get extra airplay. Our copyright office also disagrees with the CIRA. We still have the right to copy music, as we have/are paying for it with our taxes. | |
|
| | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
3 edits | Re: good ruling said by petheridge:
That judge also knows that there is a levy on every piece of blank media(tape, vhs, cd, dvd and now hard drive mp3 players) that goes to the musicians. Also we give a shit load of tax dollars to the music industry to keep them going, as well as mandate that "made in Canada" music get extra airplay. Our copyright office also disagrees with the CIRA. We still have the right to copy music, as we have/are paying for it with our taxes.
I can't SPECIFICALLY speak for Canada, but that is BS too... the ONLY media there is a fee on is MUSIC CDs and ONLY if you have a stand alone recorder that see's that and won't do otherwise... NO PC recorders do.
quote:
Also we give a shit load of tax dollars to the music industry to keep them going
And you have some DOCUMENTATION of that or its just what you want to believe??
quote:
We still have the right to copy music
And NO ONE even the RIIAA has disputed that... the problem arises when it stops being 1 to 1 friend to friend transfer and becomes 1 to MILLIONS WORLDWIDE!!!... why can no one seemingly understand that difference???... even a federal judge 
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
|
| | | | | Re: good ruling said by Hayward:
quote:
We still have the right to copy music
And NO ONE even the RIIAA has disputed that... the problem arises when it stops being 1 to 1 friend to friend transfer and becomes 1 to MILLIONS WORLDWIDE!!!
That's interesting because before P2P the RIAA was pretty vocal about not allowing you to even do that. They continue to change the rules to suit their ends and ultimately it's the actions taken against people sharing music that is harming them more than songs available on the net. | |
|
| | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | Re: good ruling said by SRFireside:
That's interesting because before P2P the RIAA was pretty vocal about not allowing you to even do that. (PERSONAL 1 to 1 copying)
Yes but they were ruled against and learned to live with it... and sales were still good.
Now instead of 1 to 1 you are talking ONE to MILLIONS. That is a HUGE difference.
The sales argument is DEBATABLE... but anyone with common sense (even if you think publishers make enough) KNOWS it has to be making an impact... and whatever business you might be in you WANT someone saying just how much you can make before people have a blank check to just STEAL from you???
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: good ruling said by Hayward:
Yes but they were ruled against and learned to live with it... and sales were still good.
Now instead of 1 to 1 you are talking ONE to MILLIONS. That is a HUGE difference.
The sales argument is DEBATABLE...
Debatable? There is plenty of evidence that shows file sharing hasn't affected sales. Sales were going up during Napster. The sales losses can easily be attributed to significantly less albums released on those years. Now sales has been showing a sharp rise... almost enough to counter the previous losses. There is no evidence, however, that shows file sharing has actually hurt sales on either an individual level or label-wide (on the contrary there are stories where record sales came right after rampant sharing).
As far as making an impact I am suspecting it's making a positive impact. Independent labels agree with that assertion too. What people don't realize is file traders still buy albums. If you don't believe it then please explain why the numbers support it? | |
|
| | | | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
2 edits | Re: good ruling said by SRFireside:
said by Hayward:
The sales argument is DEBATABLE...
Debatable? There is plenty of evidence that shows file sharing hasn't affected sales.
Well there is anecdotal evidence... who is to say what would have been.... AND STILL BEGS the question just because you wouldn't have paid for it you are still entitled to it on a WORLDWIDE level rather than the pervious just friend to friend... and even from a friend you likely gave them something for the tape or CD (if not just another in exchange... you paid for) but still limiting COST.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: good ruling said by Hayward:
.... AND STILL BEGS the question just because you wouldn't have paid for it you are still entitled to it on a WORLDWIDE level rather than the pervious just friend to friend...
Whether it be worldwide or one on one you're still looking at the same thing... people are sharing music without profit. Just about every friend I knew when they lent me a CD or record never asked for anything in return. It was just the joy of sharing something they love. That hasn't really changed here. And as far as the market is concerned that doesn't seem to hurt it.
As for what would have been after looking at the trend on music sales over the past 8 years I don't see any significant changes at all. As a matter of fact the current upswing is one of the highest in that time frame. I don't have any numbers on albums released but from what I was seeing there have been rises and drops in sales throughout just like in any other market. I don't see anything different after P2P came to play other than very strong increases in the independent market. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by SRFireside:
Debatable? There is plenty of evidence that shows file sharing hasn't affected sales. Sales were going up during Napster. The sales losses can easily be attributed to significantly less albums released on those years.
