mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to chRoniX10
Re: Right direction
As an artist/businessman who is a free agent and beholden to no one, Reznor is certainly within his right to do as he pleases with his own product. I'll leave it up to him to figure out how he's going to support his rock star lifestyle by giving stuff away for free.
Where I split with him is his encouraging theft. The main argument I've heard to justify music piracy is that the record companies are robber barons and somehow "deserve" to get ripped off.
While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything.
Reznor's newfound piety might be convincing had he not already made millions off the system he now claims to despise.
mocycler
|
|
someguy99
@cpugenie.com
| said by mocycler  :While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything. No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing physical goods.
Why do people have such a difficult time seeing the difference between these two things? I'm not arguing the language issues between copyright infringement and 'stealing', either (though there is a difference there as well). I'm talking about the real world difference and real world impacts of digital copies vs stealing.
|
|
Devanchya
Smile
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Ajax, ON | reply to mocycler
Actually the record is the smallest part of the gross profits now. It's all in concerts, and the retail around the concerts.
It's not like it was 10 years ago when the concerts were used to sell cd's/records. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | reply to mocycler
I think his comments were aimed more at the record companies, retailers and other middle persons.
The music industry is a cesspool at those levels. |
|
Warez_Zealot
Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19
japan
| reply to mocycler
Probably by going on tour and merchandise. Only a shill would make most of their $$$$ on CD's (i.e rap and pop flavours of the week)..
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to someguy99
said by someguy99 :
No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing Stealing, copying, file sharing...call it what you want, you are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal.
You can play lawyer and dick around with words to justify behavior you know is wrong...but my basic point was that disagreeing with a law is not a valid reason to break it...or encourage others to do the same.
At least Reznor has the nuts to call it what it is. Gotta give him credit for that.
mocycler
|
|
fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·Comcast
|  reply to mocycler
said by mocycler : Where I split with him is his encouraging theft. The main argument I've heard to justify music piracy is that the record companies are robber barons and somehow "deserve" to get ripped off. While it's not wholly untrue, you could use that argument to steal pretty much anything. Reznor's newfound piety might be convincing had he not already made millions off the system he now claims to despise. I could not have said it better! Thanks!
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary. |
|
golfextreme
join:2003-12-03
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to mocycler
Maybe if we had fair use actually work, then it would be a different matter, but when Sony says that making one copy of a cd for yourself is theft (even just to rip it and put it on your mp3 player), or the fact that a car repair shop in the UK is being sued for playing the radio because coworkers and customers can listen in. The **AA's are just plain stupid trying to hang on to an outdated business model and is refusing to change with the times. Once they get their collective heads out of their collective asses, then we might see progress.
The first duty of any company is to produce a quality product at a fair market price. At least that's how it used to be, now it's make as much money as possible and screw the consumer. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
| reply to mocycler
"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. "
It's kind of amusing to hear that 'disagreeing' argument when you know damn well the RIAA is guilty as hell of collusion, price fixing, and at least a half dozen other practices against free market competition. The simple fact remains that if a corporation disagrees they pay lobbyist and pay off legislators to make it legal, when an individual does it they just take a chance that they won't get caught. The industry just wants to shift the responsibility of persecution to a publicly funded organization and reap the benefits to lousy business practices.
If you want to reduce the entire argument to an individual moral judgment, I find the greater wrong on the other side of the equation. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs: | reply to golfextreme
If you can't compete, litigate. If that doesn't work, legislate. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to mocycler
said by mocycler :said by someguy99 :
No, really, you can't. You can use the argument to justify digitally copying just about anything, but not to justify stealing Stealing, copying, file sharing...call it what you want, you are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal. Downloading is not illegal. It is the here and now and record companies are dinosaurs desperately trying to litigate themselves into a new century, but they don't have a chance once more bands jump on the NIN "pirate" bandwagon.
Radiohead just eliminated all the BS middlemen and have the digital equivalent of a tip jar on their site. Basically, fans have the option of paying or not to download the band's new album.