Not to mention the fact that baby boomers were buying their old album collections on CD throughout the 90s. This artificially inflated sales for years. Once people had bought most of the old albums they wanted on the new technology, sales dropped. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by Hayward:
Now instead of 1 to 1 you are talking ONE to MILLIONS. That is a HUGE difference.
Dude, I gotta call you on that one. None of us have the bandwidth to allow millions of people to pull a file from us over P2P. I used to trade a little before all of the lawsuits started flying and I probably had less than twenty files copied from me over a six month period. | |
|
| | | | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | Re: good ruling said by footballdude:
said by Hayward:
Now instead of 1 to 1 you are talking ONE to MILLIONS. That is a HUGE difference.
Dude, I gotta call you on that one. None of us have the bandwidth to allow millions of people to pull a file from us over P2P. I used to trade a little before all of the lawsuits started flying and I probably had less than twenty files copied from me over a six month period.
Howerver 1 file taken by ten peopple mushrooms fast as they then share still the same original copy.
It really is the lenths people will go to to rationalize theft.
P2P is NOT friendly sharing, it is intentional MASS just give it away to anyone and everyone... and screw the owner/author no matter what.
I really wonder what all would think if it was THEIR sweat and blood being stolen.
Also to whoever said it, as a baby boomer I can tell you there are only a handfull of albums I replaced with CD's, still have a turntable, and cared for my LP's they still sound fine. (many were never released on CD in fact)
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
|
| | | | | In Canada, there is a levy on blank cds (those used for data backup), blank dvdrs, mp3 players and so on. On the website of the association collecting the levy, they had for 2003 collected something like $65 million in levies.
Also, RIAA has sued a girlscout camp for singing traditional songs (for which they own the copyright, like Happy Birthday). The RIAA will dispute anything, even the right of you singing a song heard on the radio if you don't pay for it... | |
|
| | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1 | Re: good ruling said by Anonmusic:
In Canada, there is a levy on blank cds (those used for data backup), blank dvdrs, mp3 players and so on. On the website of the association collecting the levy, they had for 2003 collected something like $65 million in levies.
Well again NOT in the US... ONLY stand alone CD recorders REQUIRE use of Music CD's.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West) | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: good ruling Well I guess it's a good thing that this topic is NOT about anything happening in the US | |
|
| | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
1 edit | said by Anonmusic:
Also, RIAA has sued a girlscout camp for singing traditional songs (for which they own the copyright, like Happy Birthday). The RIAA will dispute anything, even the right of you singing a song heard on the radio if you don't pay for it...
If in public especially PAID admission yes. And also why many artists use the Beatles version of Happy Birthday to You... instead like Michael Jackson... (who now owns the original Beatles library) doesn't have other things to worry about.
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
|
| | | | | | The RIAA did not go after the Girl Scouts, nor would they dispute the right of you singing a song heard on the radio.
That's ASCAP, "The OTHER Music Mafia".
(also BMI and SESAC, though it is ASCAP specifically who went after the Girl Scouts) | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: good ruling You are correct. It was ASCAP, and it still shows the problem we have with the current mentality on copyrights. Next thing you know you will have to pay a fee to hum a copyrighted tune in public. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | Hayward K A R - 1 2 0 CPremium
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
kudos:1
4 edits | Re: good ruling said by petheridge:
Well speaking specifically for Canada this is what we pay in levy's. »neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_amount
And of course that is CANADIAN agencies NOT the RIAA... though they might be somewhat in cahoots... but not directly.
Then again you are in a much more socialist government... and sorry to say that is part of the COST for all the free/subsidized stuff like health care... we aren't even NEAR.
Even not pure Socialism is NOT free but more equitably shared. (unless you have tons of money)
VS here where if you have tons of money (and retainer laywers/accountants) you don't pay a dime hardly. Except for pennies on the dollar (but stll LARGE $$ for them) to them
--
»haywardm.com (Hayward's Key West)
| |
|
| | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | said by Hayward:
said by petheridge:
And NO ONE even the RIIAA has disputed that... the problem arises when it stops being 1 to 1 friend to friend transfer and becomes 1 to MILLIONS WORLDWIDE!!!... why can no one seemingly understand that difference???... even a federal judge
Until it is specifically defined, there is no difference between 1 to 1 and 1 to 1 million. If 1 to 1 is okay, why not 1 to 2 (since it could just be 1 to 1 to 1). or 1 to 3? Until there's a hard limit, it's either all good, or all bad. | |
|
|
|