--
The Toll
|
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to mocycler
Truly Equatable?
said by mocycler : are still taking/giving away someone else's property without compensating the rightful owner. And it's still illegal. You can play lawyer and jane around with words to justify behavior you know is wrong...but my basic point was that disagreeing with a law is not a valid reason to break it...or encourage others to do the same. At least Reznor has the nuts to call it what it is. Gotta give him credit for that. mocycler Ok there, Mr. "I have something copyrightable to sell";
Let's say you are a hungry music artist. I don't say starving because you have 100large in the bank that your aunt left you when she went to be with Elvis.
You also just happen to have a pretty decent 4:16 Wayne Newton Remix track that you have for sale on xTunes for 99¢ (+1¢s&h).
Today you are aghast! to find out that I have P2P'd 100,000 copies of your track (Something to gift when the fruitcake runs out) without the expressed consent of You, the copyright holder.
I also said Superbowl, without permission.
But I am overcome with remorse at your aghastness!, and in a fit of pity, I return all 100k tracks, and the drive they rode in on.
However, on my way out, I palm a blank check from your desk, and promptly turn you into a starving artist.
But the good news is, you have recouped the 100k tracks, and you are in the same situation as you were before, when I had your music, but not every bit of your money.
One's just as good as the other, right?
Or might Potential (wish, hope, dream) Money not carry the same value as Bank Money?
Just wond'rin
NV
--
The More Alike 2 Religions are, the Stronger the Hate between them. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to major marco
Re: Right direction
Actually, downloading a copyrighted file without permission of the copyright owner is illegal (the original Napster verdict established that), however it is nearly impossible to prosecute without invasive spyware or access to all of the ISPs' log files. Even then, it would be expensive and time consuming to prosecute thousands of people for one download each. So the recording industry has to settle for suing people sharing files out and hope that the downloaders will go away if they take down enough sharers.
I do agree with the "record companies are dinosaurs" part of your post though. They are desperately trying to hold onto control over the entire music process and onto the illusion that the only good music is RIAA music. More and more their control is slipping away, though, and they're getting more and more desperate.
I don't think record labels will go away entirely in the future, but will instead evolve into entities more like advertising firms. Bands will hire a label to promote an album for a cut of the proceeds. The band will retain copyright over the album and the label can be fired with little to no ill effects on the artist if the label doesn't perform up to par. Labels in this format would be smaller entities with less control over the process (though perhaps the same number of connections with things like radio air time). |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| reply to bi0tech
I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music, or speeding, or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable.  In fact it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic.
Besides, no one's conscience is telling them that copyright law is "unjust", it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The same "Screw it, everyone says and does what they want to" kind of attitude that's pretty much taking over society. |
|
mocycler
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| said by jester121 :I'm reasonably sure that Dr. King wasn't talking about uploading music...or any of a dozen other laws that one might find mildly objectionable...it's pretty insulting that you chose to invoke those words in this topic...it's the greed bone doing that kind of talking. The topic of filesharing/stealing/downloading, or whatever, has been kicked around for a loooong time. The general editorial slant of this website's operators (and a huge majority of the members) is that it's ok because the record companies are crooks anyway. Call it the "Robin Hood" defense, if you will.
Framing the issue as some great crusade against social injustice is not new, and we all know it's no more than a thinly-veiled scam to justify what can only be defined as wanting something for nothing.
But making allusions to Dr. King is an astonishing a new low. It never occured to me that there are people in this world ignorant enough to twist the tenets of the civil rights movement into a valid reason for illegal music piracy.
And yes, it's really, really offensive to those who, were it not for ML King, would still be sitting at the back of the bus .
mocycler
|
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| The monopoly and control that the record labels have while contributing nothing to the product offends me. The fact that you're claiming that Dr King's words dont apply to all unjust laws is more offensive than anything. The fact that you're the one who brought up the race issue also offends me.
All he did was quote Dr. King, word for word. And since you disagree with him on whether or not the law is unjust (you have the right to believe that) you chose to exploit racial tension to make him unable to express himself (how dare you).
For far too long have publishers exploited artists and authors while contributing nothing to the finished product. The internet has finally put an end to that and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it (and I have yet to hear a REASONABLE argument in favour of doing so) |
|
krayzie bone
join:2006-09-03
Marietta, GA
| reply to mocycler
No I don't think it's offensive to anyone. The poster mentioned nothing about civil rights. He was probably referring to the concept of natural law, which Dr. King promoted. If a law is immoral or takes away "natural rights" then it is ok to not follow it. |
|
